Pretty average applicant right now, but URM hispanic Forum

[URM_lawnerd]

So I don't have strong numbers yet (I'm retaking LSAT in December, so chill out bros), but I wanted to know what sort of schools yall think I can get into with my current stats.

3.4 GPA - slightly under 3.0 first three semesters as engineering major at a top 15 engineering school, then around 3.9 the remaining semesters as a political science major. already wrote the GPA addendum
September LSAT 160 - highest PT was 163, felt like I scored at least 165 on test day, so with more Logic Games studying until December I'm sure I'll improve.
URM hispanic with significant obstacles I've overcome
No qualms with ED'ing to T14 schools

As I posted yesterday in another thread, I've received fee waivers to my huge list of over 30 schools save for 3 schools, which I'm sure I can ask for a fee waiver.

[ojpossum]

You're the closest numbers twin I've found lol, longtime lurker and your post prompted me to make an account. I'm URM hispanic at 3.3 had one horrible semester but an upward trend in gpa so I wrote an addendum. Just took the LSAT for the first time in Sept, got a 161, highest PT before Sept was a 165. Taking it again in Dec and hoping for a 170+ (which I know is asking a lot but my new PT average since Sept's exam has been 171). I was surprised how many fee waivers I've been receiving but I know I shouldn't read too much into that. Mainly commenting out of solidarity and I'm curious how others weigh in.

[cavalier1138]

Just to clarify one point:

Are you saying that you have URM status because you're hispanic? Or are you saying that you're of a particular hispanic background which makes you a URM? Because hispanic students from different backgrounds have reported different results in the past (i.e. Mexican-American definitely counts as URM, but Cuban almost certainly doesn't).

[magnum_law]

If you want the T14 your GPA doesn't preclude you but you better get that LSAT up.

I'm a current 1L at a mid-T14. Also a URM Hispanic. Intially applied with 3.4 and 166, got pure WLs from Columbia down. Retook for a 3-4 point bump and got into my preferred school with a decent scholly. Anecdotal but it's all I got for you.

[btruj777]

If you want the T14 your GPA doesn't preclude you but you better get that LSAT up.

I'm a current 1L at a mid-T14. Also a URM Hispanic. Intially applied with 3.4 and 166, got pure WLs from Columbia down. Retook for a 3-4 point bump and got into my preferred school with a decent scholly. Anecdotal but it's all I got for you.

Do you mind if I ask for what type of Hispanic you are? I have been getting worried because I am a Hispanic but Peruvian + Cuban. 3.95/167 Idk how my cycle will go

[URM_lawnerd]

###
###
OP here. In response to some of the questions:

ojpossum: yeah man, definitely numbers twins. I think if you're scoring in 170+ range right now, you're gonna rock the LSAT and do way better than I will. Admittedly, I haven't studied for the LSAT AT ALL since the Sept test, but I should be getting my Logic Games Bible in the mail tomorrow, so I'll start then (took TestMasters during the summer and saw a 12-point increase from my first PT). My cocky ass thought I did well on the LSAT and wouldn't need to retake smfh.

Samesies about the fee waivers, but DON'T let them make you think you have to apply soon since you already have them. Just take the LSAT again and save those suckers for when you're actually competitive at those fee waiver schools.

cavalier1138: I was born in Peru, so I'm hispanic. That makes me URM. I'm not sure if you subscribe to this idea, but the whole thing about only Mexicans and Puerto Ricans being considered URM imho is terribly outdated information that may have been accurate a few cycles ago, when ppl were applying to law school in droves, but is probably incorrect nowadays. You have to specify your specific place of origin when registering with LSAC, but most school applications only have a place for you to mark Hispanic/Latino and not anything more specific than that. Maybe the schools use the more specific LSAC info to figure out who to send fee waivers to, but they surely use the less specific info on the submitted applications to make admissions decisions.

