Checking box enough for URM boost or need matching PS? Forum

[Knock]

So is simply checking the URM box enough for the URM boost or am I going to have to devote my PS to my URM status? I had another topic in mind for my PS which I'd prefer to write about.

Thanks.

[ilovethelsat]

It depends.

If you're black, then there's absolutely no need to do so; you'll receive a 10 point LSAT boost no matter what. If you're Asian, Hispanic, or Native Americans, then you should probably write a diversity statement because law schools are less interested in recruiting non-black URMs.

[scarletbegonias]

It depends.

If you're black, then there's absolutely no need to do so; you'll receive a 10 point LSAT boost no matter what. If you're Asian, Hispanic, or Native Americans, then you should probably write a diversity statement because law schools are less interested in recruiting non-black URMs.

Not interested in recruiting Native Americans? Really? I'm not an expert on this or anything but I doubt that's true...

[EdmundBurke23]

It depends.

If you're black, then there's absolutely no need to do so; you'll receive a 10 point LSAT boost no matter what. If you're Asian, Hispanic, or Native Americans, then you should probably write a diversity statement because law schools are less interested in recruiting non-black URMs.

Asians aren't URMs, are they????

[hiromoto45]

Write a separate DS.

[TTTennis]

It depends.

If you're black, then there's absolutely no need to do so; you'll receive a 10 point LSAT boost no matter what. If you're Asian, Hispanic, or Native Americans, then you should probably write a diversity statement because law schools are less interested in recruiting non-black URMs.

HUH? How many Native American lawyers do you personally know? The whole point of giving URMs an admission advantage is so that there will be an increase in the representation of the said URMs in the legal field. Why in the world would that not apply to Native Americans who are much less represented in the legal profession?

[bluepepsi]

Asians aren't really considered URMs... but with the way my admissions cycle is going so far, it feels like it.

[Cupidity]

Ok, intitial response to this was weak, and you have all been following suit on it, so let me re-answer OP's question.

Black/Mexican/Native American No, automatic massive URM Boost.

if you are:

Hispanic (not Mexican), Asian, Middle Eastern, GLBT, International, or anything else not listed above, you should in order to maximize the benefits of the diversity you have as a soft factor

*It may be worth noting, the Native American thing can be iffy because many people claim ancerstry based on low percentages, so if you are an official member with a registered tribe, it might be worth submitting documentation as an adendum, but a DS is not needed.

[ilovethelsat]

It depends.

If you're black, then there's absolutely no need to do so; you'll receive a 10 point LSAT boost no matter what. If you're Asian, Hispanic, or Native Americans, then you should probably write a diversity statement because law schools are less interested in recruiting non-black URMs.

HUH? How many Native American lawyers do you personally know? The whole point of giving URMs an admission advantage is so that there will be an increase in the representation of the said URMs in the legal field. Why in the world would that not apply to Native Americans who are much less represented in the legal profession?

Law schools simply care more about recruiting black applicants. Look at the LSAC data if you don't believe me: http://officialguide.lsac.org/

Hispanics are less well represented in law schools than blacks but receive much smaller URM boosts. The same applies to Native Americans. I've written to several law school admissions deans regarding this issue, but none has responded.

[Nom Sawyer]

Wow... let's just say everybody is wrong above this post in some fashion...(please don't listen to whats above)

Here are the URM rules :

1) URMs that receive a boost: African American, Native American, and Hispanic (PR + MX mainly, this one is debated for others)

2) EVERYONE who is trying to claim URM status should write a Diversity Statement... sure the schools might still give you the boost without one, but diversity isn't just checking a box. Write a good statement and make sure.

3) Strength of boosts: This one is not the same for all schools (i.e. Southern schools have more hispanics, less of a boost for them there). But the generally accepted facts are that the benefit, from highest to lowest:

Native Americans (you should try to prove registry with a tribe if you can)
AA Males
AA Females
Hispanics

4) If you're Asian, and one of the main ethnicities.. your not getting a boost, and it really isn't necessary to write a diversity statement unless you have other extraneous factors. If your like polynesian or tribal, then you can try.. but effects are probably still minimal.

[Knock]

I'm Mexican-American.

It depends.

If you're black, then there's absolutely no need to do so; you'll receive a 10 point LSAT boost no matter what. If you're Asian, Hispanic, or Native Americans, then you should probably write a diversity statement because law schools are less interested in recruiting non-black URMs.

