are people accepted with low LSAT scores mostly URMs?

[ScurvyWench]

OP, I got rejected at UC Hastings yesterday. That should make you feel better. The world is still in tact and a low LSAT is still a low LSAT. Enjoy.

[maricutie]

Damn I wish my mom had married a Mexican.

Instead of just screwing the gardener when Dad's out of town?

ahahahaha
i can see the personal statement now-- "i was raised white, but i don't much resemble my dad. the truth is i'm pretty sure my mom was having a thing with the poolboy. one of my first memories is daddy storming out of the house and throwing his gin and tonic at jose and telling him to take his pool-net and chlorine kit and his speedo and never set foot on our estate again. mum has a couple of pictures of jose, though, and when i ask how come i have dark hair she says something about my grandmother but she gets really PO'd when i press her with more questions. that's why i checked URM on my application."

LOL

[puma]

---> Non-URM. 

I know, IUB and Tulane aren't exactly Stanford, but for me it was really sweet getting those letters.

[amarain]

Thanks for the info all; this wasn't intended to be a question about/attack on AA; I was just curious what people thought were the reasons why people with scores similar to mine would be offered admission.  My best guess was that they're URMs.  But I think that's just my pessimism setting in...

Ruskie girl.. what do you think set your application apart from the rest?

The "wish my mom had married a Mexican" comment was quite uncalled for, but I think she has a valid point. What can a plain old white American from the middle/lower middle class do to get in with a lower LSAT/GPA? What kind of extracurriculars, etc. are necessary to make up for lower scores? I have noticed as well that most of the people getting into the top schools without the high scores are URM (not passing any judgment on whether this is right or wrong here). If there are non URMs who are getting in with those scores, I would like to know what it was that sets them apart and makes up for the lower numbers.

Ruskie, I know that you are white, but you aren't a regular white applicant, being from another country. That's not something a person can do for their application. You either have it or you don't.

[amelus]

The "wish my mom had married a Mexican" comment was quite uncalled for, but I think she has a valid point. What can a plain old white American from the middle/lower middle class do to get in with a lower LSAT/GPA? What kind of extracurriculars, etc. are necessary to make up for lower scores? I have noticed as well that most of the people getting into the top schools without the high scores are URM (not passing any judgment on whether this is right or wrong here). If there are non URMs who are getting in with those scores, I would like to know what it was that sets them apart and makes up for the lower numbers.

Ruskie, I know that you are white, but you aren't a regular white applicant, being from another country. That's not something a person can do for their application. You either have it or you don't.

well said.

[maricutie]

The "wish my mom had married a Mexican" comment was quite uncalled for, but I think she has a valid point. What can a plain old white American from the middle/lower middle class do to get in with a lower LSAT/GPA? What kind of extracurriculars, etc. are necessary to make up for lower scores? I have noticed as well that most of the people getting into the top schools without the high scores are URM (not passing any judgment on whether this is right or wrong here). If there are non URMs who are getting in with those scores, I would like to know what it was that sets them apart and makes up for the lower numbers.

Ruskie, I know that you are white, but you aren't a regular white applicant, being from another country. That's not something a person can do for their application. You either have it or you don't.

Being poor and writing a SES addendum helps, I feel, but again .. that's nothing that one can do. Include some interesting WE (PeaceCorps, for example, is said to really help) & lots of EC (stellar internships, activism, involvement/editor in journals). Master's may possibly help (here I'm thinking of Lexy), as does writing a spectacular/unique personal statement (also thinking of lexy here).

[Your Mom]

I feel like the whole URM thing is blown out of porportion.  Honestly I think a school would be silly to admit any student with scores well out of their standard range, regardless of their background.  Those students might be totally fine and just test poorly, or they might not be able to keep up with the same rigors of the rest of their class.  The adcomms have to weigh that point with any applicant they accept below their own standards.  That being said, it is important to remember that people with different backgrounds do not have the same scores on average on a standardized test like the LSAT.  Both the SAT and the LSAT have been rightly criticized for not being more inclusive to these types of applicants.  Most people that write the tests are white males, so those are the people that score the best on the test, sometimes because of skill, sometimes because they generally have more access to study aids (like Kaplan, Princeton Review, etc. type courses or books). Considering that the average LSAT scores for some groups are lower, it does not seem unreasonable to have separate standards.  Are there people who are URMs, have lots of money, went to stellar schools and could afford test prep?  Of course there are.  Do these people deserve different standards?  Absolutely.  Would anyone be considering this profession if they didn't have someone who had already come before them to prove it was possible?  Think about how women felt when Sandra Day O'Connor became a Supreme Court Justice.  Think about how Hispanics feel about Gonzales as the head of the Justice Department.  We need role models for our children, people who can prove that you can be different and still succeed.  Until we can create a testing process that truly treats everyone equally, adcomms will have to adapt their standards depending on the applicants.  Besides, admitting students with diverse racial and socio-economic backgrounds leads to a richer discussion forum.  Who wants to go to law school where everyone looks the same and agrees?  How would you learn anything?  There would be no dynamic discussion.  URMs are vital to a legal community because they bring new ideas and perspectives sorely lacking in our current system.  Law schools must strive to correct the deficiencies of these qualified people or the legal system will continue to work against URMs.  Sometimes it's not just about needing to look PC, it's about actually trying to affect societal change. 

