Am I a URM???/Is___ race/circumstance considered URM?? Forum

[va1983]

Why do people always say "African-American"? A lot of black people don't identify with African culture, and many aren't even of African genetic origin.
Can't you just say BLACK? WTF?

TITCR. I prefer Black American.

[cfishy305]

the reason why african americans are referred to as such is because people who are black originated in africa. caucasians in europe, because the term originated from the caucasus mountains in between europe and russia.

it's not if you can directly trace your roots to africa rather if you went back enough in your family tree you would reach an ancestor somewhere who was indeed african.

[va1983]

the reason why african americans are referred to as such is because people who are black originated in africa. caucasians in europe, because the term originated from the caucasus mountains in between europe and russia.

it's not if you can directly trace your roots to africa rather if you went back enough in your family tree you would reach an ancestor somewhere who was indeed african.

I actually believe everyone can trace their roots back to Africa, but that's another story for another time. I think it's interesting that the U.S. is the only country where this distinction is made. Most people that I know from the Caribbean who are of African descent refer to themselves only on the basis of nationality.

I do not like to refer to myself as an African-American because of the discord that I have seen between Black people who were actually born in Africa and Black people who were born in America with no established/real ties to Africa and the variance in our respective experiences.

I think the term is used because it is considered to be "PC" but it is not reflective of how most of the Black Americans that I have encountered view themselves.

[kn6542]

I like frogs.

[takingmytime]

Also, people from Egypt (who are technically from africa) are not African-Americans while a person from Somalia (technically an arab country) is considered african-american.

[kn6542]

I do not like to refer to myself as an African-American because of the discord that I have seen between Black people who were actually born in Africa and Black people who were born in America with no established/real ties to Africa and the variance in our respective experiences.

Precisely. In my limited experience, most black people who don't have familial ties to an African country prefer to not be called African-American. It is a little odd, imo. I don't want to be called a European American, even though I have European ancestors. 'White' is just fine. I also respond to "Albino".

[playhero]

They are considered Hispanic/Latino and don't qualify for URM status.

Something does not commpute here.

the reason why african americans are referred to as such is because people who are black originated in africa. caucasians in europe, because the term originated from the caucasus mountains in between europe and russia.

White people come from africa as well.

[KP429]

Silver seems to think that because they are not as severely underrepresented in law schools that Hispanic/Latinos are not URMs. I know what the Grutter case has said, but I think it's silly to think that being Hispanic/Latino is going to give someone a noticeably lesser advantage as opposed to a Mexican-American, let's say. The number of self-identified Hispanic/Latinos who have applied and matriculated to law schools is significantly less than their equivalent percentage within the greater U.S. population. Although the total numbers of Hispanic/Latino applicants/matriculants is rising, this is to be expected since you have a variety of people from many different countries claiming this status and immigrating to the U.S. at a faster rate than Puerto Ricans or Mexican-Americans alone.

Yes, Puerto Ricans have the lowest LSAT scores on average, followed by African Americans. But Mexican-Americans, Native Americans, and Hispanics in general are almost dead even and yet still statistically significantly lower than the average scores of Caucasians, Asian Americans, "Others," and "No Responses".

The bottom line: I think it's difficult to say with certainty that Mexican Americans or Puerto Ricans get a decidedly better advantage when applying to LS over other other Hispanics.

[M20009]

I do not like to refer to myself as an African-American because of the discord that I have seen between Black people who were actually born in Africa and Black people who were born in America with no established/real ties to Africa and the variance in our respective experiences.

Precisely. In my limited experience, most black people who don't have familial ties to an African country prefer to not be called African-American. It is a little odd, imo. I don't want to be called a European American, even though I have European ancestors. 'White' is just fine. I also respond to "Albino".

Don't forget that many Africans do not wish to have 'American' attached to 'African'. The U.S. and George W. Bush are popular in sub-Saharan Africa, but, well, forget it.

[Harvey Dent]

When can we expect to colonize the red planet?

I'm looking forward to Martian-American.

[markakis]

Why do people always say "African-American"? A lot of black people don't identify with African culture, and many aren't even of African genetic origin.
Can't you just say BLACK? WTF?

TITCR. I prefer Black American.

The fact that they don't identify with African culture does not imply that they are not African. I don't care what you prefer to be called, the fact remains that you African regardless of your lack of association with your heritage. Black American? why? because your skin is black? how about those who consider themselves to be brown in complexion?..brown americans? I find this absolutely absurd and ridiculous.

[markakis]

the reason why african americans are referred to as such is because people who are black originated in africa. caucasians in europe, because the term originated from the caucasus mountains in between europe and russia.

it's not if you can directly trace your roots to africa rather if you went back enough in your family tree you would reach an ancestor somewhere who was indeed african.

I actually believe everyone can trace their roots back to Africa, but that's another story for another time. I think it's interesting that the U.S. is the only country where this distinction is made. Most people that I know from the Caribbean who are of African descent refer to themselves only on the basis of nationality.

