Top Law Schools

what are my chances at harvard or yale etc.

bigboi403 wrote:what are my chances at harvard or yale etc.

in

sharpnsmooth wrote:

bigboi403 wrote:what are my chances at harvard or yale etc.

in

LIKELY In. URM cycles are weird sometimes. But I'd bet in.

bigboi403 wrote:what are my chances at harvard or yale etc.

In. If not at one, at the other.

Good chance on both I hope, since we have pretty similar stats

So are you in your first year of college or do you have a 3.79/171? Im confused.

Mal Reynolds wrote:So are you in your first year of college or do you have a 3.79/171? Im confused.

I think s/he's a freshman in college.

Blessedassurance wrote:

Mal Reynolds wrote:So are you in your first year of college or do you have a 3.79/171? Im confused.

I think s/he's a freshman in college.

That's what I thought.
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 9&t=167565

I'm confused. I have a 3.71 and a 171 LSAT and I'm told that I have NO chance at Harvard or a very slim one at best and you're being told you're likely in.

What gives here?

MillaLiteYo wrote:I'm confused. I have a 3.71 and a 171 LSAT and I'm told that I have NO chance at Harvard or a very slim one at best and you're being told you're likely in.

What gives here?

Depends on type of URM I think. African American or hispanic gets a bigger boost than PR (you)

freestallion wrote:

MillaLiteYo wrote:I'm confused. I have a 3.71 and a 171 LSAT and I'm told that I have NO chance at Harvard or a very slim one at best and you're being told you're likely in.

What gives here?

Depends on type of URM I think. African American or hispanic gets a bigger boost than PR (you)

right...i think people here are assuming OP is AA URM (not sure if true or not).

but milla, some of the posts in your thread are a bit pessimistic imo (i think they missed the urm hook part), but PR, I believe, does indeed not give as strong of a urm boost. you should have a shot at HYS for sure, but i dont think necessarily "likely in."

for OP of this thread, if AA URM, then yeah I think "likely in" is a good prognosis.

DoubleChecks, would this be an accurate hierarchical arrangement of the URM boost from strongest to weakest?

AA >> NA >> PR >> MEX

MillaLiteYo wrote:DoubleChecks, would this be an accurate hierarchical arrangement of the URM boost from strongest to weakest?

AA >> NA >> PR >> MEX

It's more like - NA > AA Male >>> AA female > Mex = PR >>> Other Hispanic

I'm unsure about how the bump plays out amongst Hispanics. NA gives the strongest bump followed by AA males.

MillaLiteYo wrote:I'm confused. I have a 3.71 and a 171 LSAT and I'm told that I have NO chance at Harvard or a very slim one at best and you're being told you're likely in.

What gives here?

1. PR's a tiny boost.
2. His gpa is a bit higher and URM boost is more applicable to LSAT scores
3. (unrelated) you're a dick in your thread, so people may not want to be as nice to you.

buckilaw wrote:

MillaLiteYo wrote:DoubleChecks, would this be an accurate hierarchical arrangement of the URM boost from strongest to weakest?

AA >> NA >> PR >> MEX

It's more like - NA > AA Male >>> AA female > Mex = PR >>> Other Hispanic

I'm unsure about how the bump plays out amongst Hispanics. NA gives the strongest bump followed by AA males.

This part shocks me if true. I always thought AA male was the big one

JamMasterJ wrote:

buckilaw wrote:

MillaLiteYo wrote:DoubleChecks, would this be an accurate hierarchical arrangement of the URM boost from strongest to weakest?

AA >> NA >> PR >> MEX

It's more like - NA > AA Male >>> AA female > Mex = PR >>> Other Hispanic

I'm unsure about how the bump plays out amongst Hispanics. NA gives the strongest bump followed by AA males.

This part shocks me if true. I always thought AA male was the big one

it could be NA > AA male, or maybe AA male > NA...imo too hard to tell because the sample size for NA URMs is ridiculously small

DoubleChecks wrote:

JamMasterJ wrote:

buckilaw wrote:

MillaLiteYo wrote:DoubleChecks, would this be an accurate hierarchical arrangement of the URM boost from strongest to weakest?

