Page 19 of 37

Re: URM 2017-2018 Cycle Thread

Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2017 10:55 pm
by PrezRand
Mr_Chukes wrote:
PrezRand wrote:Anyone here applying for SEO

Mr_Chukes wrote:Good luck guys! I'm a 1L from.last cycle. You're all going to do amazing!


My boy! How are u feeling after that Mase diss track LOL. Hope USC is fun

Mase lol I'm feeling good man. Joe have you been? Yeah I'm enjoying it but finals are in a week lol.

Just want this cycle to be over lol. GL on your finals

Re: URM 2017-2018 Cycle Thread

Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 12:47 am
by jd21
I'm checking in waaay late. AA male, 3.5 gpa and a 164 LSAT. I applied to most schools early October but I have a couple more schools to apply to. I'm planning to retake the LSAT in February for scholarship negotiations.

So far I'm Accepted at UVA, Michigan, Georgetwon, UMD and Waitlisted at GW and Duke. I thought hearing back would be good but now I just spend my days at work constantly refreshing email, waiting on the next school.

Re: URM 2017-2018 Cycle Thread

Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 1:46 am
by KENYADIGG1T
I posted this heavy on other threads but I have to do it here. In at Berkeley Law! BAG SECURED

Re: URM 2017-2018 Cycle Thread

Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 1:47 am
by jimmyplayer601
Does anyone know how being a URM affects scholarships,

MA here with a 167, 3.84. So I was at work the other day and was thinking with the usual MA boost around 5/6 lsat points I would be at around Columbia’s 75th lsat and over 75th gpa (with no boost) , which would I hope get me some money. Just unsure if that point boost just goes to admission and not scholarship consideration? Was wondering if you guys have any idea on how it works

Re: URM 2017-2018 Cycle Thread

Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 4:56 am
by PhilNoir
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

Re: URM 2017-2018 Cycle Thread

Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 12:12 pm
by chewinggum
KENYADIGG1T wrote:I posted this heavy on other threads but I have to do it here. In at Berkeley Law! BAG SECURED

Congrats!!!

Re: URM 2017-2018 Cycle Thread

Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 12:12 pm
by Incrementalist
Image
Image
Congratulations to everyone that has been accepted that’s a big deal!!!

Re: URM 2017-2018 Cycle Thread

Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 4:00 pm
by KENYADIGG1T
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


Thanks so much fam!!! Let me know about your successes as well!

Re: URM 2017-2018 Cycle Thread

Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 8:26 pm
by anacabana
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?

Re: URM 2017-2018 Cycle Thread

Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 8:37 pm
by jimmyplayer601
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?



Someone told me that this is usually true and happens in Jan/Feb, not time to freak out yet

Re: URM 2017-2018 Cycle Thread

Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 9:22 pm
by holymolyoly
Another late introduction lol. AA URM. I used to always wonder why people submitted apps so late, but here I am almost in December scrambling to get my life together. Submitted to Chicago on 11/18, Harvard and Columbia on 11/25, and Duke and UVA on 11/27. Still obsessing over my Yale 250 and those weird Stanford optional prompts, but I hope to submit by this weekend. As of now, I'm only planning on applying to those 7. I'm just hoping my apps weren't late enough to cause too many problems, but we'll see lol.

Re: URM 2017-2018 Cycle Thread

Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2017 8:09 am
by saffles
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!

Re: URM 2017-2018 Cycle Thread

Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2017 2:02 pm
by chewinggum
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!

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!

Good luck to you too!!!

Re: URM 2017-2018 Cycle Thread

Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2017 3:06 pm
by 8green
KENYADIGG1T wrote:I posted this heavy on other threads but I have to do it here. In at Berkeley Law! BAG SECURED


ME TOO! Congrats :)

Re: URM 2017-2018 Cycle Thread

Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2017 4:03 pm
by dietcoke1
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!


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.

If it is a letter that says generically you are a great person and you do good work then that will have little influence.

Re: URM 2017-2018 Cycle Thread

Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2017 4:04 pm
by dietcoke1
8green wrote:
KENYADIGG1T wrote:I posted this heavy on other threads but I have to do it here. In at Berkeley Law! BAG SECURED


ME TOO! Congrats :)


Congrats to you both. Feel free to reach out for any questions about Berk.

Re: URM 2017-2018 Cycle Thread

Posted: Sat Dec 02, 2017 9:52 pm
by mmart207
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?

Re: URM 2017-2018 Cycle Thread

Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2017 8:25 am
by URMSenator52
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

Re: URM 2017-2018 Cycle Thread

Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:49 pm
by mmart207
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

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.

Re: URM 2017-2018 Cycle Thread

Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2017 5:38 pm
by Incrementalist
mmart207 wrote:
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

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.


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.

Re: URM 2017-2018 Cycle Thread

Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2017 5:41 pm
by mmart207
Incrementalist wrote:
mmart207 wrote:
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

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.


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.

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.

Re: URM 2017-2018 Cycle Thread

Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 2:58 pm
by URMSenator52
Incrementalist wrote:
mmart207 wrote:
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

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.


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.



Agreed but there is currently not any real/ authentic, not pseudo "hard stats". Overall for AA admits getting into higher law schools,with lower numbers. Overall then PR and Latinx URM counterparts.. So the above stats I posted, were the closest "hard stats" census. Overall for all ABA Law School admits in 2016,according to the ABA, and LSAC... You can also look at official ABA 509's of individual schools of the t-14. And you can see a trend, in the phenomenon from the actual"hard stats"..

Re: URM 2017-2018 Cycle Thread

Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 3:03 pm
by jimmyplayer601
MS9 made a post with the numbers of current number of applicants and their lsat scores. Do you guys think this will make the cycle for URM’s across the board? I know his data doesn’t give lsat numbers for URM’s which makes it ambiguous but just asking for some thoughts

Re: URM 2017-2018 Cycle Thread

Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 3:14 pm
by BL2017
For SEO, are we supposed to get a confirmation email?

Re: URM 2017-2018 Cycle Thread

Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 3:52 pm
by BL2017
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?


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.

Similarly, when I check LSN I click on "exclude AA" to get an accurate picture of my numbers. I don't think that's divisive at all. That's just the reality of it as uncomfortable as it might be for some. The fact the MA/PRs get different bumps than other URMs isn't common wisdom yet for a lot of folks.

A lot of MA/PRs new to TLS make "what are my chances" threads with something like a 160/3.4 combo thinking they are gonna get into the T14 when that just isn't likely at all.

I get that we want to uplift and support each other and that's great. But TLS is also a place where we all come for objective information to help us with this process. More detailed information is always helpful.