Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 33.5K All Categories
- 28.2K LSAT
- 17.1K General
- 5.2K Logical Reasoning
- 1.4K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 70 Podcasts
- 192 Webinars
- 11 Scholarships
- 194 Test Center Reviews
- 2.2K Study Groups
- 112 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.5K Specific LSAT Dates
- 36 November 2024 LSAT
- 18 October 2024 LSAT
- 9 September 2024 LSAT
- 38 August 2024 LSAT
- 28 June 2024 LSAT
- 4 April 2024 LSAT
- 11 February 2024 LSAT
- 22 January 2024 LSAT
- 38 November 2023 LSAT
- 43 October 2023 LSAT
- 14 September 2023 LSAT
- 38 August 2023 LSAT
- 27 June 2023 LSAT
- 30 Sage Advice
- 5K Not LSAT
- 4K Law School Admissions
- 13 Law School Explained
- 10 Forum Rules
- 646 Technical Problems
- 288 Off-topic
Related Discussions
Minority Question...does this matter?
RJmazo14
Alum Member
Let me preface this by saying, I am a minority. The purpose of this is in reference to an article I read a couple days ago regarding affirmative action in higher education admissions (not trying to ruffle any political feathers...but if you want to read the article, I attached the link at the bottom).
As a minority, is it true that admission officers prefer certain sub-sects of minorities over others? For example, do they prefer Filipino applicants over Chinese applicants, or Mexican-Americans over Cuban-Americans (as referenced in the article)? And in the case of Asian minorities (hint: I'm Asian), does it help to specify what type of Asian you are, if it will indeed be preferred by the school?
From what I've been reading, it basically doesn't give you any advantage to say that you're simply Asian, but I'm wondering if it actually does help if you specify what type of Asian. Anyone have any experience with this?
Comments
Various subsets of Asians don't receive a boost over any others.
What's important to understand when discussing minorities vis-a-vis law school is that only underrepresented minorities are considered when it comes affirmative action. Statistics show that Asians aren't underrepresented in law schools, so that's why they don't receive affirmative actions.
I also wouldn't say that law schools prefer any one race or ethnicity to another. The goal of AA is to have a diverse class made up of those from all different backgrounds
As a side note, be wary of articles from the National Review. They aren't your average conservative publication, and often have contributions from those who are self-proclaimed white supremacists like Jared Taylor, to your run of the mill white nationalists like Richard Spencer. They tend to be a bit biased when it comes to anything to do with race.
^ Disagree with that, certain denominations of Asian groups are more common among applicants because of higher and more affluent populations back home. International Chinese students, in particular, tend to gravitate around and attend well-known schools and many have the resources to do so. When you have AA laws that wants to keep a certain ethnic make-up of the student body, you might see policies that stray in favor of underrepresented subgroups like Filipinos in the article.
I had always assumed that Filipinos were subsumed under the general umbrella of "Asians" such that they would not receive a URM boost even though Filipinos are clearly an underrepresented minority in law (as well as other fields), which, as rightly pointed out above, does not consider the disparities within the extremely broad category of "Asian." Basically, my understanding is that URM is a specific label that only applies to blacks, Native Americans, and Latinos. Is this correct?
The article is interesting. If it is true, then perhaps Cornell also looks at ethnicity, and not just race, when assessing applications?
Is there usually a field where one can specify one's ethnicity in law applications?
Yes, you are correct that African Americans/Black, Native American, and certain Latinos are those that are traditionally considered URM status in law schools.
From what I've read, like @"Alex Divine" said, Underrepresented Minorities only apply to African Americans, Native Americans and Latinos. Asians were under this category in the past but no longer. I also don't think schools 'prefer' a certain race over another they just make an effort to diversify.
Also, even if you are not considered an URM, you can still contribute to the diversity of the incoming class. For example, Stanford's "definition" of diversity includes one's "background, life and work experiences, advanced studies, extracurricular or community activities, culture, socio-economic status, sex, race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or other factors."
Good point; I've heard of so many people who avoid writing diversity statements because they aren't a URM. There are so many other ways to approach diversity.
Ive been curious myself on how AA affects Latinos in general since many Latinos are forced to pick white as the racial category even though many are mixed. The forms also do specify Latino ethnicity within the general Latino umbrella but whether or not the that has an effect is unknown to me. I've hear Cubans get less of a bump than Mexicans but what if you're half and half?
Also, "Skin color has become the most important factor in the college-application process." What a claim!
Yeah, lol! Your LSAT and cumulative GPA are now considered softs. You didn't know?
This does not add a whole lot new. I'm half European and half Asian. My dad is technichally from India, but his ancestry is more Persian. So I've done a little research on this to my own ends.
The good news for someone who is part Asian is that being part Asian does not actively and quantifiably hurt your Law School Application like it did in undergrad. So that article you cited which refers to undergrad is largely irrelevant.
This is probably largely because asians are not as overrepresented in the legal field as college in general. So you don't need to worry about demonstrating that you are not one of the asians that law schools are penalizing relative to whites because it is not happening.
That said the diversity statement always exists as an option and I would use it if ...
Or
Either of these is a sufficient reason to include it, but you are not going to see some huge boost from it as someone who is not fron those nornal urm categories. Hopefully, it it just gives you a slightly better overall application.
As to the morality of how Asian Americans have been treated in undergraduate admissions. I think it is hard to condone based on a race based affirmative action regime. Whites obviously are not facing systematic discrimination in this country so there is no reason for them to have an advantage based on race over Asian Americans.
