Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 33.4K All Categories
- 28K LSAT
- 17K General
- 5.2K Logical Reasoning
- 1.4K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 70 Podcasts
- 193 Webinars
- 12 Scholarships
- 194 Test Center Reviews
- 2.1K Study Groups
- 111 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.5K Specific LSAT Dates
- 25 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
- 37 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
- 636 Technical Problems
- 285 Off-topic
Related Discussions
URM Admissions
tcookPHL
Alum Member
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
Comments
URMS absolutely get a "boost" at most schools. This can be a touchy subject so I won't speak on anything other than the fact here.
Different types of URMS get a boost. AA getting the largest "boost" So I will discuss the following in terms of AA URM "boosts"
3.6/160 seems to be the magic number to get URMS into the T14
3.75/168 seems to be the magic number for Harvard (though 3.8/165s are common as well, at least all things being considered)
You can go around and play with unsolicited.info to see some past applicants and their scores. Be sure to look at their work experience, UG institution and softs. They certainly seem to take in and view URMS as more complete applicants than others. That it is say, in many ways they tend to see URMS as more than numbers. After all, the have a de facto quota to fill and so other things tend to be more important, especially when the average AA URM scores about one SD lower than their white counterparts. So while the average non URM average LSAT score is a 152 or so, the average AA is like a 148. These are estimations based on cloudy memories, so do not quote.
A little unsolicited advice: Don't even let the boost give you confidence. It's a trap.... Pretend it doesn't exist.Still keep aiming for a 180 like you would if you were anyone else. All too often I have seen the subconscious effects of this boost on URMS.
Thanks! I definitely am not depending on it.. but it's awesome to know!
Hey! As a URM it has been so tricky to get a somewhat accurate sense of what my cycle could look like. A friend of mine, URM (Latina) graduated Yale with a 162 (or maybe a 163 can't quite remember). She had a 3.9+ GPA from an Ivy league and six years of exceptional work experience. I also personally know a AA URM who just graduated from NYU with a 158 LSAT score and a 3.8 GPA from a HBC. I give these examples because we can look through LSN and wonder if these profiles are real. I'm sure many are not, but many very well may be. Who knows. But I can say anecdotally there are definitely URM splitters who have a chance and are admitted into the top law schools with money.
I know there's a lot of debate around URM applications/acceptances. I think the take way is that we should not limit ourselves. Don't limit which schools you apply to. You never know what can happen. I firmly believe that schools are looking for a diverse class - specifically not just for the stats but to add varying perspectives and life experiences.
So don't limit yourself in terms of which schools you apply to and as you mentioned, @tcookPHL , continue to diligently study for the LSAT and don't let it limit your LSAT score = )
Yea, I would agree to everything above but at the end of the day like Alex says just focus on how far you can go on the LSAT. My evidence is very anecdotal but I have a friend (who is a URM) who graduated from Berkeley with a 3.8 when she calculated it through LSAC. She scored around a 150 (this june) and had taken it previously. She had a pretty hard background but also had a lot of great softs in my opinion. She was homeless as a child (great story behind that) and she has been apart of a lot of prestigious Law Fellowships. Still, with all of the story and countless programs and gpa she only got into Georgetown with barely any money (her goal was the t-14).
So as Alex says it can be a mind- trap if you let it and at the end of the day focus on how to answer the questions on the LSAT. That's your ticket in.
Well said!
Absolutely! Many professionals recommend that URMS especially try to make their applications more complete or tell a story. So connect your DS/PS and resume if you can. For me, I'm doubting writing a DS because my PS seems to cover it well enough. But my resume work experience matches up with what I talk about in my PS. I didn't just "tell" I showed them what I am capable of and that hopefully will help!
Also, just to reiterate. Don't limit yourself, but also don't ever apply anywhere you don't think you can get into because your below the 25th as a URM. Many and I repeat many AA URMS get into H and CNN each year with 160-165s. 158 and a decent GPA seems to be getting many into lower T14s as well. So don't let the boost make you complacent, but also don't think you can't get in if your LSAT is too low. And, of course, retake. A good friend of mine, not some person I just know in passing got into H after retaking a 159. She got a 161 and was accepted in off the WL. This was in 2015 but, still, that is amazing.
@"Alex Divine" wow, that is amazing! As previously stated, I am not banking on it whatsoever but it's very interesting to hear first hand accounts rather than just seeing a number!
Amazing is right! I tend to believe most of the #s on MYLSN for URMS. Anyway, I also know a few great applicants with high GPAs but lower LSATS (sub 165s) who got $$ at CCN and in at other places. A 155 recently got into Columbia I believe. It's super important to to do your best, but also have a narrative; a reason you want to be a lawyer. They say don't just write the admissions officers what they want to hear, I say "fuck that" and do pretty much just that. If they're reading your PS and looking at your app, they want to admit you. I'm not saying go overboard, but, yeah, tell them what they generally want to hear: Why you'll be a good applicant and a good attorney and student.