Law schools and colleges, including the top ones, are throwing around the word "diversity" A LOT MORE nowadays, and I take them at their word that they are actually seeking diversity out. In that respect, whether a latino/latina is Mexican v. Peruvian v. Colombian really should make no difference because their backgrounds are similar and sufficiently different from the backgrounds of most other law school applicants.

[btruj777]

###
###
OP here. In response to some of the questions:

ojpossum: yeah man, definitely numbers twins. I think if you're scoring in 170+ range right now, you're gonna rock the LSAT and do way better than I will. Admittedly, I haven't studied for the LSAT AT ALL since the Sept test, but I should be getting my Logic Games Bible in the mail tomorrow, so I'll start then (took TestMasters during the summer and saw a 12-point increase from my first PT). My cocky ass thought I did well on the LSAT and wouldn't need to retake smfh.

Samesies about the fee waivers, but DON'T let them make you think you have to apply soon since you already have them. Just take the LSAT again and save those suckers for when you're actually competitive at those fee waiver schools.

cavalier1138: I was born in Peru, so I'm hispanic. That makes me URM. I'm not sure if you subscribe to this idea, but the whole thing about only Mexicans and Puerto Ricans being considered URM imho is terribly outdated information that may have been accurate a few cycles ago, when ppl were applying to law school in droves, but is probably incorrect nowadays. You have to specify your specific place of origin when registering with LSAC, but most school applications only have a place for you to mark Hispanic/Latino and not anything more specific than that. Maybe the schools use the more specific LSAC info to figure out who to send fee waivers to, but they surely use the less specific info on the submitted applications to make admissions decisions.

Law schools and colleges, including the top ones, are throwing around the word "diversity" A LOT MORE nowadays, and I take them at their word that they are actually seeking diversity out. In that respect, whether a latino/latina is Mexican v. Peruvian v. Colombian really should make no difference because their backgrounds are similar and sufficiently different from the backgrounds of most other law school applicants.

+1 I hope this is the case. I mean on every ABA 509 of every school it has a row for "Hispanics of any race" I thought that by being a non AA URM you could improve that row and thus get a boost.

[URM_lawnerd]

###
###
OP here. In response to some of the questions:

ojpossum: yeah man, definitely numbers twins. I think if you're scoring in 170+ range right now, you're gonna rock the LSAT and do way better than I will. Admittedly, I haven't studied for the LSAT AT ALL since the Sept test, but I should be getting my Logic Games Bible in the mail tomorrow, so I'll start then (took TestMasters during the summer and saw a 12-point increase from my first PT). My cocky ass thought I did well on the LSAT and wouldn't need to retake smfh.

Samesies about the fee waivers, but DON'T let them make you think you have to apply soon since you already have them. Just take the LSAT again and save those suckers for when you're actually competitive at those fee waiver schools.

cavalier1138: I was born in Peru, so I'm hispanic. That makes me URM. I'm not sure if you subscribe to this idea, but the whole thing about only Mexicans and Puerto Ricans being considered URM imho is terribly outdated information that may have been accurate a few cycles ago, when ppl were applying to law school in droves, but is probably incorrect nowadays. You have to specify your specific place of origin when registering with LSAC, but most school applications only have a place for you to mark Hispanic/Latino and not anything more specific than that. Maybe the schools use the more specific LSAC info to figure out who to send fee waivers to, but they surely use the less specific info on the submitted applications to make admissions decisions.

Law schools and colleges, including the top ones, are throwing around the word "diversity" A LOT MORE nowadays, and I take them at their word that they are actually seeking diversity out. In that respect, whether a latino/latina is Mexican v. Peruvian v. Colombian really should make no difference because their backgrounds are similar and sufficiently different from the backgrounds of most other law school applicants.

+1 I hope this is the case. I mean on every ABA 509 of every school it has a row for "Hispanics of any race" I thought that by being a non AA URM you could improve that row and thus get a boost.

