Law School Discussion

just curious as to why asians aren't URM

green

  • ***
  • 48
  • So Metro
    • View Profile
Re: just curious as to why asians aren't URM
« Reply #10 on: February 18, 2006, 02:04:47 PM »
First you have to understand that each school has it's own admission process and criteria, so "URM status" at one place will not exactly mean the same at another school. 

But if you look at the "top 14" schools:

(Asian percentage of student body)

Yale - 12.7%
Harvard - 12%
Standford - 10.7%
Columbia - 12.9%
NYU - 9.8%
Chicago - 15.3%
Penn - 10.7%
Michigan - 10.5%
Virginia - 8.4%
Northwestern - 14.5%
Cornell - 19.1%
Duke - 8.8%
Berkeley - 19.3%
Georgetown - 9.7%

That is the exact opposite of underrepresented.

What blows is that while law schools use asians to bolster their published diversity statistics, asians don't get any "special" consideration in the admissions process.  I wonder what the numbers would look like if asians were not counted in their diversity stats. Pathetic maybe? 

SkullTatt

Re: just curious as to why asians aren't URM
« Reply #11 on: February 23, 2006, 05:00:27 PM »
Well, LSAC publishes a breakdown for all schools that gives all the details... but yeah, if a school is claiming 50% non-white, you can bet a big chunk of that is Asians in most cases.

Re: just curious as to why asians aren't URM
« Reply #12 on: February 23, 2006, 05:12:40 PM »
Asians are not considered URMs because they are not a minority in higher education (undergraduate instituions/med school/grad school). Asians are a minority in law but I think law schools mean higher education as a whole, NOT just law related field or law school. Blacks and Hispanics are continually underrepresented in all forms of higher education, which is why they are considered URMs and given extra pts. Asians have never been a minority in any type of higher education.

green

  • ***
  • 48
  • So Metro
    • View Profile
Re: just curious as to why asians aren't URM
« Reply #13 on: February 23, 2006, 11:53:34 PM »
Asians are not considered URMs because they are not a minority in higher education (undergraduate instituions/med school/grad school). Asians are a minority in law but I think law schools mean higher education as a whole, NOT just law related field or law school. Blacks and Hispanics are continually underrepresented in all forms of higher education, which is why they are considered URMs and given extra pts. Asians have never been a minority in any type of higher education.

Then again.. not all asians are created equal.  I think that we should consider some sub-groups as URMs like Southeast asians, no?  According to Deloggio:

"Japanese, Chinese and Koreans have a reputation for doing well academically, and are generally not treated as minorities if they were born in the United States [...] Vietnamese, Thai, Laotian, and Filipino people are generally recent immigrants, facing both economic and language barriers, and are usually considered to be disadvantaged minorities." (http://www.deloggio.com/diversty/race.htm)

I wonder if what Deloggio says is entirely true?  Or will ad comms, for the purpose of statistics, clump all asians into one massive category.   

On another note, LSAC breaks down Hispanics into two categories:  "Chicano/Mexican" and "Hispanic/Latino"... shouldn't LSAC do the same for Asians?

Re: just curious as to why asians aren't URM
« Reply #14 on: February 24, 2006, 11:25:01 AM »
Asians are not considered URMs because they are not a minority in higher education (undergraduate instituions/med school/grad school). Asians are a minority in law but I think law schools mean higher education as a whole, NOT just law related field or law school. Blacks and Hispanics are continually underrepresented in all forms of higher education, which is why they are considered URMs and given extra pts. Asians have never been a minority in any type of higher education.

Then again.. not all asians are created equal.  I think that we should consider some sub-groups as URMs like Southeast asians, no?  According to Deloggio:

"Japanese, Chinese and Koreans have a reputation for doing well academically, and are generally not treated as minorities if they were born in the United States [...] Vietnamese, Thai, Laotian, and Filipino people are generally recent immigrants, facing both economic and language barriers, and are usually considered to be disadvantaged minorities." (http://www.deloggio.com/diversty/race.htm)

I wonder if what Deloggio says is entirely true?  Or will ad comms, for the purpose of statistics, clump all asians into one massive category.   

On another note, LSAC breaks down Hispanics into two categories:  "Chicano/Mexican" and "Hispanic/Latino"... shouldn't LSAC do the same for Asians?

This is true that they are broken up into 2 groups but those two groups (Chicano/Mexican and Hispanic/Latino) are treated the same; ie one isn't given more URM points than the other....

green

  • ***
  • 48
  • So Metro
    • View Profile
Re: just curious as to why asians aren't URM
« Reply #15 on: March 10, 2006, 01:34:46 AM »
I have no clue if one group is given more leverage than the other... but then again, both latin american groups have been disadvantaged where Koreans, Chinese and Japanese generally have not been (unless you are a fresh off the boat immigrant)

Anyway, on many of the U of California law school applications, they have specific check boxes for certain Asian minorites such as Vietnamese, Thai and Filipino. 

I'm hoping that this is a sign that the UCs recognize the fact that SE asians have been particularly disadvantaged and that it's unfair to lump us into the larger asian category.

