Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Apply for Membership

Categories

Am I considered URM?

Redentore3337Redentore3337 Alum Member
edited June 2018 in General 350 karma

Hey 7sagers! So question..Am I considered URM?

I was born in Cuba. I'm currently a permanent resident alien. Both my parents didn't go to college, making me a zero/first generation student.

I keep reading back and forth about what certain law school consider URM

Some say and that it depends on the school
Others say its strictly only Blacks, Native Americans, and Puerto Ricans.

I'm asking because according to LSAT calculators, whether I am or not, could mean a 20% increase in my chances at being admitted. Although I'm shooting for the highest possible LSAT score, this would be a pretty significant blow.

Also side question... What does that AA in AA URM stand for?

URM
  1. Would I be considered a URM?57 votes
    1. Yes
      70.18%
    2. No
      29.82%
Show Related Discussions

Comments

  • LAWYEREDLAWYERED Alum Member
    335 karma

    Hi, I'm sorry I don't know the answer to your question...Hopefully someone else can offer insight?
    However, I'm curious---could you provide the name of the law school admission calculator you used? I've never seen one that takes into account ethnicity.
    Thanks!

  • Redentore3337Redentore3337 Alum Member
    350 karma

    @"UCI Law Hopeful" said:
    Hi, I'm sorry I don't know the answer to your question...Hopefully someone else can offer insight?
    However, I'm curious---could you provide the name of the law school admission calculator you used? I've never seen one that takes into account ethnicity.
    Thanks!

    Sure here are two!

    http://mylsn.info/r/pre-law/admissions/search/

    https://jscalc.io/calc/zt21YwP4hMpgFuoT

  • OhnoeshalpmeOhnoeshalpme Alum Member ⭐
    2531 karma

    I recommend that you apply under the assumption that you are a URM

  • Redentore3337Redentore3337 Alum Member
    350 karma

    @Ohnoeshalpme said:
    I recommend that you apply under the assumption that you are a URM

    I mean that's what I was planning on doing.

    It would seem like factoring in whether you were first generation, what you're socioeconomic standing was growing up, what resources weren't or were allotted to you, if you were foreign born or native born, would be defining factors in determining under represented status?

  • iamcardibriiamcardibri Alum Member
    314 karma

    According to TLS:

    "Which groups are considered URMs?

    American Indians/Alaskan Natives, African Americans/Blacks, Mexican Americans, and Puerto Ricans are typically considered URM’s. Please note that there is a difference between Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, and other types of Hispanics in the admissions process. Additionally, I would like to offer a small caveat to international students, who fall into a separate category of their own.

    Why are these groups (rather than others) considered URM’s?

    There seems to be several reasons this distinction exists (cue speculation):

    One of the primary reasons we believe applicants of the above races are considered URM’s is because they are the only groups for which the LSAC (Law School Admissions Council) regularly publishes data. When the minority enrollment for a particular group is unknown, law schools have little incentive to admit students from that specific group. (The following link contains the data published most recently). http://www.lsac.org/SpecialInterests/minorities-in-legal-education-min-enroll.asp

    The two groups listed on the LSAC published data that aren’t (generally) considered minorities are Asian Americans and members of Hispanic groups not listed above. The reason for this is clear when we look again at the definition for an Underrepresented Minority. Both groups’ presence in the legal field and in law schools in general are close to or exceed their numbers in the general population. For example, Asians make up just 4.4% of the U.S. population, but according to LSAC’s estimates, they make up approximately 10% of legal students. By contrast, those groups who are considered URM’s have a much lower law school representation relative to their status in the U.S. population. Law schools (perhaps at the ABA’s prodding) have generally expressed that they would like their student body to be at least as diverse as the general population."

    BUT like someone up above said, don't let the technical definition of a URM deter you from applying to your dream school schools, especially if you are able to get a fee waiver #yolo you know what I mean? I'm native hawaiian and we aren't considered URM but luckily there is a separate group for us which MAY imply schools have incentives to give us special consideration. So I'll be applying to schools that are out of my league as long as I can afford it.

    But definitely write a diversity statement and you may be viewed by an admissions committee in a more favorable light!