+1 nowadays when it comes to a soft like being Hispanic, I imagine law schools really covet that ABA 509 bump however they can get it. Unless you're a school that doesn't mind reducing its class size to keep its high 25/50/75 numbers, you want to get a boost any way you can get it.

[URM_lawnerd]

If you want the T14 your GPA doesn't preclude you but you better get that LSAT up.

I'm a current 1L at a mid-T14. Also a URM Hispanic. Intially applied with 3.4 and 166, got pure WLs from Columbia down. Retook for a 3-4 point bump and got into my preferred school with a decent scholly. Anecdotal but it's all I got for you.

Do you mind if I ask for what type of Hispanic you are? I have been getting worried because I am a Hispanic but Peruvian + Cuban. 3.95/167 Idk how my cycle will go

I'm filling out the UC Davis application and actually they do ask about your specific Hispanic ethnicity, i.e., Latin America, Caribbean, Puerto Rican, Chicano, Cuban, other lol

[magnum_law]

IMHO the "URM boost" for Hispanic applicants is virtually non-existent anymore. I haven't seen much evidence indicating anywhere near the impact that is frequently mentioned on TLS, nor did my cycle reflect much of a boost either. More than anything it comes down to your LSAT score. Focus on that and you'll be best off - if there happens to be a boost for you, even better! But I certainly wouldn't consider it a crutch these days.

[URM_lawnerd]

IMHO the "URM boost" for Hispanic applicants is virtually non-existent anymore. I haven't seen much evidence indicating anywhere near the impact that is frequently mentioned on TLS, nor did my cycle reflect much of a boost either. More than anything it comes down to your LSAT score. Focus on that and you'll be best off - if there happens to be a boost for you, even better! But I certainly wouldn't consider it a crutch these days.

Let's agree to disagree. It's not a big boost, but it's also not non-existent. If anything, we should be getting rid of the term URM and instead focus on diversity. Diversity is the term schools are using nowadays. And it's hard to deny that a Latino/a brings diversity to a law school.

[BobBoblaw]

IMHO the "URM boost" for Hispanic applicants is virtually non-existent anymore. I haven't seen much evidence indicating anywhere near the impact that is frequently mentioned on TLS, nor did my cycle reflect much of a boost either. More than anything it comes down to your LSAT score. Focus on that and you'll be best off - if there happens to be a boost for you, even better! But I certainly wouldn't consider it a crutch these days.

Let's agree to disagree. It's not a big boost, but it's also not non-existent. If anything, we should be getting rid of the term URM and instead focus on diversity. Diversity is the term schools are using nowadays. And it's hard to deny that a Latino/a brings diversity to a law school.

You are confusing two different issues. URM has to do with getting under represented groups into the profession, not with the diversity of the student body per se. That means, generally, native Americans African Americans, Mexican Americans, and Puerto Ricans benefit from a URM boost. Cubans, Peruvians, Argentineans, etc. may indeed bring diversity, which has value. They are not, however, under represented in the legal field given their numbers in the general population, and so probably won't see much of a boost though this will vary school to school.


TL,DR: diverse =\= URM

[ml2srosie]

IMHO the "URM boost" for Hispanic applicants is virtually non-existent anymore. I haven't seen much evidence indicating anywhere near the impact that is frequently mentioned on TLS, nor did my cycle reflect much of a boost either. More than anything it comes down to your LSAT score. Focus on that and you'll be best off - if there happens to be a boost for you, even better! But I certainly wouldn't consider it a crutch these days.

Let's agree to disagree. It's not a big boost, but it's also not non-existent. If anything, we should be getting rid of the term URM and instead focus on diversity. Diversity is the term schools are using nowadays. And it's hard to deny that a Latino/a brings diversity to a law school.

You are confusing two different issues. URM has to do with getting under represented groups into the profession, not with the diversity of the student body per se. That means, generally, native Americans African Americans, Mexican Americans, and Puerto Ricans benefit from a URM boost. Cubans, Peruvians, Argentineans, etc. may indeed bring diversity, which has value. They are not, however, under represented in the legal field given their numbers in the general population, and so probably won't see much of a boost though this will vary school to school.


