Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=279456
Just want this cycle to be over lol. GL on your finalsMr_Chukes wrote:Mase lol I'm feeling good man. Joe have you been? Yeah I'm enjoying it but finals are in a week lol.PrezRand wrote:Anyone here applying for SEO
My boy! How are u feeling after that Mase diss track LOL. Hope USC is funMr_Chukes wrote:Good luck guys! I'm a 1L from.last cycle. You're all going to do amazing!
KENYADIGG1T wrote:I posted this heavy on other threads but I have to do it here. In at Berkeley Law! BAG SECURED
Congrats!!!KENYADIGG1T wrote:I posted this heavy on other threads but I have to do it here. In at Berkeley Law! BAG SECURED
Thanks so much fam!!! Let me know about your successes as well!PhilNoir wrote:KENYADIGG1T wrote:I posted this heavy on other threads but I have to do it here. In at Berkeley Law! BAG SECURED
Big ups man!!!--Glad to read it!--A.c.S
anacabana wrote:For those of you applying to Harvard, do you think URM status will influence the timing of JS1s? For example, might the admissions committee send them out to URMs around the same time?
I 100% would def take him up on it. Most schools I’m applying to encourage a professional LOR. Plus if he offered he mist really like you and it’ll prob be a great letter!saffles wrote:My boss just offered to write me a rec letter and I’ve only been working at this place for six months. I already have four other rec letters and they’re all from undergrad so should I take him up on his offer? I haven’t applied to schools yet, but I imagine I’ll have a problem later on down the road, deciding which letters I want to send to which schools :/ Any advice?
P.S. And good luck to my fellow December test takers! I’m so pumped!
ME TOO! CongratsKENYADIGG1T wrote:I posted this heavy on other threads but I have to do it here. In at Berkeley Law! BAG SECURED
It will only be valuable if it is a meaningful letter. If you think in the 6 months you've been there that you've done enough to get a letter that really shows who you are and how you've made an impact, then go for it.saffles wrote:My boss just offered to write me a rec letter and I’ve only been working at this place for six months. I already have four other rec letters and they’re all from undergrad so should I take him up on his offer? I haven’t applied to schools yet, but I imagine I’ll have a problem later on down the road, deciding which letters I want to send to which schools :/ Any advice?
P.S. And good luck to my fellow December test takers! I’m so pumped!
Congrats to you both. Feel free to reach out for any questions about Berk.8green wrote:ME TOO! CongratsKENYADIGG1T wrote:I posted this heavy on other threads but I have to do it here. In at Berkeley Law! BAG SECURED
mmart207 wrote:Super late, but that poster isn't wrong when they say that AAs get in with lower numbers than MAs and PRs do. Of course, that isn't the case for EVERYONE. But OVERALL, I see that it is true. Nonetheless, a separation of threads is ridiculous. Good luck to everyone this cycle! And if anyone took today's LSAT, what'd you think?
You're literally using stats for the wrong claim.... No one ever said that more AAs are accepted into law school than are those of MA/PR descent. The claim was that more AAs get into higher ranked school with lower numbers than do their MA/PR counterparts.URMSenator52 wrote:mmart207 wrote:Super late, but that poster isn't wrong when they say that AAs get in with lower numbers than MAs and PRs do. Of course, that isn't the case for EVERYONE. But OVERALL, I see that it is true. Nonetheless, a separation of threads is ridiculous. Good luck to everyone this cycle! And if anyone took today's LSAT, what'd you think?
Weak characterization of AA admissions "bumps" vs "Hispanic/Latinx" &PR..Without out any stats or examples. Generally a PR admit, would get more of a "bump" in admissions. Overall then a "Hispanic/Latinx" and and a AA admit. based on the general stat assumption's, of ABA Law School admissions. Overall there were less PR admits in 2016 accepted,to,ABA Law Schools. Then any other URM, other then "Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander" and "American Indian/Alaska Native".. Also according to LSAC MA = "Hispanic/ Latinx".. "Hispanic\Latinx" admits, were also the most represented URM.. Accepted to ABA law school's in 2016, compared to AA and PR admits.. The poster is not fully correct,based on that assumption/stat. While neither are you... According to LSAC in 2016 overall..
Admitted Applicants by Race/Ethnicity & Sex
The current volume summary of admitted applicants by race/ethnicity and sex is available below. Please note:
•These data display Academic Year. Academic year reflects the law school enrollment year. For example, academic year 2016 or 2016–2017 would indicate the academic year beginning in fall 2016 and extending into spring 2017.