  • Redentore3337Redentore3337 Alum Member
    350 karma

    @iamcardibri said:
    According to TLS:

    "Which groups are considered URMs?

    American Indians/Alaskan Natives, African Americans/Blacks, Mexican Americans, and Puerto Ricans are typically considered URM’s. Please note that there is a difference between Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, and other types of Hispanics in the admissions process. Additionally, I would like to offer a small caveat to international students, who fall into a separate category of their own.

    Why are these groups (rather than others) considered URM’s?

    There seems to be several reasons this distinction exists (cue speculation):

    One of the primary reasons we believe applicants of the above races are considered URM’s is because they are the only groups for which the LSAC (Law School Admissions Council) regularly publishes data. When the minority enrollment for a particular group is unknown, law schools have little incentive to admit students from that specific group. (The following link contains the data published most recently). http://www.lsac.org/SpecialInterests/minorities-in-legal-education-min-enroll.asp

    The two groups listed on the LSAC published data that aren’t (generally) considered minorities are Asian Americans and members of Hispanic groups not listed above. The reason for this is clear when we look again at the definition for an Underrepresented Minority. Both groups’ presence in the legal field and in law schools in general are close to or exceed their numbers in the general population. For example, Asians make up just 4.4% of the U.S. population, but according to LSAC’s estimates, they make up approximately 10% of legal students. By contrast, those groups who are considered URM’s have a much lower law school representation relative to their status in the U.S. population. Law schools (perhaps at the ABA’s prodding) have generally expressed that they would like their student body to be at least as diverse as the general population."

    BUT like someone up above said, don't let the technical definition of a URM deter you from applying to your dream school schools, especially if you are able to get a fee waiver #yolo you know what I mean? I'm native hawaiian and we aren't considered URM but luckily there is a separate group for us which MAY imply schools have incentives to give us special consideration. So I'll be applying to schools that are out of my league as long as I can afford it.

    But definitely write a diversity statement and you may be viewed by an admissions committee in a more favorable light!

    Yea that's the article I read which inspired this discussion post and spurred my research. It doesn't make sense why they would favor Puerto Ricans specifically over literally any other Hispanic group that arguably face more difficult rises to law school, and not to mention on the individual level, what specific advantages and disadvantages certain minorities had.

    Also, Puerto Ricans have higher levels of education than the U.S. Hispanic population. And typically Hispanics of all backgrounds fall in the same socioeconomic range, some worse than other but not by much. So that distinction does not seem warranted at all.

    If anything because there isn't data on certain minority groups, that would be more indicative of the fact that they don't have enough of those minority groups to draw a conclusion as to whether that said group is over or under represented.

    Granted, I'm trying to believe what I want to believe but I really don't see how.. not only Cubans but Hondurans or Nicaraguans, or Columbians, or any other Hispanic group other than Puerto Ricans are not considered under represented.

    I get the use of Asian being over represented in law school but there is data to back that up. I havn't come across any data that Hispanics are over represented in law, if there is then I'll gladly take my L.

  • iamcardibriiamcardibri Alum Member
    edited June 2018 314 karma

    @Redentore3337 Since I'm not Hispanic and I'm not an expert on the history of any Hispanic groups I can't really weigh in... But what you are saying makes total sense I can see how the exclusivity of Puerto Ricans as URM can be really frustrating for other Hispanic/minority groups.

    My GUESS is that the special status of Puerto Rico (and Native Hawaiian for that matter) has to do with the complicated relationship between the US and both of the these places. The US seized control of PR in the Spanish American War and it overthrew Hawaii's monarchy in 1893. If I'm not mistaken, both of these places were internationally recognized as independent countries.

    The US probably pissed off a lot of Puerto Ricans and Hawaiians when they invaded/seized/illegally annexed both of these place and now the US has somewhat of an obligation to right their wrongs by giving these ethnic groups special treatment. It's basically the same story for African American and Native American groups, who obviously suffered mass injustice within US borders and throughout US history.