[bees]

I'm Mexican-American.

It depends.

If you're black, then there's absolutely no need to do so; you'll receive a 10 point LSAT boost no matter what. If you're Asian, Hispanic, or Native Americans, then you should probably write a diversity statement because law schools are less interested in recruiting non-black URMs.

Knockglock read the other responses. You chose the post with the worst advice, some of which is just plain wrong.

[TTTennis]

I'm Mexican-American.

It depends.

If you're black, then there's absolutely no need to do so; you'll receive a 10 point LSAT boost no matter what. If you're Asian, Hispanic, or Native Americans, then you should probably write a diversity statement because law schools are less interested in recruiting non-black URMs.

Knockglock read the other responses. You chose the post with the worst advice, some of which is just plain wrong.

I don't think I'm that far off haha

[Nom Sawyer]

I'm Mexican-American.

You will receive a boost then during admissions, but the amount will vary. For example University of Texas doesn't give much of a boost as there are a lot more Hispanic applicants there than ,say, Cornell. Still make sure you write a diversity statement.

[bees]

I'm Mexican-American.

It depends.

If you're black, then there's absolutely no need to do so; you'll receive a 10 point LSAT boost no matter what. If you're Asian, Hispanic, or Native Americans, then you should probably write a diversity statement because law schools are less interested in recruiting non-black URMs.

Knockglock read the other responses. You chose the post with the worst advice, some of which is just plain wrong.

I don't think I'm that far off haha

OP didn't quote you. He quoted ilovethelsat, who gave poor advice.

[devilishangelrjp]

So what exactly IS the boost? Is there a number attached to it, like ilovethelsat suggests? Or is it just a simple overlooking of the numbers to other parts of the application, and is that why people advise writing a diversity statement?

[bees]

So what exactly IS the boost? Is there a number attached to it, like ilovethelsat suggests? Or is it just a simple overlooking of the numbers to other parts of the application, and is that why people advise writing a diversity statement?

It's not an exact number. Spend some time on LSN checking out the graphs for various schools and you can get an idea of the type of boost URMs get.

[ilovethelsat]

Wow... let's just say everybody is wrong above this post in some fashion...(please don't listen to whats above)

Here are the URM rules :

1) URMs that receive a boost: African American, Native American, and Hispanic (PR + MX mainly, this one is debated for others)

2) EVERYONE who is trying to claim URM status should write a Diversity Statement... sure the schools might still give you the boost without one, but diversity isn't just checking a box. Write a good statement and make sure.

3) Strength of boosts: This one is not the same for all schools (i.e. Southern schools have more hispanics, less of a boost for them there). But the generally accepted facts are that the benefit, from highest to lowest:

Native Americans (if you prove registry with a tribe)
AA Males
AA Females
Hispanics

4) If you're Asian, and one of the main ethnicities.. your not getting a boost, and it really isn't necessary to write a diversity statement unless you have other extraneous factors. If your like polynesian or tribal, then you can try.. but effects are probably still minimal.

Blacks receive much larger boosts than Native Americans, and at the top law schools, black men receive smaller boosts than black women.

Anyway, here's a guide primer on the different URM boosts in law school admissions. It's from Supreme Court Justice Rehnquist's dissent in Grutter v. Bollinger.

"From 1995 through 2000, the Law School admitted between 1,130 and 1,310 students. Of those, between 13 and 19 were Native American, between 91 and 108 were African-Americans, and between 47 and 56 were Hispanic. If the Law School is admitting between 91 and 108 African-Americans in order to achieve “critical mass,” thereby preventing African-American students from feeling “isolated or like spokespersons for their race,” one would think that a number of the same order of magnitude would be necessary to accomplish the same purpose for Hispanics and Native Americans. Similarly, even if all of the Native American applicants admitted in a given year matriculate, which the record demonstrates is not at all the case, how can this possibly constitute a “critical mass” of Native Americans in a class of over 350 students? In order for this pattern of admission to be consistent with the Law School’s explanation of “critical mass,” one would have to believe that the objectives of “critical mass” offered by respondents are achieved with only half the number of Hispanics and one-sixth the number of Native Americans as compared to African-Americans. But respondents offer no race-specific reasons for such disparities. Instead, they simply emphasize the importance of achieving “critical mass,” without any explanation of why that concept is applied differently among the three underrepresented minority groups.