@"Alex Divine" Columbia is my goal school! I would love to attend there. I started working on my PS this week but mainly focusing on the LSAT for now. My GPA is a 3.7, 4 years of work experience in Philly politics during undergrad, two years post grad working in politics. I now work for a global litigation consulting firm. I know I'll have really good RC's I just need to get my LSAT where I want to be and hopefully I'll be a catch for schools!! Fingers crossed!
Sounds like you're in a very envious position to be in vis-a-vis law school admissions. Kill that LSAT and Columbia w/ $$$ could be yours!!
I'll be right here rooting for ya!
This might be a dumb question but what does "AA" stand for in "AA URM"?
African American and Under Represented Minority. I'm AA/PR, African American and Puerto Rican.
Ahh okay, thanks for the clarification!
I started looking around and found this article that came out pretty recently. It has some numbers/% I hadn't seen aggregated that's pretty interesting:
http://blog.powerscore.com/lsat/do-underrepresented-minority-urm-applicants-have-a-law-school-admissions-advantage
African American Under represented minority.
This is great because it breaks down the numbers and compares the different boost at different schools. So one can more or less assume an AA URM with say a 3.84/167 will have a great sot at H. It's nice to see the numbers aggregated for sure.
Thank you for posting!
This may be a stupid question but do you have to talk about being a URM somewhere in your application to get a URM boost or to feel like you are giving yourself the best options to throw the URM boost in your favor?
@RafaelBernard I don't think so...but maybe @"Alex Divine" can help with this question. If you register on LSAC you can self identify as a URM
I am no expert, but I do know that when you apply, they ask for your race/ethnicity on the application. I have definitely heard that one should check the box especially if you are a URM. As for PS/DS, if the story you want to tell was impacted to a degree by your racial status, then I don't see why not add it, but you don't have to force it in. Just make sure you check the box that matches your racial/ethnic status . However, again I am not an expert.
Thanks. Do you mean in the ethnicity section?
Yep! @RafaelBernard
No, but it won't hurt if it's not forced. For example, in my PS, I talk about being my neighborhood and mention that I was like most, a minority.
Your LSAC account asks you how you identify, for the record.
Correct. On the LSAC site when you sign up, or even afterwards, I believe you can edit your ethnicity/race. That's at least how I did it and I just checked, and yup, still how it's done.
URMs represent!!!
Haha! Oh yeah! Let me get that +7 boost for Columbia and that + for H ....
Still aiming for a 174 but I might not retake below a 168. From a game theory perspective, being that HYS do not offer merit based aid, there's really not much a point.
Likewise, brotha. The boost is nice, but I'm still aiming for the 170s. I'll see you at H after we conquer the beast
Just spent the past 2.5 hours going through the past 4 cycles on the URM forum on TLS.
1/2 motivated and 1/2 anxious
.
I'm not sure how you've extrapolated or surmised that about the "URM boost" but that's not what it is at all.
It's for law schools to create an environment of diversity made up of students from varied backgrounds. There is also evidence that the LSAT may somewhat disadvantage certain racial and ethnic minorities. Not because they are inherently dumber, but because they may be at a disadvantage. The URM boost helps to take this into consideration.
@Freddy_D ah me too. I probably look at mylsn every other day. It definitely gives me motivation to study.
@blljhnsn35 I'm not sure if you're new to 7sage, but as someone who regularly follows the forum discussions I can say that an added benefit to the incredible curriciculum is 7sage's sense of community. I think one crucial aspect of this strong community is that people can disagree and most importantly when they do they do so respectfully.
URM admissions can be a controversial issue for some, regardless admissiins for URMs seems less predictable and so it's comforting to know that I can come to 7sage and have an open discussion about it. Please make sure to continue the 7sage spirit of supportiveness when commenting.
Hey @"Alex Divine".
Disclaimer:i am not at all against the concept of the URM boost, i am just curious and grossly uninformed, i also dont mean to insult anyone.
Could you expound on what you mean by the LSAT being somewhat disadvantageous to certain ethnic groups?
Orrrr, it's law schools acknowledging that some minorities are placed at a systemic disadvantage in the education system, where as other minorities are not lol.
what
prep materials can be very costly, and lots of URM applicants may not have the money or resources. someone made a thread about them being economically disadvantaged and having to take a loan just to get a 7sage package a few weeks ago.
I think that is what he meant by that.
Thanks @TheMikey, yeah i hear plenty of controversy and uninformed opinions on the matter, just want to clarify.
could be that @blljhnsn35 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.
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
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.
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!
hasty generalization.
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
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.
Anyone have any stories for URM with amazing LSATs and Low gpas i.e. splitters?
@AJordanMD Well said!
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
@TheMikey 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.