TL,DR: diverse =\= URM

Yes!!!! Well said. As a Peruvian, you do add "diversity" but Peruvians are not under-represented in terms of barred attorneys in the US. If I were you, I would expect a negligible, if any, boost. You need to re-take the LSAT...that will dramatically change the playing field for you.

[ml2srosie]

Also, fee waivers really don't mean much so I would not take a fee waiver from Penn or Michigan to suggest that I have a chance of being accepted there. Sometimes schools give out waivers to increase their applicant pool and by extension, increase their selectivity (i.e. the school seems a lot more selective if they admit 500 of 4000 applicants than 500 of 2300 applicants). I am not trying to rain on your parade -- at all -- but I also do not like to see people set themselves up for disappointment.

[grades??]

If there is no to minimal URM bump, which seems to be the case for you, you will be out of all t14, and likely not get a t20 at all. Retake.

[URM_lawnerd]

If there is no to minimal URM bump, which seems to be the case for you, you will be out of all t14, and likely not get a t20 at all. Retake.

Yes, like I said, I'm retaking that's not even a question. I posted to get some idea as to how I might fare at the t14's, and it looks like most ppl are saying I wouldn't fare well. I definitely suspected that the fee waivers mean nothing, but I wanted to throw that out there to see if maybe similar minority applicants did experience a correlation between fee waivers and admissions success.

As for the URM thing, maybe yall know something I don't, but I literally have not seen that term come up RECENTLY in law school websites OR even the LSAC's webpage article on race and diversity. The only thing I'm seeing is diversity, diversity, diversity. And like I said before, there is a massive underrepresentation of minorities in general in law, including underrepresentation of Latinos of any sort. Whether schools have the time or energy to calculate boosts for individual Latino nationalities and apply them consistently is a question worth asking - and which I strongly believe would be answered in the negative. The folks focusing on the most literal and old-school (circa 2008-10) definition of URM are really underestimating how desperate schools are to show off their diversity bona fides.

[grades??]

If there is no to minimal URM bump, which seems to be the case for you, you will be out of all t14, and likely not get a t20 at all. Retake.

Yes, like I said, I'm retaking that's not even a question. I posted to get some idea as to how I might fare at the t14's, and it looks like most ppl are saying I wouldn't fare well. I definitely suspected that the fee waivers mean nothing, but I wanted to throw that out there to see if maybe similar minority applicants did experience a correlation between fee waivers and admissions success.

As for the URM thing, maybe yall know something I don't, but I literally have not seen that term come up RECENTLY in law school websites OR even the LSAC's webpage article on race and diversity. The only thing I'm seeing is diversity, diversity, diversity. And like I said before, there is a massive underrepresentation of minorities in general in law, including underrepresentation of Latinos of any sort. Whether schools have the time or energy to calculate boosts for individual Latino nationalities and apply them consistently is a question worth asking - and which I strongly believe would be answered in the negative. The folks focusing on the most literal and old-school (circa 2008-10) definition of URM are really underestimating how desperate schools are to show off their diversity bona fides.

Just because a law school wants diversity doesn't mean they will give you a bump. Data has proven that only a handful of specific groups get a bump. Sure as a latino will you help diversity? Duh. Is it a specific ethnicity that they will overlook your scores for? Doesn't appear so. I mean asians are underrepresented in the general population but they are straight up discriminated against in higher education admissions (go read some of the Amicus briefs for Fisher II) and schools don't bat an eye. If you aren't a member of a group they give a bump for, then doesn't really matter if you will help the school show diversity. Sorry that is just how it is. Just because the schools websites show one thing doesn't overlook the mountains of data over years. Good luck on your retake. My advice- stop coming on this site and stop worrying about where you will get in. Where it stands it wont be pretty so focus on the retake and come back with that high score.