Subscription pricing
So, as a URM myself it's pretty awesome to hear that your chances of admission to harder schools with lower than the median scores at those schools increase. I see users on the URM forum on TLS post their admissions from this past cycle and the results are incredible. I'm aiming for the highest score possible but this is definitely a great confidence booster. My question is, has anyone had these "bumps" happen to them themselves or have heard about it from other law students? My concern is that these numbers only represent a VERY VERY small portion....sort of like the unicorns for URMs that were accepted.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/12M14YUWQvgxsF3GXc-syd-Pn3bOcWBUWIX8AJkFbajM/edit#gid=0
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=275052
1
62 comments
@tristandesinor505 said:
@uhinberg359 said:
There's tons of URM splitters on mylsn.info. I see a few 3.6 and lower gpas who snagged HLS with 164+ LSATs. There's also a ton of URMs with 3.3/3.4s who have got CCN with LSATs in the same range. For what it's worth, I will say that many of the AA splitters seemed to have attended great UG institutions. I wonder how much of an effect that has on admissions.... Probably a decent amount.
What's CCN?
chicago, columbia, nyu
@6400 said:
@tristandesinor505 said:
@6400 said:
If you are applying this cycle, I encourage you to apply for the SEO Law Fellowship
Here's a short description of what it is:
A paid internship at a top law firm with a salary of up to $1,625 per week
Experiential learning that provides a hands-on look at the practice of law
Increased confidence going into law school stemming from first-hand exposure to the practical side of law through workshops, mentorship and panel discussions and networking opportunities with attorneys from our partner law firms
Academic prep through SEO’s Law Institute, an intensive law school preparatory program designed to support academic performance in law school
Orientation and training that provides guidance on corporate etiquette, law firm culture, legal writing and more
You can find out more here:
http://www.seolaw.org/
Thanks for sharing! Is this a summer gig? Would you apply at the beginning of the year after applying to law school or would you wait until you've officially been given an offer from a school?
Yeah, it takes place during the summer before you start law school. You apply while you are applying to law school (The application just went live for this cycle). They require the same documents as a law school app. After applying, they conduct interviews. You receive an offer/denial after sending in your seat deposit. From what I've gathered, they are prestige whores. The better the school, the more likely you will receive an offer.
Cool
@uhinberg359 said:
There's tons of URM splitters on mylsn.info. I see a few 3.6 and lower gpas who snagged HLS with 164+ LSATs. There's also a ton of URMs with 3.3/3.4s who have got CCN with LSATs in the same range. For what it's worth, I will say that many of the AA splitters seemed to have attended great UG institutions. I wonder how much of an effect that has on admissions.... Probably a decent amount.
What's CCN?
There's tons of URM splitters on mylsn.info. I see a few 3.6 and lower gpas who snagged HLS with 164+ LSATs. There's also a ton of URMs with 3.3/3.4s who have got CCN with LSATs in the same range. For what it's worth, I will say that many of the AA splitters seemed to have attended great UG institutions. I wonder how much of an effect that has on admissions.... Probably a decent amount.
@tristandesinor505 said:
@6400 said:
If you are applying this cycle, I encourage you to apply for the SEO Law Fellowship
Here's a short description of what it is:
A paid internship at a top law firm with a salary of up to $1,625 per week
Experiential learning that provides a hands-on look at the practice of law
Increased confidence going into law school stemming from first-hand exposure to the practical side of law through workshops, mentorship and panel discussions and networking opportunities with attorneys from our partner law firms
Academic prep through SEO’s Law Institute, an intensive law school preparatory program designed to support academic performance in law school
Orientation and training that provides guidance on corporate etiquette, law firm culture, legal writing and more
You can find out more here:
http://www.seolaw.org/
Thanks for sharing! Is this a summer gig? Would you apply at the beginning of the year after applying to law school or would you wait until you've officially been given an offer from a school?
Yeah, it takes place during the summer before you start law school. You apply while you are applying to law school (The application just went live for this cycle). They require the same documents as a law school app. After applying, they conduct interviews. You receive an offer/denial after sending in your seat deposit. From what I've gathered, they are prestige whores. The better the school, the more likely you will receive an offer.
@6400 said:
If you are applying this cycle, I encourage you to apply for the SEO Law Fellowship
Here's a short description of what it is:
A paid internship at a top law firm with a salary of up to $1,625 per week
Experiential learning that provides a hands-on look at the practice of law
Increased confidence going into law school stemming from first-hand exposure to the practical side of law through workshops, mentorship and panel discussions and networking opportunities with attorneys from our partner law firms
Academic prep through SEO’s Law Institute, an intensive law school preparatory program designed to support academic performance in law school
Orientation and training that provides guidance on corporate etiquette, law firm culture, legal writing and more
You can find out more here:
http://www.seolaw.org/
Thanks for sharing! Is this a summer gig? Would you apply at the beginning of the year after applying to law school or would you wait until you've officially been given an offer from a school?