I do not like to refer to myself as an African-American because of the discord that I have seen between Black people who were actually born in Africa and Black people who were born in America with no established/real ties to Africa and the variance in our respective experiences.

I think the term is used because it is considered to be "PC" but it is not reflective of how most of the Black Americans that I have encountered view themselves.

How exactly do "black americans" view themselves? and what kind of discord are you talking about? I really want to know

[markakis]

In this case it is determined by blood, of course you could include a diversity statement speaking about you being raised in a Puerto Rican atmosphere. If a caucasian male grew up in the inner city with out a father and was best friends with only African-Americans and related better to their culture, would you consider this person an African-American? That should answer your question.

Why do people always say "African-American"? A lot of black people don't identify with African culture, and many aren't even of African genetic origin.
Can't you just say BLACK? WTF?

Maybe you haven't noticed, but there are black people who are indigenes of places outside the US. The term is used to differentiate among the race of Africans who are generally referred to as blacks. So black is a generic name and the term "African American" seeks to identify the black citizens of the US. e comprende?

[markakis]

I do not like to refer to myself as an African-American because of the discord that I have seen between Black people who were actually born in Africa and Black people who were born in America with no established/real ties to Africa and the variance in our respective experiences.

Precisely. In my limited experience, most black people who don't have familial ties to an African country prefer to not be called African-American. It is a little odd, imo. I don't want to be called a European American, even though I have European ancestors. 'White' is just fine. I also respond to "Albino".

Don't forget that many Africans do not wish to have 'American' attached to 'African'. The U.S. and George W. Bush are popular in sub-Saharan Africa, but, well, forget it.

Trying to form general principles and norms based on the quirks of some self-important, narcissistic, son of a dog, is quite preposterous

[silver11]

The Grutter case found that Hispanics/Latino's that were not Mexican-American or Puerto Rican were NOT receiving favorable admission standards. Head on over to LSN and look at the numbers of students who claim are Mexican-American and Puerto Rican and compare their numbers to others who are accepted to the same schools. The numbers are more generous. As far as underrepresented goes, only 2000 out of 128000 test takers are Mexican American. 1.5 percent of ALL test takers are Mexican-American, this is what makes an ethnicity underrepresented. Why would you think that LSAC goes out of its way to make a distinction between Mexican Americans, Puerto Ricans and Hispanics? Why doesn't it do it for Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Indian? Why not for Arabs? Why not for Cubans??? It's because they aren't considered URMs.

[LjakW]

What about Brazil?
If they don't speak Spanish (they speak Portuguese) are they not Hispanic? Assuming that I only write Latino, as they descend from the Latin culture, would a 25% bloodline do it?

[Mikey1]

The Grutter case found that Hispanics/Latino's that were not Mexican-American or Puerto Rican were NOT receiving favorable admission standards. Head on over to LSN and look at the numbers of students who claim are Mexican-American and Puerto Rican and compare their numbers to others who are accepted to the same schools. The numbers are more generous. As far as underrepresented goes, only 2000 out of 128000 test takers are Mexican American. 1.5 percent of ALL test takers are Mexican-American, this is what makes an ethnicity underrepresented. Why would you think that LSAC goes out of its way to make a distinction between Mexican Americans, Puerto Ricans and Hispanics? Why doesn't it do it for Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Indian? Why not for Arabs? Why not for Cubans??? It's because they aren't considered URMs.

Aren't you assuming that because LSAC does not put Cuban, Arab, etc. on the test that they are not URM?

Also, where did you get the data that only 2000 out of 128000 test takers are MA?

[KP429]

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... 9&page=306

The actual Supreme Court document makes no mention of the difference between Mexican-Americans, Puerto Ricans, and "regular" Hispanic/Latinos. In fact, it actually speaks to the difficulty of determining whether Cubans are considered URMs. The link that you posted, silver, is data compiled from the plaintiff's statistician, not from the decision handed down by the Supreme Court. The judges used consistent language throughout their decision and always referred to Hispanics as one larger group.

LSAC's research staff conveniently breaks down avg. LSAT scores and the like by specific Hispanic groups such as Mexican-American and Puerto Rican, but don't take this to assume that Hispanics are given considerably less of a boost.

I'm not sure if we actually disagree or not, I'm just mainly responding to an earlier post in which you said South Americans are not granted URM status -- which is false. Perhaps Mexican-Americans and Puero Ricans are given the largest relative boosts (with respect to their LSAT scores) because of their extremely low average LSAT scores, but to say that all Hispanics aren't given URM status just seems silly. From looking at LSAC's research compilation, Puerto Ricans are given the biggest boost wrt LSAT scores, then African Americans, and then Mexican Americans, Hispanics in general, and Native Americans are all about equal. Hispanics (in general!) are underrepresented at law schools: --LinkRemoved-- (click on additional). In 2005, 14.5% of the US population claimed Hispanic ethnicity while only 7.2% of Hispanics were admitted to law school that same year. And I highly doubt that if you control for Mexican Americans and Puerto Ricans that you will be able to explain away this enormous discrepancy.