• Data starting in 2016 include applicants for all terms and do not include deferrals. Deferrals are defined as “applicants admitted for a prior term who were granted a postponed enrollment to the current term.”
•Archived data for 2015 and prior years (2000–2009 ethnicity data, 2010–2015 race/ethnicity data, and 2000–2015 gender/sex data) include applicants for the fall term only and also include deferrals; therefore, archived data are not comparable to current data.
•Racial/ethnic data incorporate maximum reporting, which means that candidates may select multiple races/ethnicities. All selections are counted in each racial/ethnic group. As a result of this overlap, summing the racial/ethnic category totals will yield a larger number than is represented by the “All” group total.
•These data reflect final end-of-year counts of admitted applicants to ABA-approved law schools.
•“All” admitted applicants are rounded to the nearest hundred. All other volumes are rounded to the nearest ten.
LSAC Volume Summary of Admitted Applicants by Race/Ethnicity and Sex
Admitted Applicant Group
All Terms
2016
All 42,800
Race/Ethnicity
American Indian/Alaska Native 900
Asian 4,380
Black/African American 4,590
Caucasian/White 28,860
Hispanic/Latino 5,000
Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 180
Puerto Rican 1,120
Sex
Female 21,840
Male 20,780
Declined to Respond 190
https://www.lsac.org/lsacresources/data ... sex-admits
Honestly why is this even being still spoken about. Especially since we as URMs already face an uphill battle as it is. We should all be happy for each other regardless of who gets admitted into where with what credentials. I applied to law school back in 2013-2014 cycle before I decided to bypass and get my graduate degrees and we never once were this dismissive of each other’s accomplishments. Or tried to tear each other down to make our acceptances seem any less significant. This conversation is getting quite old and really it’s unwarranted to be honest. This space is supposed to be utilized in order for us to support each other not get into debates who gets accepted and who doesn’t. Last thing I want to mention no one in here is on the admissions committees at these schools so who is to say who is getting into where and with what or who gets a pass and who doesn’t. The focus should be on being a support system. It’s enough division going on in this world already.mmart207 wrote:You're literally using stats for the wrong claim.... No one ever said that more AAs are accepted into law school than are those of MA/PR descent. The claim was that more AAs get into higher ranked school with lower numbers than do their MA/PR counterparts.URMSenator52 wrote:mmart207 wrote:Super late, but that poster isn't wrong when they say that AAs get in with lower numbers than MAs and PRs do. Of course, that isn't the case for EVERYONE. But OVERALL, I see that it is true. Nonetheless, a separation of threads is ridiculous. Good luck to everyone this cycle! And if anyone took today's LSAT, what'd you think?
Weak characterization of AA admissions "bumps" vs "Hispanic/Latinx" &PR..Without out any stats or examples. Generally a PR admit, would get more of a "bump" in admissions. Overall then a "Hispanic/Latinx" and and a AA admit. based on the general stat assumption's, of ABA Law School admissions. Overall there were less PR admits in 2016 accepted,to,ABA Law Schools. Then any other URM, other then "Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander" and "American Indian/Alaska Native".. Also according to LSAC MA = "Hispanic/ Latinx".. "Hispanic\Latinx" admits, were also the most represented URM.. Accepted to ABA law school's in 2016, compared to AA and PR admits.. The poster is not fully correct,based on that assumption/stat. While neither are you... According to LSAC in 2016 overall..
Admitted Applicants by Race/Ethnicity & Sex
The current volume summary of admitted applicants by race/ethnicity and sex is available below. Please note:
•These data display Academic Year. Academic year reflects the law school enrollment year. For example, academic year 2016 or 2016–2017 would indicate the academic year beginning in fall 2016 and extending into spring 2017.
• Data starting in 2016 include applicants for all terms and do not include deferrals. Deferrals are defined as “applicants admitted for a prior term who were granted a postponed enrollment to the current term.”
•Archived data for 2015 and prior years (2000–2009 ethnicity data, 2010–2015 race/ethnicity data, and 2000–2015 gender/sex data) include applicants for the fall term only and also include deferrals; therefore, archived data are not comparable to current data.
•Racial/ethnic data incorporate maximum reporting, which means that candidates may select multiple races/ethnicities. All selections are counted in each racial/ethnic group. As a result of this overlap, summing the racial/ethnic category totals will yield a larger number than is represented by the “All” group total.