If you are applying this cycle, I encourage you to apply for the SEO Law Fellowship
Here's a short description of what it is:
A paid internship at a top law firm with a salary of up to $1,625 per week
Experiential learning that provides a hands-on look at the practice of law
Increased confidence going into law school stemming from first-hand exposure to the practical side of law through workshops, mentorship and panel discussions and networking opportunities with attorneys from our partner law firms
Academic prep through SEO’s Law Institute, an intensive law school preparatory program designed to support academic performance in law school
Orientation and training that provides guidance on corporate etiquette, law firm culture, legal writing and more
You can find out more here:
http://www.seolaw.org/
@tristandesinor505 said:
@6400 said:
@uhinberg359 said:
Anyone have any stories for URM with amazing LSATs and Low gpas i.e. splitters?
Also, check out these in/out/results threads from the last few URM cycles on TLS. It's a little more in depth than LSN.
2013-14 Cycle
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=224199&hilit=2013+2014
2014-15 Cycle
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=245831&hilit=results
2015-16 Cycle
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=263034&hilit=results
2016-17 Cycle
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=275052&hilit=results
Thanks for posting this; not to seem cynical ...but are these real?? I'm very surprised at the scores/GPAs I see here and the schools folks were accepted to.
haha. I know what you mean. Prime example of how unpredictable URM admissions can be. When it comes to URM admissions, literally anything can happen.
@6400 said:
@uhinberg359 said:
Anyone have any stories for URM with amazing LSATs and Low gpas i.e. splitters?
Also, check out these in/out/results threads from the last few URM cycles on TLS. It's a little more in depth than LSN.
2013-14 Cycle
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=224199&hilit=2013+2014
2014-15 Cycle
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=245831&hilit=results
2015-16 Cycle
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=263034&hilit=results
2016-17 Cycle
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=275052&hilit=results
Thanks for posting this; not to seem cynical ...but are these real?? I'm very surprised at the scores/GPAs I see here and the schools folks were accepted to.
@ellesat525 said:
@chenoabailey93611 said:
@chenoabailey93611 said:
Anyone have any stories for URM with amazing LSATs and Low gpas i.e. splitters?
I don't have any stories except for last cycle a URM (forgot what kind of URM) got into Stanford with a 160 and a 3.4, it was a far reach indeed but it happened.
You can check lawschoolnumbers as well to just check around for URMs and their numbers.
http://lawschoolnumbers.com
Wow. Seriously?! If that's so, i can practically taste HYS!
yeah. just remember that URM cycles are very unpredictable.
@chenoabailey93611 said:
@chenoabailey93611 said:
Anyone have any stories for URM with amazing LSATs and Low gpas i.e. splitters?
I don't have any stories except for last cycle a URM (forgot what kind of URM) got into Stanford with a 160 and a 3.4, it was a far reach indeed but it happened.
You can check lawschoolnumbers as well to just check around for URMs and their numbers.
http://lawschoolnumbers.com
Wow. Seriously?! If that's so, i can practically taste HYS!
@uhinberg359 said:
Anyone have any stories for URM with amazing LSATs and Low gpas i.e. splitters?
Also, check out these in/out/results threads from the last few URM cycles on TLS. It's a little more in depth than LSN.
2013-14 Cycle
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=224199&hilit=2013+2014
2014-15 Cycle
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=245831&hilit=results
2015-16 Cycle
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=263034&hilit=results
2016-17 Cycle
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=275052&hilit=results
@uhinberg359 said:
@chenoabailey93611 thanks for that. Wow
Np! This is why almost everyone tells a URM applicant that their cycle will be unpredictable, because there's really no telling what could happen.
@chenoabailey93611 thanks for that. Wow
@chenoabailey93611 said:
Anyone have any stories for URM with amazing LSATs and Low gpas i.e. splitters?
I don't have any stories except for last cycle a URM (forgot what kind of URM) got into Stanford with a 160 and a 3.4, it was a far reach indeed but it happened.
You can check lawschoolnumbers as well to just check around for URMs and their numbers.
http://lawschoolnumbers.com
@tristandesinor505 Well said!
Anyone have any stories for URM with amazing LSATs and Low gpas i.e. splitters?