Ok enough out of me.  I'm sure I will get bumped or humped or flamed or just generally mocked, but I've said my piece and I'm sticking to it.

[amarain]

I feel like the whole URM thing is blown out of porportion.  Honestly I think a school would be silly to admit any student with scores well out of their standard range, regardless of their background.  Those students might be totally fine and just test poorly, or they might not be able to keep up with the same rigors of the rest of their class.  The adcomms have to weigh that point with any applicant they accept below their own standards.  That being said, it is important to remember that people with different backgrounds do not have the same scores on average on a standardized test like the LSAT.  Both the SAT and the LSAT have been rightly criticized for not being more inclusive to these types of applicants.  Most people that write the tests are white males, so those are the people that score the best on the test, sometimes because of skill, sometimes because they generally have more access to study aids (like Kaplan, Princeton Review, etc. type courses or books). Considering that the average LSAT scores for some groups are lower, it does not seem unreasonable to have separate standards.  Are there people who are URMs, have lots of money, went to stellar schools and could afford test prep?  Of course there are.  Do these people deserve different standards?  Absolutely.  Would anyone be considering this profession if they didn't have someone who had already come before them to prove it was possible?  Think about how women felt when Sandra Day O'Connor became a Supreme Court Justice.  Think about how Hispanics feel about Gonzales as the head of the Justice Department.  We need role models for our children, people who can prove that you can be different and still succeed.  Until we can create a testing process that truly treats everyone equally, adcomms will have to adapt their standards depending on the applicants.  Besides, admitting students with diverse racial and socio-economic backgrounds leads to a richer discussion forum.  Who wants to go to law school where everyone looks the same and agrees?  How would you learn anything?  There would be no dynamic discussion.  URMs are vital to a legal community because they bring new ideas and perspectives sorely lacking in our current system.  Law schools must strive to correct the deficiencies of these qualified people or the legal system will continue to work against URMs.  Sometimes it's not just about needing to look PC, it's about actually trying to affect societal change. 

Ok enough out of me.  I'm sure I will get bumped or humped or flamed or just generally mocked, but I've said my piece and I'm sticking to it.

OK, but that's not what we're talking about here. You can't deny that it's easier for an URM with lower scores to get in than a nonURM with lower scores. That's the way it is. Whether that's right or wrong is another thread (and entire topic).

What I'm wanting to know is how to compensate for having an average background/race (which is not something a person can help). It seems that ECs are the only way to go if you're coming straight out of undergrad, or having some really interesting WE if you're not. I admit I'm a bit hazy on the whole PS as well because I don't really understand what they're looking for. I'm not sure that having a stellar essay will make up for not having a 175/3.9/being poor/being URM.

[Your Mom]

I think it's a very school specific thing (improving your application)  some schools seem to really put a lot of stock in the personal statement (as evidenced by notes people are getting in their acceptance letters) while others have complicated formulas based on UGPA and LSAT.  I don't think there's any one factor, although I have heard from several adcomms that community service is a big plus.  I mean if you're very committed to helping others, that could certainly help, perhaps more than other ECs.  I don't think it matters particularly what type of community service, but that in general seems to be a bonus to most adcomms.

[Your Mom]

I'm not offended, I just think it's almost fruitless to try to make yourself "more diverse" about all you can manage is to have interesting experiences and try to highlight them in a PS or on your resume.  Like if you lived or worked abroad, did signficant volunteer work or worked with at an interesting place.  Some adcomms like diversity in undergrad majors so that's something if you're not otherwise "diverse"  I mean you dont have to be "diverse" to bring different perspectives.  Maybe geographic diversity can help, some smaller schools might not get many applicants from some parts of the country, that could help your application as well.  Unfortunately, almost none of these things can be like "quick fixes" if you're already applying to school.  At that point, I'm not sure what else you can do.  Stellar LORs?  Persistnet communication with adcomms?  Amazing PS?  If you are concerned about not "standing out" with your scores, you've got to start early to improve other things, like adding community involvement, travel or off the wall crazy weird/good thing to write your PS about.