•These data reflect final end-of-year counts of admitted applicants to ABA-approved law schools.
•“All” admitted applicants are rounded to the nearest hundred. All other volumes are rounded to the nearest ten.
LSAC Volume Summary of Admitted Applicants by Race/Ethnicity and Sex
Admitted Applicant Group
All Terms
2016
All 42,800
Race/Ethnicity
American Indian/Alaska Native 900
Asian 4,380
Black/African American 4,590
Caucasian/White 28,860
Hispanic/Latino 5,000
Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 180
Puerto Rican 1,120
Sex
Female 21,840
Male 20,780
Declined to Respond 190
https://www.lsac.org/lsacresources/data ... sex-admits
Which is why I said in my original post that a separation of threads is ridiculous. I never advocated for it. All I said was that the portion of his claim was true.Incrementalist wrote:Honestly why is this even being still spoken about. Especially since we as URMs already face an uphill battle as it is. We should all be happy for each other regardless of who gets admitted into where with what credentials. I applied to law school back in 2013-2014 cycle before I decided to bypass and get my graduate degrees and we never once were this dismissive of each other’s accomplishments. Or tried to tear each other down to make our acceptances seem any less significant. This conversation is getting quite old and really it’s unwarranted to be honest. This space is supposed to be utilized in order for us to support each other not get into debates who gets accepted and who doesn’t. Last thing I want to mention no one in here is on the admissions committees at these schools so who is to say who is getting into where and with what or who gets a pass and who doesn’t. The focus should be on being a support system. It’s enough division going on in this world already.mmart207 wrote:You're literally using stats for the wrong claim.... No one ever said that more AAs are accepted into law school than are those of MA/PR descent. The claim was that more AAs get into higher ranked school with lower numbers than do their MA/PR counterparts.URMSenator52 wrote:mmart207 wrote:Super late, but that poster isn't wrong when they say that AAs get in with lower numbers than MAs and PRs do. Of course, that isn't the case for EVERYONE. But OVERALL, I see that it is true. Nonetheless, a separation of threads is ridiculous. Good luck to everyone this cycle! And if anyone took today's LSAT, what'd you think?
Weak characterization of AA admissions "bumps" vs "Hispanic/Latinx" &PR..Without out any stats or examples. Generally a PR admit, would get more of a "bump" in admissions. Overall then a "Hispanic/Latinx" and and a AA admit. based on the general stat assumption's, of ABA Law School admissions. Overall there were less PR admits in 2016 accepted,to,ABA Law Schools. Then any other URM, other then "Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander" and "American Indian/Alaska Native".. Also according to LSAC MA = "Hispanic/ Latinx".. "Hispanic\Latinx" admits, were also the most represented URM.. Accepted to ABA law school's in 2016, compared to AA and PR admits.. The poster is not fully correct,based on that assumption/stat. While neither are you... According to LSAC in 2016 overall..
Admitted Applicants by Race/Ethnicity & Sex
The current volume summary of admitted applicants by race/ethnicity and sex is available below. Please note:
•These data display Academic Year. Academic year reflects the law school enrollment year. For example, academic year 2016 or 2016–2017 would indicate the academic year beginning in fall 2016 and extending into spring 2017.
• Data starting in 2016 include applicants for all terms and do not include deferrals. Deferrals are defined as “applicants admitted for a prior term who were granted a postponed enrollment to the current term.”
•Archived data for 2015 and prior years (2000–2009 ethnicity data, 2010–2015 race/ethnicity data, and 2000–2015 gender/sex data) include applicants for the fall term only and also include deferrals; therefore, archived data are not comparable to current data.
•Racial/ethnic data incorporate maximum reporting, which means that candidates may select multiple races/ethnicities. All selections are counted in each racial/ethnic group. As a result of this overlap, summing the racial/ethnic category totals will yield a larger number than is represented by the “All” group total.
•These data reflect final end-of-year counts of admitted applicants to ABA-approved law schools.
•“All” admitted applicants are rounded to the nearest hundred. All other volumes are rounded to the nearest ten.
