Top Law Schools

Hey guys,

I am half Chinese and half Uighur. I know that Chinese is not a URM but Uighur is a Muslim (oppressed) minority in Western China.

Would I be considered a URM by law schools?

Thanks guys.

.

I doubt most of the adcoms have even heard of the Uighur. Write a diversity statement.

erniesto wrote:I doubt most of the adcoms have even heard of the Uighur. Write a diversity statement.

This. Im still confused on the identity. Would be an interesting DS if written well.

How is Chinese not URM? I'd write a statement about your cultural upbringing should work in your favor regardless. I think people know the uighur. Don't a lot of them have the last name ma?

Cestjustemoi wrote:How is Chinese not URM? I'd write a statement about your cultural upbringing should work in your favor regardless. I think people know the uighur. Don't a lot of them have the last name ma?

Because they are not underrepresented.

You're not a URM...

BUT, you could write an amazing personal/diversity statement as a Uighur, and an even BETTER one as a half-Uighur/half-Chinese.

Awesome.

You are URM with your Uighur status. Identify that more in your apps (with a DS) than your Chinese heritage as the latter will do nothing for you.

PoliticalJunkie wrote:You are URM with your Uighur status. Identify that more in your apps (with a DS) than your Chinese heritage as the latter will do nothing for you.

TINTCR

I'd say you would be considered a URM with your Uighur heritage. Also, I bet most AdComs are familiar with the group due to the history of oppression. Talk about awesome diversity statement material.

ITT newbies give awful advice.

It is certainly going to add a boost to your application, because it will stand out and offer something incredibly unique. It's just not considered one of the "URMs" for American law school applications. Because they aren't really represented in the American population in any real numbers, their representation in law schools is really not a factor.

But, like others have said, it will certainly make for an interesting DS/PS. That's where any "boost" would come from.

I hate to say this to you, but, no, it's not considered a URM. You will not recieve any advantage in the application numbers process.

However, you maybe able to write an interesting diversity statement, and if you and another student have the same numbers then this may help set you apart.

It will NOT help you get into schools where your numbers are below the median.

Desert Fox wrote:ITT newbies give awful advice.

--ImageRemoved--

Aren't you also a 0yr?

Regardless, I don't think anyone is really giving advice other than writing a diversity statement. Nobody knows what teh mystical URM is anyways. I heard it was limited to only Haitians this year.

jesus I want some Uighur noodles right about now

I dont know the answer to your question but you def have an epic Diversity Statement and Id love to talk to you about being a Uighur if possible

erniesto wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:ITT newbies give awful advice.

--ImageRemoved--

Aren't you also a 0yr?

Regardless, I don't think anyone is really giving advice other than writing a diversity statement. Nobody knows what teh mystical URM is anyways. I heard it was limited to only Haitians this year.

Yes OL. But I'm not commenting on law school only admissions.

UMR= black, Mexican, Puerto Rican, and/or Native American only.

Wow, thanks for all the advice. I didn't think people would be responding to quickly. Could it be because everyone is waiting on Feb LSAT scores?

I am taking away that while my heritage might help, I shouldn't bank on it and that the best way to take advantage of it is to write a killer diversity statement.

sli wrote:Wow, thanks for all the advice. I didn't think people would be responding to quickly. Could it be because everyone is waiting on Feb LSAT scores?

I am taking away that while my heritage might help, I shouldn't bank on it and that the best way to take advantage of it is to write a killer diversity statement.

It can be a good soft factor, and if you faced discrimination it can be a great soft factor. But you'll still need to be close to at least one of their medians.

Desert Fox wrote:

erniesto wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:ITT newbies give awful advice.

Aren't you also a 0yr?

Regardless, I don't think anyone is really giving advice other than writing a diversity statement. Nobody knows what teh mystical URM is anyways. I heard it was limited to only Haitians this year.

Yes OL. But I'm not commenting on law school only admissions.

UMR= black, Mexican, Puerto Rican, and/or Native American only.

Can you credit or qualify this declarative statement?

The only thing I've gathered from that thread is that TLS is working with uncreditted assumptions. Then again I didn't read past page 6. Really you're just sourcing yourself.

erniesto wrote:The only thing I've gathered from that thread is that TLS is working with uncreditted assumptions. Then again I didn't read past page 6. Really you're just sourcing yourself.

Basically, in order to be a URM there needs to be two factors present:

1) There need to be enough of you in the country for you to be statistically significant / for the government to give a shit.
2) Proportionally you need to be under-represented in graduate education generally (and law school specifically). The reason why obscure super minorities are not considered URM is because there are typically not enough of them in the country to qualify under (1) and based on the fact that there may be a handful (or more) people of that race attending law school already, they probably don't qualify for under (2).

As you can see, based on this formula makes more sense why the previously mentioned races are the only ones that are considered URM.

HTH

sli wrote:Could it be because everyone is waiting on Feb LSAT scores?

No, it's because you put URM in the title.

It is curious that they group all Asians together.

I understand the assumed formula, however, even based on that formula I have not seen sufficient argument or evidence to warrant the exclusionary 'only' which normally follows.

I have no doubt that certain minorities will get a boost at SOME schools. What I do doubt is the credibility of the blanket claim that these are the only minorities which get a boost at any school.

erniesto wrote:I understand the assumed formula, however, even based on that formula I have not seen sufficient argument or evidence to warrant the exclusionary 'only' which normally follows.

I have no doubt that certain minorities will get a boost at SOME schools. What I do doubt is the credibility of the blanket claim that these are the only minorities which get a boost at any school.

People say only because over time these are the only races where there has been a boost large enough for anyone to take notice. You have to remember this is more of a political process than a scientific one. I highly doubt each school runs statistical correlations each year to see that every single race plausible is adequately represented in law school. More likely than not, these are the groups that have historically shown to qualify under (1) and (2) and based on these qualifications the school chooses to deal with it how it will.