Now for the political opinion, which is also somewhat relevant since we are future lawyers any one of whom might someday change the face of affirmative action...
What should really be done, in my opinion is to make most affirmative action based on some form of adjusted income. Because in reality poor whites do face serious obstacles to their success, as do poor people of all races.
I think that that a wealthy African American family can pretty much live in an area where they won't find the effects of racism too dramatic and can send their children to the best high schools in the country. (To the extent that rich African American family can't escape the spectre of racism, we still need race based affirmative action.) These kids need affirmative action less than poor white or asian kids from a poor school district without adequate resources.
Now a regime of affirmative action based mostly on income would still disproportionately help the under represented minorities, because minorities are disproportionally at a finanancial disadvantage because of discrimination against them in the past via among many other things slavery, Jim Crow, and Mass Incarceration. But such affirmative action would actually help the people who actually face the brunt of these costs. We could leave a smaller traditional race or ethnicity based affirmative action program to address only the current effects of discrimination rather than the more systemic and historic ones which would be addressed by income or wealth based affirmative action.
SAT/ACT and GPA. They are not talking about law school in that article. But point taken.
"To gain admission to college, Asian-American students had to score 140 points higher than white students, 270 points higher than Hispanic students, and 450 points higher than black students."
That's from the article the OP linked. It might be kind of concerning if true because eventually you just can't get enough points. Additionally, I don't think it makes sense to differentially admit asians that much less than whites on the basis of affirmative action.
Numbers do not lie, however they may not always represent the truth. The fact of the matter is that most of our academic institutions assign merit on a very narrow set of criteria, namely grade point averages or standardized testing. Now granted, by the nature of standardization, these measures are entirely objective, but one critical aspect they fail to recognize is the discrepancy between how people prepare for such exams, a factor that is largely taught by parents or culturally influenced. If for example, the LSAT had no practice tests, did not release previous exams, and provided absolutely no warning or preparation as to what it would cover, and dramatically changed the format year to year as to be unpredictable, chances are an LSAT score would be far more representative of one's innate ability rather than a reflection of ones preparation. With out doubt, we would see far more average scores and far fewer 170+ scores. Image for example two identical students, both from middle income families, both moving through the public school systems, but one with parents that force them to go to SAT prep versus one set of parents who does not. Chances are, the student who went to SAT or even Pre-SAT prep will far outscore the student who did not prepare. Now is it reasonable to say the student who did not insist on their parents enrolling them into SAT prep was irresponsible or some how morally deficit? Can we call them lazy, or un motivated? Two students with identical GPAs can have vastly different opportunities due to a single score that to obtain is largely a result of parental guidance and external resources. Historically, African Americans, Hispanics and Native Americans have not been capable financially, or due to lack of awareness, fail to take the same steps that other demographics such as White and other Asian groups take to prepare their children for standardized exams. With this in mind, many schools compare URM scores to the scores of their respective cohorts and socioeconomic status to get a sense of how well one did with what they had. Ultimately though, this quality is indeed one of the most important factors to being accepted into top schools, being able to maximize and most effectively use your resources. If you come from a wealthy background with a solid family and decide not to sign up for an LSAT or MCAT prep class, and wind up not doing well, did you really use your resources well? Versus an individual who needed to work 2 jobs to buy prep material, stays up late at night studying after work, and manages to score a slightly above average score? Ultimately the interesting part of affirmative action is despite who is "let in" and the scores that are considered acceptable or not, seemingly do not signifiactly put one student at an advantage to another. At any university or graduate school, ones performance at that school usually will determine their GPA's, and class ranks, regardless of what scores initially got them there. Many A+ students fall below average in medical school, and high LSAT games will not make you a better litigator in the court room 3 years later. Strong students and those that utilize their resources well generally flourish where ever they are, while weak students that are ineffective at utilizing resources normally, will not rise to the top of their class. Admissions offices then are tasked with finding students who will be high performers, not necessarily high scorers, and this is a partially a subjective process.
Whether Asians are overrepresented in law schools, Asians are overrepresented in higher education. The goal of AA isn't just to help certain races that are generally tied to a lower SES, but to include them because they are underrepresented in other ways as well. AA doesn't factor in sub-sects of Asian minorities though, which I believe is problematic to certain groups that don't have it favorably education-wise/SES/representation. Southeast Asians are underrepresented in law schools and higher education, but the umbrella for "Asian" currently is very broad. You might want to consider mentioning your ethnicity in the Diversity statement though. My friend specified her ethnicity in the statement and she is a type of Southeast Asian. She did well in admissions (probably was not preferred because of the diversity statement, but didn't hurt?). Even if you don't get a point boost, it's something to consider for admissions as well as a contribution to the stats.
@rmazoPHL i think you have to look at "your" story from multiple angles and perspectives - get a good grasp of who you are and what makes you unique. I known a Caucasian who applied and got accepted to a T5 school. His "diversity" essay spoke of his experiences in rural America working on a pig farm. He told his "story" eloquently and he was transparent. Reach out to the admissions team at 7Sage and they'll be able to guide you further. Does anyone know whether the app team offers a free consultation?
Here's a pretty good article from ATL that talks specifically about Asians and affirmative action: http://abovethelaw.com/2017/08/as-asian-americans-become-more-pivotal-in-the-affirmative-action-debate-both-sides-weigh-in/