LSAC Volume Summary of Admitted Applicants by Race/Ethnicity and Sex
Admitted Applicant Group
All Terms
2016
All 42,800
Race/Ethnicity
American Indian/Alaska Native 900
Asian 4,380
Black/African American 4,590
Caucasian/White 28,860
Hispanic/Latino 5,000
Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 180
Puerto Rican 1,120
Sex
Female 21,840
Male 20,780
Declined to Respond 190
https://www.lsac.org/lsacresources/data ... sex-admits
Incrementalist wrote:Honestly why is this even being still spoken about. Especially since we as URMs already face an uphill battle as it is. We should all be happy for each other regardless of who gets admitted into where with what credentials. I applied to law school back in 2013-2014 cycle before I decided to bypass and get my graduate degrees and we never once were this dismissive of each other’s accomplishments. Or tried to tear each other down to make our acceptances seem any less significant. This conversation is getting quite old and really it’s unwarranted to be honest. This space is supposed to be utilized in order for us to support each other not get into debates who gets accepted and who doesn’t. Last thing I want to mention no one in here is on the admissions committees at these schools so who is to say who is getting into where and with what or who gets a pass and who doesn’t. The focus should be on being a support system. It’s enough division going on in this world already.mmart207 wrote:You're literally using stats for the wrong claim.... No one ever said that more AAs are accepted into law school than are those of MA/PR descent. The claim was that more AAs get into higher ranked school with lower numbers than do their MA/PR counterparts.URMSenator52 wrote:mmart207 wrote:Super late, but that poster isn't wrong when they say that AAs get in with lower numbers than MAs and PRs do. Of course, that isn't the case for EVERYONE. But OVERALL, I see that it is true. Nonetheless, a separation of threads is ridiculous. Good luck to everyone this cycle! And if anyone took today's LSAT, what'd you think?
Weak characterization of AA admissions "bumps" vs "Hispanic/Latinx" &PR..Without out any stats or examples. Generally a PR admit, would get more of a "bump" in admissions. Overall then a "Hispanic/Latinx" and and a AA admit. based on the general stat assumption's, of ABA Law School admissions. Overall there were less PR admits in 2016 accepted,to,ABA Law Schools. Then any other URM, other then "Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander" and "American Indian/Alaska Native".. Also according to LSAC MA = "Hispanic/ Latinx".. "Hispanic\Latinx" admits, were also the most represented URM.. Accepted to ABA law school's in 2016, compared to AA and PR admits.. The poster is not fully correct,based on that assumption/stat. While neither are you... According to LSAC in 2016 overall..
Admitted Applicants by Race/Ethnicity & Sex
The current volume summary of admitted applicants by race/ethnicity and sex is available below. Please note:
•These data display Academic Year. Academic year reflects the law school enrollment year. For example, academic year 2016 or 2016–2017 would indicate the academic year beginning in fall 2016 and extending into spring 2017.
• Data starting in 2016 include applicants for all terms and do not include deferrals. Deferrals are defined as “applicants admitted for a prior term who were granted a postponed enrollment to the current term.”
•Archived data for 2015 and prior years (2000–2009 ethnicity data, 2010–2015 race/ethnicity data, and 2000–2015 gender/sex data) include applicants for the fall term only and also include deferrals; therefore, archived data are not comparable to current data.
•Racial/ethnic data incorporate maximum reporting, which means that candidates may select multiple races/ethnicities. All selections are counted in each racial/ethnic group. As a result of this overlap, summing the racial/ethnic category totals will yield a larger number than is represented by the “All” group total.
•These data reflect final end-of-year counts of admitted applicants to ABA-approved law schools.
•“All” admitted applicants are rounded to the nearest hundred. All other volumes are rounded to the nearest ten.
LSAC Volume Summary of Admitted Applicants by Race/Ethnicity and Sex
Admitted Applicant Group
All Terms
2016
All 42,800
Race/Ethnicity
American Indian/Alaska Native 900
Asian 4,380
Black/African American 4,590
Caucasian/White 28,860
Hispanic/Latino 5,000
Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 180
Puerto Rican 1,120
Sex
Female 21,840
Male 20,780
Declined to Respond 190
https://www.lsac.org/lsacresources/data ... sex-admits
Just to piggyback off of this, maybe separate URM threads is undesirable for some but a separate "cycle results" thread makes all the sense in the world. As an MA URM, I had to go through several pages of past cycle results threads on TLS for only a couple of MA/PR stats. It would've been helpful and more efficient to have those results in one thread.mmart207 wrote:Super late, but that poster isn't wrong when they say that AAs get in with lower numbers than MAs and PRs do. Of course, that isn't the case for EVERYONE. But OVERALL, I see that it is true. Nonetheless, a separation of threads is ridiculous. Good luck to everyone this cycle! And if anyone took today's LSAT, what'd you think?