@blljhnsn35813 said:
The URM boost is pretty obnoxious if you ask me. It's pretty much law schools stating that certain types of minorities are inherently dumber than other minorities. URM's may get a boost when applying to law schools but once they are in, they aren't going to be getting an URM boost to their law school grades.
Like others, I assume the best and that you're merely pointing out a perceived "double-edged sword," but I think that the assumptions underlying that principle are unfounded.
While the previously mentioned explanation of URMs being "burdened by stereotypes as an explanation for performance variations" may be factually accurate, I think it lends to connotations that are misleading when not acutely examined.
An /incorrect/ interpretation of the statement could yield the idea that some kind of amorphous, phantasmal cloud of oppression is to blame for discrepancy in test scores,and that's certainly not the case, nor what the original statement is saying.
While the Stanford explanation is nonetheless correct, I think the principle is better explained as a product of statistics. We all know that standardized test scores, or any objective performances, typically fall on a bell curve. When you consider that URMs face conditions, or the effects of conditions that simply make fewer of them take the LSAT or apply to law school, you realize that even if their bell curve is identical to that of other races, the actual number of candidates in each segment is smaller. A smaller pool means fewer qualified candidates, and fewer qualified candidates tends to yield under representation. The key distinction, of course, is that having a smaller quantity of candidates doesn't indicate a lower frequency of qualified candidates within that given subgroup.
Beyond sheer numbers, there are tangible opportunity differences with effects reflected in the statistics. If a certain race is or has been systematically impoverished, fewer of the already few candidates will have access to prep materials and advisors and quality instructors. There are plenty of other ways in which such disadvantages compound, but the one economic consideration adequately illustrates the point. The bell curve of scores of URMs with x level of preparation, all other things constant, would be identical to the bell curve of non-URMS in the same condition. It just so happens that more frequently do URMs fall into those conditions that would consistently produce a lower bell curve regardless of race.
Putting it all together, what trips people up is that we attribute the boost to URMs as a product of that associated with URMs rather than fact alone that they are URMs. Schools don't give boosts because they 'feel bad for URMs,' or think that 'URMs are some coefficient multiplier smarter than their test score reflects.' It's purely a numbers game, and that quintessential fact addresses the gripes people tend to have with URM boosts.
People will ask, "I have the same economic/societal/whatever disadvantages of many URMs even though I'm XYZ race, why shouldn't I get the boost?" I don't want to come across as shaming people who ask that because it's a reasonable thing to wonder. The quintessential fact, however, answers the question: boosts aren't given to 'level the playing field,' they're meant to promote diversity from a numbers standpoint.
On the flipside, one may reasonably question why a URM who (in theory) was void of any economic/societal/whatever disadvantages should get a boost if they lack said obstacles typically associated with URMs. Once again, schools aren't in the business of calculating your obstructions and compensating for the difference. They're concerned with achieving some benchmark for diversity, and because the aforementioned factors would inhibit that without some kind of intervention, they make the necessary adjustments.
Now, plenty of people may then ponder the "ethicality" or legality of such adjustment efforts, and while that's an entirely different discussion, getting to that point is at least addressing the proper question. Statements that emphasize how the "burden of stereotypes affects performance" gives the mouthfeel of intangible forces that actively hamper individuals in the act of taking the test. I think such a notion (unintentionally) patronizes URMs and dissolves the palpability of the complexities that account for differences in yield.
Such unintended consequences would actually support the sword comparison, in my opinion. They lend to the idea that better admissions chances reflect an acknowledgment of some 'enormous weight URMs carry on their back when actually taking the LSAT.' But that's not true of course: once you're in your seat, your performance is manifested just as it would for anyone else in the room.
Rather, considering social and economic factors as appendages of statistics shows that their effect isn't on the shoulders of the test taker once they're filling in bubbles, but rather, they influence how many seats are filled to begin with, and on which universal preparation bell curves those seats will post under. Through this lens, the exact same elements and climates are considered, but I believe they're rightfully treated as pieces of social science rather than brushstrokes on a societal canvas. There's a lot less room for genuine misconception and thinly veiled xenophobia when the situation is explained in this blunter fashion, which is why I think it's ubiquitously more valuable.
I would recommend asking actual URM law students past & present. Most times you could reach out via LinkedIN. Non-law students have "good" info but not always accurate.
Either way, shout out to my fellow URMs
@blljhnsn35813 said:
The URM boost is pretty obnoxious if you ask me. It's pretty much law schools stating that certain types of minorities are inherently dumber than other minorities. URM's may get a boost when applying to law schools but once they are in, they aren't going to be getting an URM boost to their law school grades.
hasty generalization.
