Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: just curious as to why asians aren't URM  (Read 17801 times)

john83

  • Guest
Re: just curious as to why asians aren't URM
« Reply #10 on: January 25, 2006, 09:34:35 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. 

i do wonder, what percentage of these asians are american citizens? how do they categorize international students studying in the united states?

green

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 49
  • So Metro
    • View Profile
Re: just curious as to why asians aren't URM
« Reply #11 on: February 18, 2006, 04:04:47 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

  • Guest
Re: just curious as to why asians aren't URM
« Reply #12 on: February 23, 2006, 07:00:27 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.

pinkybella

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1386
    • View Profile
Re: just curious as to why asians aren't URM
« Reply #13 on: February 23, 2006, 07:12:40 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

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 49
  • So Metro
    • View Profile
Re: just curious as to why asians aren't URM
« Reply #14 on: February 24, 2006, 01:53:34 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?

pinkybella

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1386
    • View Profile
Re: just curious as to why asians aren't URM
« Reply #15 on: February 24, 2006, 01:25:01 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?

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

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 49
  • So Metro
    • View Profile
Re: just curious as to why asians aren't URM
« Reply #16 on: March 10, 2006, 03:34:46 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.

pinkybella

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1386
    • View Profile
Re: just curious as to why asians aren't URM
« Reply #17 on: March 10, 2006, 02:17:41 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

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 83
    • View Profile
Re: just curious as to why asians aren't URM
« Reply #18 on: March 15, 2006, 03:06:32 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

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1530
    • View Profile
Re: just curious as to why asians aren't URM
« Reply #19 on: April 09, 2006, 10:49:26 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.