These different numbers, moreover, come only as a result of substantially different treatment among the three underrepresented minority groups, as is apparent in an example offered by the Law School and highlighted by the Court: The school asserts that it “frequently accepts nonminority applicants with grades and test scores lower than underrepresented minority applicants (and other nonminority applicants) who are rejected.” Ante, at 26 (citing Brief for Respondents Bollinger et al. 10). Specifically, the Law School states that “ixty-nine minority applicants were rejected between 1995 and 2000 with at least a 3.5 [Grade Point Average (GPA)] and a [score of] 159 or higher on the [Law School Admissions Test (LSAT)]” while a number of Caucasian and Asian-American applicants with similar or lower scores were admitted. Brief for Respondents Bollinger et al. 10.

Review of the record reveals only 67 such individuals. Of these 67 individuals, 56 were Hispanic, while only 6 were African-American, and only 5 were Native American. This discrepancy reflects a consistent practice. For example, in 2000, 12 Hispanics who scored between a 159—160 on the LSAT and earned a GPA of 3.00 or higher applied for admission and only 2 were admitted. App. 200—201. Meanwhile, 12 African-Americans in the same range of qualifications applied for admission and all 12 were admitted. Id., at 198. Likewise, that same year, 16 Hispanics who scored between a 151—153 on the LSAT and earned a 3.00 or higher applied for admission and only 1 of those applicants was admitted. Id., at 200—201. Twenty-three similarly qualified African-Americans applied for admission and 14 were admitted. Id., at 198.

These statistics have a significant bearing on petitioner’s case. Respondents have never offered any race-specific arguments explaining why significantly more individuals from one underrepresented minority group are needed in order to achieve “critical mass” or further student body diversity. They certainly have not explained why Hispanics, who they have said are among “the groups most isolated by racial barriers in our country,” should have their admission capped out in this manner."

[Anastasia Dee Dualla]

It depends.

If you're black, then there's absolutely no need to do so; you'll receive a 10 point LSAT boost no matter what. If you're Asian, Hispanic, or Native Americans, then you should probably write a diversity statement because law schools are less interested in recruiting non-black URMs.

This person is being a tool; ignore.

[Mosca]

I am half Mexican-American and half white and I checked both boxes when given a chance, but I did not write a diversity statement about my race as I was never involved with the Mexican-American side of my heritage and would not be able to add any diversity based on my experiences. I did write a socio-economic diversity statement, but I don't think those matter quite as much. My cycle has turned out exactly as my numbers would predict for a white applicant with my softs. You should definitely write a diversity statement if you feel your experiences as a Mexican-American will add to the diversity of your class.

[Nom Sawyer]

I am half Mexican-American and half white and I checked both boxes when given a chance, but I did not write a diversity statement about my race as I was never involved with the Mexican-American side of my heritage and would not be able to add any diversity based on my experiences. I did write a socio-economic diversity statement, but I don't think those matter quite as much. My cycle has turned out exactly as my numbers would predict for a white applicant with my softs. You should definitely write a diversity statement if you feel your experiences as a Mexican-American will add to the diversity of your class.

Yep thats basically it.. so ignore everything that ilovethelsat is saying..

[vanwinkle]

Write a separate DS.

This.

[Joga Bonito]

Wow... let's just say everybody is wrong above this post in some fashion...(please don't listen to whats above)

Here are the URM rules :

1) URMs that receive a boost: African American, Native American, and Hispanic (PR + MX mainly, this one is debated for others)

2) EVERYONE who is trying to claim URM status should write a Diversity Statement... sure the schools might still give you the boost without one, but diversity isn't just checking a box. Write a good statement and make sure.

3) Strength of boosts: This one is not the same for all schools (i.e. Southern schools have more hispanics, less of a boost for them there). But the generally accepted facts are that the benefit, from highest to lowest:

Native Americans (if you prove registry with a tribe)
AA Males
AA Females
Hispanics

4) If you're Asian, and one of the main ethnicities.. your not getting a boost, and it really isn't necessary to write a diversity statement unless you have other extraneous factors. If your like polynesian or tribal, then you can try.. but effects are probably still minimal.

Blacks receive much larger boosts than Native Americans, and at the top law schools, black men receive smaller boosts than black women.