[Mikey1]

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... 9&page=306

The actual Supreme Court document makes no mention of the difference between Mexican-Americans, Puerto Ricans, and "regular" Hispanic/Latinos. In fact, it actually speaks to the difficulty of determining whether Cubans are considered URMs. The link that you posted, silver, is data compiled from the plaintiff's statistician, not from the decision handed down by the Supreme Court. The judges used consistent language throughout their decision and always referred to Hispanics as one larger group.

LSAC's research staff conveniently breaks down avg. LSAT scores and the like by specific Hispanic groups such as Mexican-American and Puerto Rican, but don't take this to assume that Hispanics are given considerably less of a boost.

I'm not sure if we actually disagree or not, I'm just mainly responding to an earlier post in which you said South Americans are not granted URM status -- which is false. Perhaps Mexican-Americans and Puero Ricans are given the largest relative boosts (with respect to their LSAT scores) because of their extremely low average LSAT scores, but to say that all Hispanics aren't given URM status just seems silly. From looking at LSAC's research compilation, Puerto Ricans are given the biggest boost wrt LSAT scores, then African Americans, and then Mexican Americans, Hispanics in general, and Native Americans are all about equal. Hispanics (in general!) are underrepresented at law schools: --LinkRemoved-- (click on additional). In 2005, 14.5% of the US population claimed Hispanic ethnicity while only 7.2% of Hispanics were admitted to law school that same year. And I highly doubt that if you control for Mexican Americans and Puerto Ricans that you will be able to explain away this enormous discrepancy.

This is beneficial to understanding where myself and other stand. I also posted a link that give you data as far as the census is concerned. Although the census is not done every year, the most recent one gives you information relative to professional schools and the % of minorities that attend. Hispanics are still the smallest number followed, I believe, by African American.

[silver11]

--LinkRemoved--

"This comparative ease should not be overstated, however, as the distinctions between the Law School's "under-represented minorities," from various types of Hispanics to the marginally African-American, and the rest of society can be very subtle indeed. See Part III.B.2. "

"Both the Law School and the unsuccessful applicants presented expert testimony regarding the Law School's use of race in admissions decisions. Analyzing grids of the Law School's admissions data from 1995-2000, the unsuccessful applicants' statistical expert testified that the relative odds of acceptance for Native American, African-American, Mexican-American and Puerto Rican applicants were many times greater than for Caucasian applicants and concluded that members of these groups were "given an extremely large allowance for admission.""

From the Grutter opinions/dissents...

[KP429]

In response to your post silver, I’m not sure what purpose the first quote serves other than to illustrate my earlier point about how silly it would be to exclude some Hispanic groups from URM status. Maybe you were going along the lines that “you shouldn’t think that boosts are given to everyone and its difficult to determine what ethnicity someone is..?” Not sure it’s relevant.

The second quote is interesting, but unfortunately that was the argument presented by the losing plaintiff in the trial. The statistician pointed to NA, MA, AA, and PR applicants as being looked favorably upon while other Hispanic groups were not –- at the University of Michigan LS. Firstly, UM LS is probably not representative of every law school and secondly, this was not the main point of the case. The main point was that race/ethnicity can be used as a “plus factor,” not that some Hispanic groups are URMs and others are not. Seeing as how LSAC is primarily concerned with LSAT scores, it doesn’t surprise me that they discern between Puerto Ricans, Mexican Americans, and other Hispanic groups. This is probably because there just happens to be a statistically significant difference between the LSAT scores of these 3 groups that are usually lumped together as “Hispanic” in the broader sense of the term in everyday life. All Hispanic groups, however, are definitely underrepresented at law schools, no doubt.

[cfishy305]

in response to playhero...

white people did come from africa. North Mediterranean Africa. Which is why they moved north over the pond to Europe.

Caucasian comes from the the Cauccaus (sp?) mountains in E. Europe.

FACT.

[kn6542]

in response to playhero...

white people did come from africa. North Mediterranean Africa. Which is why they moved north over the pond to Europe.

Caucasian comes from the the Cauccaus (sp?) mountains in E. Europe.

FACT.

Yeah, the term caucasion or caucasoid has that etymology. It's not a correct term for "white" people, however when discussing genetic origin. You're pretty confused.

[playhero]

in response to playhero...

white people did come from africa. North Mediterranean Africa.

It's my understand that some groups of whites never left North Mediterranean Africa.

Caucasian comes from the the Cauccaus (sp?) mountains in E. Europe.

FACT.

Way to bring up aterm, which has nothing to do with the subject at hand, define it with its well accepted definition and then declare it a fact. You sir must have won, many a debate. Now what does this have to do with anything again?

[dnj09]

So I'm a Cuban-American, and I'm not considered a URM. However, Spanish was my first language and I strongly identify as a Hispanic/Latino. I plan on writing a diversity statement to highlight these points.

With a 3.91/159 out of a Top 30 Undergrad, is it a stretch to apply to the following reach schools?

Vandy
USC
GW
Fordham

Also, I'm looking at Tulane as my realistic shot at a Top 50. Is that a solid bet?