    Anyways, that's my politically incorrect crash course on why AA, NA, and PR groups are indisputably recognized as URM, and why native hawaiian occupies it's own ethnic category as well. There's definitely much more to it than that, but maybe someone else will swoop in to help me out on this??

    Of course, many hispanic groups, southeast asian groups, middle eastern groups are under-represented in US law schools. And many of theses minority groups may have faced even greater adversity and oppression. But ultimately, the only ones that the US (and US organizations like the LSAC) will care to collect data on/make special accommodations for are the ones who they kinda sorta owe it to :neutral:

    But I think a well written diversity statement has the potential to give you a similar boost to those groups above. Draw the parallel for them. Show them how the adversities faced by your family and your ethnic community have influenced you and made you a very valuable candidate! :blush:

  • JustDoItJustDoIt Alum Member ⭐
    3112 karma

    Yes you are a URM. For what it is worth, I am in SEO and there are at least two Cubans in our cohort. For those who don't know, SEO is a 0L program for URMs to help them gain a competitive edge in law school. Happy to answer any questions about it too!

  • Redentore3337Redentore3337 Alum Member
    350 karma

    @iamcardibri said:
    @Redentore3337 Since I'm not Hispanic and I'm not an expert on the history of any Hispanic groups I can't really weigh in... But what you are saying makes total sense I can see how the exclusivity of Puerto Ricans as URM can be really frustrating for other Hispanic/minority groups.

    My GUESS is that the special status of Puerto Rico (and Native Hawaiian for that matter) has to do with the complicated relationship between the US and both of the these places. The US seized control of PR in the Spanish American War and it overthrew Hawaii's monarchy in 1893. If I'm not mistaken, both of these places were internationally recognized as independent countries.

    The US probably pissed off a lot of Puerto Ricans and Hawaiians when they invaded/seized/illegally annexed both of these place and now the US has somewhat of an obligation to right their wrongs by giving these ethnic groups special treatment. It's basically the same story for African American and Native American groups, who obviously suffered mass injustice within US borders and throughout US history.

    Anyways, that's my politically incorrect crash course on why AA, NA, and PR groups are indisputably recognized as URM, and why native hawaiian occupies it's own ethnic category as well. There's definitely much more to it than that, but maybe someone else will swoop in to help me out on this??

    Of course, many hispanic groups, southeast asian groups, middle eastern groups are under-represented in US law schools. And many of theses minority groups may have faced even greater adversity and oppression. But ultimately, the only ones that the US (and US organizations like the LSAC) will care to collect data on/make special accommodations for are the ones who they kinda sorta owe it to :neutral:

    But I think a well written diversity statement has the potential to give you a similar boost to those groups above. Draw the parallel for them. Show them how the adversities faced by your family and your ethnic community have influenced you and made you a very valuable candidate! :blush:

    That explanation makes a lot of sense too, but yea that's the plan! The LSAT is making me hyper critical of all the factors I have to weigh in so adding this one to the list was pretty frustrating if true. Thanks for taking the time to try to explain it out though

  • Redentore3337Redentore3337 Alum Member
    350 karma

    @JustDoIt said:
    Yes you are a URM. For what it is worth, I am in SEO and there are at least two Cubans in our cohort. For those who don't know, SEO is a 0L program for URMs to help them gain a competitive edge in law school. Happy to answer any questions about it too!

    Oh awesome! From you're experience what's been the general consensus on who classifies as URM?

  • JustDoItJustDoIt Alum Member ⭐
    3112 karma

    @Redentore3337 said:

    Oh awesome! From you're experience what's been the general consensus on who classifies as URM?

    African Americans, Hispanics (generally, regardless of origin), and Native Americans. This is supported further by looking at the demographics and statistical representations at law schools.

    If you are asking about the "bump," in my opinion it would probably go something like AA>>H>NA. In other words, AA's get the highest bump for reasons that won't be discussed here. That bump is significantly higher than that of Hispanics. Reasonably so, this bump can fluctuates greatly depending on one's story. So if an H puts a compelling story together, it is possible that the H bump will equal the AA bump. But more generally, the H bump is slightly higher than the NA bump. Because there are so few NA's it is difficult to draw any reasonably conclusions based on their self reported data.

