Top Law Schools

3.56/165 Mexican American URM...

In @ UT w/ $$ on 10/28, out @ UVA on 11/01.

chance me for the rest of the T14, ready....... GO!

sach1282 wrote:http://www.lawschoolnumbers.com

Nice work you goddamn clown. Do you really think LSN is a credited response here, given that OP is Mexican-American? Do you have any idea how few data points on there would be relevant to him? And do you think he hasn't scoured those already? Maybe you should think before you post.

Anyway, as a fellow Mexican-American with somewhat similar numbers, I can confirm that LSN really has very little to tell you. Good luck anyways.

lol thx horror... whats the point of this forum if ppl just post that?

horrorbusiness wrote:

sach1282 wrote:http://www.lawschoolnumbers.com

Nice work you goddamn clown. Do you really think LSN is a credit response here, given that OP is Mexican-American? Do you have any idea how few data points on there would be relevant to him? And do you think he hasn't scoured those already? Maybe you should think before you post.

Anyway, as a fellow Mexican-American with somewhat similar numbers, I can confirm that LSN really has very little to tell you. Good luck anyways.

Seems harsh, especially given that there are other URM candidates that aren't Mexican.

InGoodFaith wrote:
Seems harsh, especially given that there are other URM candidates that aren't Mexican.

Relevance? Not all URM boosts are created equal, FYI.

Not equal, but quite similar...

InGoodFaith wrote:Not equal, but quite similar...

Guessing you're not URM. Not trying to be a dick. Comparing a URM cycle to others' solely by LSAT/GPA is already unreliable enough when you're the same type of URM. Really too nebulous for an MA to consider AA/PR cycles. (AA's seem to comprise the majority of LSN's URMs).

horrorbusiness wrote:

sach1282 wrote:http://www.lawschoolnumbers.com

Nice work you goddamn clown. Do you really think LSN is a credited response here, given that OP is Mexican-American? Do you have any idea how few data points on there would be relevant to him? And do you think he hasn't scoured those already? Maybe you should think before you post.

Anyway, as a fellow Mexican-American with somewhat similar numbers, I can confirm that LSN really has very little to tell you. Good luck anyways.

crumpetsandtea wrote:

horrorbusiness wrote:

sach1282 wrote:http://www.lawschoolnumbers.com

Nice work you goddamn clown. Do you really think LSN is a credited response here, given that OP is Mexican-American? Do you have any idea how few data points on there would be relevant to him? And do you think he hasn't scoured those already? Maybe you should think before you post.

Anyway, as a fellow Mexican-American with somewhat similar numbers, I can confirm that LSN really has very little to tell you. Good luck anyways.

Go away, aspie TLS-regular. At least I was trying, for the most part, to be informative in this thread.

Informative... or mad?

horrorbusiness wrote:

crumpetsandtea wrote:

horrorbusiness wrote:

sach1282 wrote:http://www.lawschoolnumbers.com

Nice work you goddamn clown. Do you really think LSN is a credited response here, given that OP is Mexican-American? Do you have any idea how few data points on there would be relevant to him? And do you think he hasn't scoured those already? Maybe you should think before you post.

Anyway, as a fellow Mexican-American with somewhat similar numbers, I can confirm that LSN really has very little to tell you. Good luck anyways.

Go away, aspie TLS-regular. At least I was trying, for the most part, to be informative in this thread.

InGoodFaith wrote:Informative... or mad?

LOL, always easier to call someone mad than respond to their real points, eh?

U wish i was mad bro.

Heard someone here was mad.

crumpetsandtea wrote:

Y u aspie tho? (Serious question)

The only information you gave OP is "good luck, I'm an MA too."

Then you spent the rest of the time mad.

Uh oh, I've angered the hivemind. Better make my graceful exit before the entire aspie contingent of TLS comes in this thread and tries to convince me that I'm mad. Oh boy. Later doods, have fun with it.

horrorbusiness wrote:Uh oh, I've angered the hivemind. Better make my graceful exit before the entire aspie contingent of TLS comes in this thread and tries to convince me that I'm mad. Oh boy. Later doods, have fun with it.

Trajectory of thread:

OP posts (legitimate) question.
Person replies with link to LSN.
Horrorbusiness enters thread, is mad.
Others enter thread, call horrorbusiness out on being mad
Horrorbusiness gets moar mad, realizes he is mad and can't argue the fact, calls people aspie, runs out with tail tucked between legs.

Anyway, sorry for the de-rail, OP. Couldn't resist. The best advice I have for you is to just wait it out. MA-URM isn't quite as strong as AA-URM, but you should still see some love from the T14. My best guess would possibly be GULC and Cornell...but to qualify this statement, I don't know too much about the already-unpredictable URM cycles. Best of luck!

crumpetsandtea wrote:

horrorbusiness wrote:Uh oh, I've angered the hivemind. Better make my graceful exit before the entire aspie contingent of TLS comes in this thread and tries to convince me that I'm mad. Oh boy. Later doods, have fun with it.

Trajectory of thread:

OP posts (legitimate) question.
Person replies with link to LSN.
Horrorbusiness enters thread, is mad.
Others enter thread, call horrorbusiness out on being mad
Horrorbusiness gets moar mad, realizes he is mad and can't argue the fact, calls people aspie, runs out with tail tucked between legs.

I lol'ed... at work. Thanks a lot, bud.

Also this is post # 69.

crumpetsandtea wrote:

horrorbusiness wrote:Uh oh, I've angered the hivemind. Better make my graceful exit before the entire aspie contingent of TLS comes in this thread and tries to convince me that I'm mad. Oh boy. Later doods, have fun with it.