Re: just curious as to why asians aren't URM
« Reply #16 on: March 10, 2006, 12:17:41 PM »
I have no clue if one group is given more leverage than the other... but then again, both latin american groups have been disadvantaged where Koreans, Chinese and Japanese generally have not been (unless you are a fresh off the boat immigrant)

Anyway, on many of the U of California law school applications, they have specific check boxes for certain Asian minorites such as Vietnamese, Thai and Filipino. 

I'm hoping that this is a sign that the UCs recognize the fact that SE asians have been particularly disadvantaged and that it's unfair to lump us into the larger asian category.

Delaggio says:

Vietnamese, Thai, Laotian, and Filipino people are generally recent immigrants, facing both economic and language barriers, and are usually considered to be disadvantaged minorities. However, in collecting ethnic data, many law schools only include "Asian" as a category.


I applied in CA where there is a large asian minority and from what I remember, none of my applications broke down Asian into any subcategories. The only box was for asian.

slp

Re: just curious as to why asians aren't URM
« Reply #17 on: March 15, 2006, 01:06:32 PM »
I asked a similar question a few months back about why Indians were not considered URM.  I was of course accused of trying to get URM when I was not deserving of it and so on.  Interestingly enough I have found that while Asians as a whole are not considered to be URM by people becaue of their "success" in education and in income levels, I think schools look at you on a case by case basis. 
For example, not only am I of Indian descent, but my family comes from a very modest background.   Neither of my parents had college education and for the first few years they struggled immensely chasing the American dream.  It was a struggle for them and a huge sacrifice to educate me and my siblings.  We had to do without a lot of things that I am not going to get into too much detail in this post.

But what I am saying is that despite these obstacles, I was still able to motivate myself and build a career, buy a house (on my own), have a family, etc.  When writing my personal statement, Iwrote about   my obstacles and how I overcame them.  I feelt aht this set me apart from from the stereo typical son or daughter of Dr. Patel or Dr. Singh whose parents had decent English speaking skills and had the financial resources where they were not disadvantaged to the extent that other Asians were.   
Maybe that is the problem here.  Everytime someone hears Indian or Chineses, they automatically assume that they are all cut from the same cloth. 
I think the schools look at diversity and will consider you based on their needs and whether you have something distinct to offer.  if you are Asian, you have to substantiate what makes you special from the rest of the bunch.  If there is significant life experiences, i do believe that it is noticed. 

yiplong

  • ****
  • 1477
    • View Profile
Re: just curious as to why asians aren't URM
« Reply #18 on: April 09, 2006, 08:49:26 AM »
I believe we should give special consideration to students from disadvantaged backgrounds, ie poor family, growing up in a orphanage, fresh off the boat immigrants and so on.  Having black skin does not mean one is automatically disadvantaged and likewise, no matter how white one's skin is, there is no denying that life is hard in the trailer park. 

Re: just curious as to why asians aren't URM
« Reply #19 on: April 09, 2006, 09:23:24 AM »
Asian Americans have been hugely successful in the state of California. The UC Regents like to point at various UCs and say "look, the white population is under 50%, we are so incredibly diverse and contemporary!" - what they fail to mention, however, is that remaining 55% or so is almost strictly Asian. The UC system maintains a strict merit system (a formula based on SAT I, GPA, and various SAT IIs) and Asians are effectively out-competing other races as measured by indicia of traditional academic performance - the demographics in California are stunning: Hispanics are HUGELY underrepresented in the state's university system while the Asians are HUGELY overrrepresented [UC Irvine is now over 60% Asian, Berkeley over 50%, UCLA close to 50%, UCSD in the same range - while Asians on the whole only constitute close to 12 or 15% of California's population].

The UC Regents apparently aren't exactly sure as to how to handle the mismatch of respresentation - there is talk of instituting an academic penalty against Asian males for no reason than that they are Asians males - Hispanics in California are now able to use their SAT II Spanish (in certain, limited situations) to supplant their SAT I score, etc. - basically the entire situation is a complete and utter disaster.

But why are asians not ubiquitously described as URM? Well break down the acronym - UNDERrepresented minority. While they may certainly have the minority part down, the notion that a racial group which constitutes 12 percent of the population and yet represenents as much as 60% of the state-funded university is underrepresented is absurd - if anything, Asians in California can expect penalties to levied agianst them for their high standard of academic achievement.

Apparently on the East Coast the exact converse is true - there is an Asian drain out to the west coast and thus in fact Asians ARE URM in the east - which is why an asian male might ge given the academic benefits of URM status on an application to say Vanderbilt, while that exact same asian male certainly would not be considered URM if he applied to say Berkeley ....

This is happening all over the world where universities maintain strict academic merit systems: In Australia, only those high school students who score into the 99.9 percentile on their high school certificate exam are able to enter medical school. Given the large influx of Asians into the country over the past decade, the entering classes for Australia's medical schools (for the past five  years or so) have now been almost uniformly Asian. Australian education officials are discussing a new admission system which considers soft factors .... which I find amusing ...

The moral of the story? Asians are taking over the world :)