Top Law Schools

What are my chances? There is a large Salvadorian population in the Los Angeles area and have grown up here.

Salvadorian isn't urm. African Americans native Americans puerto ricans and Mexican Americans are. You may get a small boost for being Hispanic though. USC loves high gpas so you may be in trouble. Check lawschoolnumbers.com

I honestly think you have a better chance at schools like Cornell and Georgetown. Take a look at lawchoolnumbers.com. USC doesn't take very many applicants with 3.2 GPAs, but I definitely still think you have a shot. Although you aren't a URM, I would write a solid diversity statement, apply early and broadly. You have a shot at T14 and T20 with money.

aww man, I was under the impression that people from el salvador were URM. That definitely hurts my chances :/

Also does an upward trend matter at all? From my second half of sophomore year to senior, I was able to manage a 3.7. A couple of C's 1 D and an W really messed me up

jimcrick wrote:aww man, I was under the impression that people from el salvador were URM. That definitely hurts my chances :/

Doesn't mean you won't see some sort of boost. It's just not going to be as significant or predictable as it would be if you were Mexican/Puerto Rican. If you can show a connection to your heritage and have an otherwise good application, I think your numbers are solid enough to get you into a lot of schools worth attending. I'm Cuban (also not URM) and I do believe that it helped me somewhat last cycle. Like I said, make sure your app is solid, apply early, and apply broadly. You can PM me if you have any more specific question about USC or anything. Good luck.

ETA: About the upward trend thing, it's definitely better than a downward trend, but I really have no idea how much it's taken into account.

Funny how Mexican is considered URM and not Salvadorian. Salvadorians should just start checking Mexican.

NYC KID wrote:Funny how Mexican is considered URM and not Salvadorian. Salvadorian's should just start checking Mexican.

Yea. Making blatantly false representations is definitely the way to start off a legal career.

.

Realizing this is the not the place for such a debate, one has wonder why the special treatment for Mexicans as oppossed to Salvadorians or Puerto Ricans to Dominicans when they're all equally discounted in the legal community. * Gets off his soapbox

NYC KID wrote:Realizing this is the not the place for such a debate, one has wonder why the special treatment for Mexicans as oppossed to Salvadorians or Puerto Ricans to Dominicans when they're all equally discounted in the legal community. * Gets off his soapbox

The reason why Mexicans and Puerto Ricans get a boost is because the percentage of them in law school/the legal field is extremely small compared to their overall percentage of the population. Same thing with blacks and native americans. The same is not the case for other latino groups.

Also, read this.

Native Americans only make up 0.7% of the population so I disagree with your legal ratio to total population argument pertaining to them. Blacks no question since they make up 12%. But I think Hispanics should be grouped as a whole since combined they only make up 16% and only make up 3% of the legal field.

bee wrote:

NYC KID wrote:Funny how Mexican is considered URM and not Salvadorian. Salvadorian's should just start checking Mexican.

Are you Salvadorian? Why don't you try it out and report back?

And I was being facetious.

jimcrick wrote:
Also does an upward trend matter at all? From my second half of sophomore year to senior, I was able to manage a 3.7. A couple of C's 1 D and an W really messed me up

Unfortunately not. I had a huge upward trend and so far my cycle has been pretty consistent with what my numbers would be, I think.

I'm also Salvadoran and I don't know if anyone would say I "outperformed" my numbers at all

.

bee wrote:

NYC KID wrote:

bee wrote:

NYC KID wrote:Funny how Mexican is considered URM and not Salvadorian. Salvadorian's should just start checking Mexican.

Are you Salvadorian? Why don't you try it out and report back?

And I was being facetious.

Hah, well sorry then, the internet doesn't always allow for tone, and people on TLS have talked about doing such things before.

No worries.

NYC KID wrote:Native Americans only make up 0.7% of the population so I disagree with your legal ratio to total population argument pertaining to them.

Yeah... but they used to make up 100% of the population, so I think they get a pass...

JustE wrote:

NYC KID wrote:Native Americans only make up 0.7% of the population so I disagree with your legal ratio to total population argument pertaining to them.

Yeah... but they used to make up 100% of the population, so I think they get a pass...

Very true and deservedly so.

Not sure that poasters ITT understand what underrepresented minority means...

InGoodFaith wrote:Not sure that poasters ITT understand what underrepresented minority means...

You mean Asians aren't URM? *Being sarcastic.

NYC KID wrote:Native Americans only make up 0.7% of the population so I disagree with your legal ratio to total population argument pertaining to them. Blacks no question since they make up 12%. But I think Hispanics should be grouped as a whole since combined they only make up 16% and only make up 3% of the legal field.

Bro I'm telling you how it is. Doesn't matter what you think it should be.