<p>Does race even matter when applying to Law School?</p>
<p>It does, but GPA and LSAT are still the main factors.</p>
<p>Asians are, generally, not considered URM.</p>
<p>...although there generally aren't many at law schools, for some reason. </p>
<p>You might want to find law schools that have a very low minority population, because they might be more interested in a minority candidate.</p>
<p>SouthEast Asians and Filipinos are, with the exception of Vietnamese people (who are only slight URM's).</p>
<p>Koreans, Chinese do pretty well and do go to law school so I wouldn't hold my breath.</p>
<p>At the University of Michigan Supreme Court case regarding AA, the law school had "cells" for gpa and lsat. It is often said that being Asian makes it harder to get into college, well the same held true in this case as in each cell Asian students had the lowest acceptance rate. So yes, being Asian does make a difference, and it may hurt you. As a general rule Asians are not under represented even if they are a minority.</p>
<p>They're not URMs, but it's not quite as difficult for them to get into law school as undergrad or med school.</p>
<p>Racism is wrong and it has no place in education.</p>
<p>Are you implying that AA = racism?</p>
<p>By definition, AA is racial discrimination. Many people will say that if people believe in and practice racial discrimination they are racist.</p>
<p>Not to be too cranky...</p>
<p>...but if you're going to discuss AA and law school, create a thread for it. </p>
<p>The OP asked if race is an important factor in law school admissions - a completely legitimate question that can be answered by yes, no, or in certain circumstances. </p>
<p>The UMich decision is fascinating from a con law standpoint. Equally fascinating (in a train-wreck way) is the recent ABA decision that will mandate that schools follow the UMich model or lose their accreditation. Another thread, anyone?</p>
<p>Buh? I thought for all extents and purposes Asians were equivalent to white people in law school admissions (at least inside the top 14). Their awesome work ethic doesn't help them very much on the LSAT which is more intuitive and I've read article saying they score slightly lower to "white" applicants for the "affluent" asians and 5 points lower for SouthEast Asians and Filipinos on average.</p>
<p>What is the recent ABA decision btw? I thought using race in terms of quotas and or de factos quotas was illegal but using race on an individual's application wasn't.</p>
<p>I think law schools in general are the ones that reverse-discriminate the least against Asian-Americans because Law isn't really considered a top field by many Asian cultures.</p>
<p>Add japanese to the list of asians who don't benefit from AA.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Buh? I thought for all extents and purposes Asians were equivalent to white people in law school admissions (at least inside the top 14). Their awesome work ethic doesn't help them very much on the LSAT which is more intuitive and I've read article saying they score slightly lower to "white" applicants for the "affluent" asians and 5 points lower for SouthEast Asians and Filipinos on average.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Slighty lower as in a difference of less than 0.5 in 2004.</p>
<p>Here's a filipino who's done well enough :) <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiwi_Alejandro_Camara%5B/url%5D">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiwi_Alejandro_Camara</a></p>
<p>Wow that really sucks for that guy.</p>
<p>Let's keep out the anecdotal stuff eh ...</p>
<p>Move it to another thread....</p>
<p>Fine, I'll get us back on topic.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Buh? I thought for all extents and purposes Asians were equivalent to white people in law school admissions (at least inside the top 14). Their awesome work ethic doesn't help them very much on the LSAT which is more intuitive and I've read article saying they score slightly lower to "white" applicants for the "affluent" asians and 5 points lower for SouthEast Asians and Filipinos on average.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why are you talking about asians as if their intelligence only stems from their 'awesome work ethic'? Considering in 2004 the difference between whites and asians was only .5 and as you said, the test is more intuitive, wouldn't you think the difference would be bigger if these asians lacked the intuitive knowledge that whites have?</p>
<p>Considering the test contains a reading comprehension section, don't you think it would be more logical to assume that the kids taking this exam might be immigrants/grew up in a family with parents who speak a foreign language/had english as a second language which would have lead to a minor difference such as this?</p>
<p>You make it seem as if asians are only intelligent due to this 'awesome work ethic'.</p>
<p>Are Indians also ORMs?</p>
<p>That was my point though it wasn't clear in my first post. Many of the high-achieving asians are actually recent immigrants who have a very strict work ethic. People who are born here and read a lot and know the language first hand have a distinct advantage on the LSAT. Their reading speeds are faster and they have a much better handle on the language. As such its very hard to throw a work ethic against the LSAT and do well.</p>
<p>And I never said their intelligence comes from work ethic alone (but as a knowledgable person should know, non-genetic factors make anywhere between 40-60% of intelligence), but their overachievement in comparison to other races in aggregate is largely due to that; not innate smartness. </p>
<p>I would posit from personal experience that though the diference is marginal, asians worked slighlty to substantially more to achieve their LSAT scores in relation to the average (white) LSAT taker because of their work ethic and culture.</p>
<p>I would say that asians are equally as smart as anyone else but insofar as they score better on average than the general population in a wide variety of academic tests, I would have to attrbiute that difference soley to work ethic. The reason work ethic does not work well on the LSAT is because things like reading speed and analytical abilities are more deeply ingrained over time and practice. A child who reads english earlier is just going to be better at English the rest of his life compared to most immigrants, and thus natives have a big advantage on the LSAT.</p>
<p>Plus as I said, many traditional asians don't respect lawyers (since law as an institution is ridiculously corrupt in their home countries) and thus don't encourage their children to do it.</p>
<p>And Indians are also ORM's. Many already speak English natively in their home country which makes them equal to native English speakers in America.</p>