Anyway, here's a guide primer on the different URM boosts in law school admissions. It's from Supreme Court Justice Rehnquist's dissent in Grutter v. Bollinger.

"From 1995 through 2000, the Law School admitted between 1,130 and 1,310 students. Of those, between 13 and 19 were Native American, between 91 and 108 were African-Americans, and between 47 and 56 were Hispanic. If the Law School is admitting between 91 and 108 African-Americans in order to achieve “critical mass,” thereby preventing African-American students from feeling “isolated or like spokespersons for their race,” one would think that a number of the same order of magnitude would be necessary to accomplish the same purpose for Hispanics and Native Americans. Similarly, even if all of the Native American applicants admitted in a given year matriculate, which the record demonstrates is not at all the case, how can this possibly constitute a “critical mass” of Native Americans in a class of over 350 students? In order for this pattern of admission to be consistent with the Law School’s explanation of “critical mass,” one would have to believe that the objectives of “critical mass” offered by respondents are achieved with only half the number of Hispanics and one-sixth the number of Native Americans as compared to African-Americans. But respondents offer no race-specific reasons for such disparities. Instead, they simply emphasize the importance of achieving “critical mass,” without any explanation of why that concept is applied differently among the three underrepresented minority groups.

These different numbers, moreover, come only as a result of substantially different treatment among the three underrepresented minority groups, as is apparent in an example offered by the Law School and highlighted by the Court: The school asserts that it “frequently accepts nonminority applicants with grades and test scores lower than underrepresented minority applicants (and other nonminority applicants) who are rejected.” Ante, at 26 (citing Brief for Respondents Bollinger et al. 10). Specifically, the Law School states that “ixty-nine minority applicants were rejected between 1995 and 2000 with at least a 3.5 [Grade Point Average (GPA)] and a [score of] 159 or higher on the [Law School Admissions Test (LSAT)]” while a number of Caucasian and Asian-American applicants with similar or lower scores were admitted. Brief for Respondents Bollinger et al. 10.

Review of the record reveals only 67 such individuals. Of these 67 individuals, 56 were Hispanic, while only 6 were African-American, and only 5 were Native American. This discrepancy reflects a consistent practice. For example, in 2000, 12 Hispanics who scored between a 159—160 on the LSAT and earned a GPA of 3.00 or higher applied for admission and only 2 were admitted. App. 200—201. Meanwhile, 12 African-Americans in the same range of qualifications applied for admission and all 12 were admitted. Id., at 198. Likewise, that same year, 16 Hispanics who scored between a 151—153 on the LSAT and earned a 3.00 or higher applied for admission and only 1 of those applicants was admitted. Id., at 200—201. Twenty-three similarly qualified African-Americans applied for admission and 14 were admitted. Id., at 198.

These statistics have a significant bearing on petitioner’s case. Respondents have never offered any race-specific arguments explaining why significantly more individuals from one underrepresented minority group are needed in order to achieve “critical mass” or further student body diversity. They certainly have not explained why Hispanics, who they have said are among “the groups most isolated by racial barriers in our country,” should have their admission capped out in this manner."

I think somebody has a chip on their shoulder.

[s0ph1e2007]

It's because of people like poster with long list above me, that people CONTINUALLY post questions about NA box checking.

1. You do NOT have to have documentation. Obviously if you have it, send in a copy, but this is not always possible and for good reason (which anyone who actually needs to know about the NA box-checking process would understand)

Apart from that, you know when you should and should not check the box. I just wanted to clarify that if you are, for example, 50% but are not enrolled, you are still allowed to check NA box.

2. I do agree though that everyone should write a DS if at all possible. It really helps you so why not take the little extra time to do it?


p.s. poster above me, if you post again, make sure your rules are edited so you don't mislead people.

[vanwinkle]

It depends.

If you're black, then there's absolutely no need to do so; you'll receive a 10 point LSAT boost no matter what. If you're Asian, Hispanic, or Native Americans, then you should probably write a diversity statement because law schools are less interested in recruiting non-black URMs.

It's true that schools are willing to reach farther for black applicants than other minorities, but this is because they must do so in order to increase black enrollment (blacks have statistically a 140-141 average LSAT score, much lower than the 151 or so average by whites). This does not mean they are given different treatment in terms of what is expected in their application; it only means they may be given a larger boost regarding LSAT score if their application is otherwise fully complete and supportive of admission.

The above poster is an idiot.