Trajectory of thread:

OP posts (legitimate) question.
Person replies with link to LSN.
Horrorbusiness enters thread, is mad.
Others enter thread, call horrorbusiness out on being mad
Horrorbusiness gets moar mad, realizes he is mad and can't argue the fact, calls people aspie, runs out with tail tucked between legs.

Anyway, sorry for the de-rail, OP. Couldn't resist. The best advice I have for you is to just wait it out. MA-URM isn't quite as strong as AA-URM, but you should still see some love from the T14. My best guess would possibly be GULC and Cornell...but to qualify this statement, I don't know too much about the already-unpredictable URM cycles. Best of luck!

But why you aspie tho?

I think OP is in at the lower t14 and if he/she ED's to one of M or P, they have a shot but not a good one. URM cycles are hard to predict. The most important thing op can do for their cycle is to write a solid diversity statement.

horrorbusiness wrote:Uh oh, I've angered the hivemind. Better make my graceful exit before the entire aspie contingent of TLS comes in this thread and tries to convince me that I'm mad. Oh boy. Later doods, have fun with it.

Wow, if this is how horror reacts to dissenting opinion, s/he is gonna love law school.

Anyways, OP had a legitimate question. I agree with crumpets that some URMs are more URMey than others. I do wonder if there's a correlation between the diversity of a law school and the diversity of its primary market - hence why you got $ from a school in central Texas but a flat rejection from a school in rural VA.

Because I'd rather engage in this derpfest than read another page of CivPro I'll try to be useful. FWIW I am a URM who shares similar numbers with barely a dozen other URMs on LSN when looking over the past 5 years of data (not to mentions that even when expanding to non-URMs the pickings are fairly slim).

LSN is still the most valuable resource there is for URMs which basically obviates the need even for URMs to make these types of threads. A collection of data is always going to be more useful than random one-off anecdotes from people who almost always already have their data on LSN anyways. In fact I'd argue that since URM cycles are harder to predict that anecdotal responses are even less helpful for URMs than LSN data (though there is a decent argument that URM anecdotes are worthwhile for establishing the bounds of what is possible and where it would be worth an app fee even on a very small chance of admission). That being said, this is still true when you get into different URM subgroups. Are they given differing boosts? To a certain extent they are, but it isn't so definite that you can demarcate exactly who gets a boost of X and who gets a boost of Y. To go even further, subdivision creates even more problems due to the already sparse amount of URMs out there so that once you start looking for a specific URM subgroup for a specific data range you could be looking at few to none who are within that range. The best thing to do is to use all the URM data points in a given range even if they are not your URM subgroup and of course to take it with a grain of salt. Could they be slightly off for you? Of course they can, but they really are the best source of data out there.

URMs will be fine with doing LSN research without the need to make a thread about it. While the data is not as full as one might like it, it is there in a full enough fashion that almost every URM can figure it out given enough parsing. The only time I could think there would be an issue is when there is a fake LSN profile (tends to happen more with people making fake URM profiles than with fake non-URM profiles), though I believe that most of those profiles are fairly straightforward and obvious.

bk187 wrote:Because I'd rather engage in this derpfest than read another page of CivPro I'll try to be useful. FWIW I am a URM who shares similar numbers with barely a dozen other URMs on LSN when looking over the past 5 years of data (not to mentions that even when expanding to non-URMs the pickings are fairly slim).

LSN is still the most valuable resource there is for URMs which basically obviates the need even for URMs to make these types of threads. A collection of data is always going to be more useful than random one-off anecdotes from people who almost always already have their data on LSN anyways. In fact I'd argue that since URM cycles are harder to predict that anecdotal responses are even less helpful for URMs than LSN data (though there is a decent argument that URM anecdotes are worthwhile for establishing the bounds of what is possible and where it would be worth an app fee even on a very small chance of admission). That being said, this is still true when you get into different URM subgroups. Are they given differing boosts? To a certain extent they are, but it isn't so definite that you can demarcate exactly who gets a boost of X and who gets a boost of Y. To go even further, subdivision creates even more problems due to the already sparse amount of URMs out there so that once you start looking for a specific URM subgroup for a specific data range you could be looking at few to none who are within that range. The best thing to do is to use all the URM data points in a given range even if they are not your URM subgroup and of course to take it with a grain of salt. Could they be slightly off for you? Of course they can, but they really are the best source of data out there.

URMs will be fine with doing LSN research without the need to make a thread about it. While the data is not as full as one might like it, it is there in a full enough fashion that almost every URM can figure it out given enough parsing. The only time I could think there would be an issue is when there is a fake LSN profile (tends to happen more with people making fake URM profiles than with fake non-URM profiles), though I believe that most of those profiles are fairly straightforward and obvious.

The flow chart at the top says to make a thread if you're a urm

Threadstarter you got $$ at a school where you're below both medians and should be auto-dinged, so I would continue to aim high, at least M and P

InGoodFaith wrote:Not equal, but quite similar...

this is quite false

horrorbusiness wrote:

crumpetsandtea wrote:

horrorbusiness wrote:

sach1282 wrote:http://www.lawschoolnumbers.com

Nice work you goddamn clown. Do you really think LSN is a credited response here, given that OP is Mexican-American? Do you have any idea how few data points on there would be relevant to him? And do you think he hasn't scoured those already? Maybe you should think before you post.

Anyway, as a fellow Mexican-American with somewhat similar numbers, I can confirm that LSN really has very little to tell you. Good luck anyways.

Go away, aspie TLS-regular. At least I was trying, for the most part, to be informative in this thread.

TBF, you didn't actually contribute any information