@tristandesinor505 said:
@blljhnsn35813 said:
The URM boost is pretty obnoxious if you ask me. It's pretty much law schools stating that certain types of minorities are inherently dumber than other minorities. URM's may get a boost when applying to law schools but once they are in, they aren't going to be getting an URM boost to their law school grades.
@nathanieljschwartz435 said:
Could you expound on what you mean by the LSAT being somewhat disadvantageous to certain ethnic groups?
Hi there,
The reason why Law Schools (and many other universities) admit URMs at a lower standardized test score is because minorities tend to score lower on standardized tests. One study from former Stanford professor, Claude Steele, found that it's not due to minorities being less intelligent, but the fact that being burdened by stereotypes affects performance on standardized tests ( http://news.stanford.edu/pr/95/950816Arc5120.html).
It's a common misconception that URMs receive entrance with lower scores due to possible economic differences and while that could be a reason admission folks consider, the primary reason is because URMs tend to have lower scores. To expound on the Stanford research mentioned above, the study began by giving the same test to a group of African-Americans and a group of Caucasians stating that the test was just a "prepatory drill". The two groups scored generally the same overall. When the test was administered to a different group of caucasians and AAs with the explanation that it was an "IQ Test", AAs scored overwhelming lower than their caucasian counterparts. No one has been able to figure out exactly why URMs score lower on standardized test, but an Economist article may be on track to the answer:
" The “achievement gap” in US education has complex causes, but one may be that bright African-American students are more likely to feel they are representing their ethnic group, which leads them to overthink. " (https://www.1843magazine.com/content/ideas/ian-leslie/non-cogito-ergo-sum)
Preach!
@blljhnsn35813 said:
The URM boost is pretty obnoxious if you ask me. It's pretty much law schools stating that certain types of minorities are inherently dumber than other minorities. URM's may get a boost when applying to law schools but once they are in, they aren't going to be getting an URM boost to their law school grades.
@nathanieljschwartz435 said:
Could you expound on what you mean by the LSAT being somewhat disadvantageous to certain ethnic groups?
Hi there,
The reason why Law Schools (and many other universities) admit URMs at a lower standardized test score is because minorities tend to score lower on standardized tests. One study from former Stanford professor, Claude Steele, found that it's not due to minorities being less intelligent, but the fact that being burdened by stereotypes affects performance on standardized tests ( http://news.stanford.edu/pr/95/950816Arc5120.html).
It's a common misconception that URMs receive entrance with lower scores due to possible economic differences and while that could be a reason admission folks consider, the primary reason is because URMs tend to have lower scores. To expound on the Stanford research mentioned above, the study began by giving the same test to a group of African-Americans and a group of Caucasians stating that the test was just a "prepatory drill". The two groups scored generally the same overall. When the test was administered to a different group of caucasians and AAs with the explanation that it was an "IQ Test", AAs scored overwhelming lower than their caucasian counterparts. No one has been able to figure out exactly why URMs score lower on standardized test, but an Economist article may be on track to the answer:
" The “achievement gap” in US education has complex causes, but one may be that bright African-American students are more likely to feel they are representing their ethnic group, which leads them to overthink. " (https://www.1843magazine.com/content/ideas/ian-leslie/non-cogito-ergo-sum)
@uhinberg359 said:
could be that @blljhnsn35813 was just saying that it's a double-edged sword for minorities. People might tend to look at a URM at a top school as being less deserving, when that's not the case. Many prominent AA's have complained about this negative consequence of affirmative action.
The URM boost exists to make sure that qualified URMs are not getting overlooked because they are URMs. They don't exist to just put random students of color in a law classroom.
Sadly the double edged sword you speak of would exist either way as it is called racism. URMs at top schools aren't less deserving. If our diversity efforts helped prevent them from being overlooked due to bias then that's a good thing. The negative consequences suck but that's also not the issue. It's actually a symptom of the problem affirmative action is trying to help solve.
Side note - I have many a critique of affirmative action but just wanted to clarify the misconceptions above.
@emanbare567 said:
I am curious to also know if there is any LSAT boost for non-native English speakers ( or International students). Do adcoms take this into consideration at all?
PS: Sorry if this is out of topic but I researchered alot about this and did not find any info.
nope, non-native English speakers aren't considered URM.
https://www.lsac.org/jd/diversity-in-law-school/racial-ethnic-minority-applicants
I am curious to also know if there is any LSAT boost for non-native English speakers ( or International students). Do adcoms take this into consideration at all?
PS: Sorry if this is out of topic but I researchered alot about this and did not find any info.