    I know this stands slightly contradicts what was posted above, but I think it is more important that you play all of the cards you can and let the schools decide whether or not you fit the criteria. The benefits far outweigh the risks.

  • Redentore3337Redentore3337 Alum Member
    350 karma

    @JustDoIt said:

    @Redentore3337 said:

    Oh awesome! From you're experience what's been the general consensus on who classifies as URM?

    African Americans, Hispanics (generally, regardless of origin), and Native Americans. This is supported further by looking at the demographics and statistical representations at law schools.

    If you are asking about the "bump," in my opinion it would probably go something like AA>>H>NA. In other words, AA's get the highest bump for reasons that won't be discussed here. That bump is significantly higher than that of Hispanics. Reasonably so, this bump can fluctuates greatly depending on one's story. So if an H puts a compelling story together, it is possible that the H bump will equal the AA bump. But more generally, the H bump is slightly higher than the NA bump. Because there are so few NA's it is difficult to draw any reasonably conclusions based on their self reported data.

    I know this stands slightly contradicts what was posted above, but I think it is more important that you play all of the cards you can and let the schools decide whether or not you fit the criteria. The benefits far outweigh the risks.

    That's what I had reasoned out! That makes all the sense in the world. Thank you for clarifying.

  • JustDoItJustDoIt Alum Member ⭐
    3112 karma

    Glad to help! :blush:

  • teamteamvicsterteamteamvicster Alum Member
    edited June 2018 774 karma

    So @JustDoIt would you say "the bump" for Hispanics is the same regardless if you are Mexican American or Puerto Rican?

    Another question... what is the difference between Native American and American Indian? Does American Indian include indigenous people of Central and South America? For instance, my grandma was 100% indigenous but from South America. I learned an indigenous language growing up before I learned Spanish. I am hesitant about checking the American Indian box because I don't want to come off as dishonest. However, I do have a lot of close ties and experiences with my indigenous background. Certainly going to write a diversity statement this time around.

    Thank you for the clarification!

  • Redentore3337Redentore3337 Alum Member
    350 karma

    @teamteamvicster said:
    So @JustDoIt would you say "the bump" for Hispanics is the same regardless if you are Mexican American or Puerto Rican?

    Another question... what is the difference between Native American and American Indian? Does American Indian include indigenous people of Central and South America? For instance, my grandma was 100% indigenous but from South America. I learned an indigenous language growing up before I learned Spanish. I am hesitant about checking the American Indian box because I don't want to come off as dishonest. However, I do have a lot of close ties and experiences with my indigenous background. Certainly going to write a diversity statement this time around.

    Thank you for the clarification!

    Good question!

  • JustDoItJustDoIt Alum Member ⭐
    3112 karma

    Hi @teamteamvicster! I don't think there law schools are going to make any delineation between being MA or PR. That really gets into the nitty-gritty of admissions and I don't think law schools are going to try to advocate for one group over the other. After all, when you get into law schools, people in either group are going to join the same association as part of a Latino/a Students Association. In fact, a vast majority of schools have an association like this.

    As for the American Indian question, there isn't a difference between NA or AI. They mean the same thing. I apologize for the confusion. As for the boxes, it's a tough call but I would recommend that you check both the AI box and the "other" box. This would allow you to cover all of your bases. You shouldn't feel bad at all. It is better to be overinclusive than underinclusive. Further, there is reason to believe that this box is going to put your app in a separate "box" and you don't want to miss out by not checking the box. The risk of sounding disingenuous is far surpassed by the risk of missing out on any potential URM bumps.

  • teamteamvicsterteamteamvicster Alum Member
    774 karma

    Great idea to check the "other" box! Growing up, teachers never knew what to tell me to check. I was always only "other" or "Not Applicable"!

    Thank you for advocating to be overinclusive. I never would want to take away someone else's spot or anything like that. It makes me wonder how many people _aren't _ grappling with these issues and just check it anyway!

    I am looking forward to meeting with affinity groups in law school. SEO sounds like an incredible opportunity. Congrats!

Sign In or Register to comment.