AA >> NA >> PR >> MEX

It's more like - NA > AA Male >>> AA female > Mex = PR >>> Other Hispanic

I'm unsure about how the bump plays out amongst Hispanics. NA gives the strongest bump followed by AA males.

This part shocks me if true. I always thought AA male was the big one

it could be NA > AA male, or maybe AA male > NA...imo too hard to tell because the sample size for NA URMs is ridiculously small

It also probably depends to some extent on your diversity statement and to what extent you're a member of those groups/faced economic hardship.

If you are a "box checking" NA with no tribal ties or the like you likely won't receive a bump at all. There are substantially less legitimate NA applicants in a given cycle than AA males, so it follows that they get a larger bump than AA males. I've also heard this somewhere anecdotally but I can't recall where.

buckilaw wrote:If you are a "box checking" NA with no tribal ties or the like you likely won't receive a bump at all. There are substantially less legitimate NA applicants in a given cycle than AA males, so it follows that they get a larger bump than AA males. I've also heard this somewhere anecdotally but I can't recall where.

I think this is it. NA isn't always a big bump, and schools appear to be highly skeptical of many who check the NA box. However, someone who provides credentials or who writes a detailed DS that makes clear their ancestry and personal ties to their tribe is likely to get a significant boost, from what I understand. It's complicated, but if you want a simplified version it's something like this:

Registered NA >>> Other URMs >>> unregistered/box-check NA

buckilaw wrote:

MillaLiteYo wrote:DoubleChecks, would this be an accurate hierarchical arrangement of the URM boost from strongest to weakest?

AA >> NA >> PR >> MEX

It's more like - NA > AA Male >>> AA female > Mex = PR >>> Other Hispanic

I'm unsure about how the bump plays out amongst Hispanics. NA gives the strongest bump followed by AA males.

No.

buckilaw wrote:If you are a "box checking" NA with no tribal ties or the like you likely won't receive a bump at all. There are substantially less legitimate NA applicants in a given cycle than AA males, so it follows that they get a larger bump than AA males. I've also heard this somewhere anecdotally but I can't recall where.

That's because you're wrong.

Blessedassurance wrote:

buckilaw wrote:If you are a "box checking" NA with no tribal ties or the like you likely won't receive a bump at all. There are substantially less legitimate NA applicants in a given cycle than AA males, so it follows that they get a larger bump than AA males. I've also heard this somewhere anecdotally but I can't recall where.

That's because you're wrong.

Isn't this where you provide your citations so people can determine for themselves?

DoubleChecks wrote:

Blessedassurance wrote:

buckilaw wrote:If you are a "box checking" NA with no tribal ties or the like you likely won't receive a bump at all. There are substantially less legitimate NA applicants in a given cycle than AA males, so it follows that they get a larger bump than AA males. I've also heard this somewhere anecdotally but I can't recall where.

That's because you're wrong.

Isn't this where you provide your citations so people can determine for themselves?

No. You're incorrect.

DoubleChecks wrote:

Blessedassurance wrote:

buckilaw wrote:If you are a "box checking" NA with no tribal ties or the like you likely won't receive a bump at all. There are substantially less legitimate NA applicants in a given cycle than AA males, so it follows that they get a larger bump than AA males. I've also heard this somewhere anecdotally but I can't recall where.

That's because you're wrong.

Isn't this where you provide your citations so people can determine for themselves?

http://www.lawschoolnumbers.com

TheFriendlyBarber wrote:

DoubleChecks wrote:

Blessedassurance wrote:

buckilaw wrote:If you are a "box checking" NA with no tribal ties or the like you likely won't receive a bump at all. There are substantially less legitimate NA applicants in a given cycle than AA males, so it follows that they get a larger bump than AA males. I've also heard this somewhere anecdotally but I can't recall where.

That's because you're wrong.

Isn't this where you provide your citations so people can determine for themselves?

No. You're incorrect.

Well, tbf, my actual position was that the current data pool size is too small to draw any legitimate/useful conclusions about the NA vs. AA male bump lol.