What Is Urm Law School?

What Is Urm Law School
Published March 2010, last updated June 2010 We believe that diversity improves legal education. It provides a broadening, more stimulating, and thought-provoking environment for everyone; enhances our students’ ability to see problems from different perspectives; teaches students how to represent clients who are different from them; and prepares students to succeed in the increasingly diverse world in which they will practice.

University of Wisconsin Law School Diversity Statement Though frequently discussed on the Top-Law-Schools.com discussion forums, the URM (Under Represented Minority) admissions process remains relatively unclear and poorly understood.
Among the varied admissions literature, there is little comprehensive information available to minority applicants.

The information that can be found is often scattered, vague, and contradictory. This article is meant to clarify and streamline application information to assist current and future law school applicants. Before venturing too far into the discussion, I would like to make a couple of disclaimers: 1.

This article is not an endorsement of ” Affirmative Action “.
Furthermore, this article makes no attempt to address the ills or benefits of this policy.
Politics and personal opinions aside, the facts demonstrate that affirmative action definitely exists in the law school application process and has a quantifiable effect on minority applicants.2.

Much of this information is speculative or based on anecdotal evidence. Neither I nor any other contributors to this article have served on a law school admission committee. Due to the secrecy of the law school admissions process (and specifically minority admissions), there is simply not very much “hard” information on this subject.

That being said, let’s continue with our discussion of URM Admissions.
What is a URM? As noted earlier, URM is an acronym for the phrase U nder R epresented M inority.
Much confusion surrounds the “underrepresented” portion of the acronym, thus frequently rendering the entire term unclear.
A URM is, quite simply, a minority group whose percentage of the population at a given law school is lower than their percentage of the population in the country.

This also means that at some schools URM applicants may be treated differently than at others. For example, if School A has an African American population of 8% and School B has an African American population of 25%, an African American will likely receive a URM boost at School A while not at School B.

For the most part, however, the URM designation is relatively consistent among schools, with exceptions arising when dealing with HBCUs (Historically Black Colleges and Universities).
Which groups are considered URMs? American Indians/Alaskan Natives, African Americans/Blacks, Mexican Americans, and Puerto Ricans are typically considered URM’s.

Please note that there is a difference between Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, and other types of Hispanics in the admissions process. Additionally, I would like to offer a small caveat to international students, who fall into a separate category of their own.

One of the primary reasons we believe applicants of the above races are considered URM’s is because they are the only groups for which the LSAC (Law School Admissions Council) regularly publishes data. When the minority enrollment for a particular group is unknown, law schools have little incentive to admit students from that specific group. (The following link contains the data published most recently). http://www.lsac.org/SpecialInterests/minorities-in-legal-education-min-enroll.asp The two groups listed on the LSAC published data that aren’t (generally) considered minorities are Asian Americans and members of Hispanic groups not listed above. The reason for this is clear when we look again at the definition for an Underrepresented Minority. Both groups’ presence in the legal field and in law schools in general are close to or exceed their numbers in the general population. For example, Asians make up just 4.4% of the U.S. population, but according to LSAC’s estimates, they make up approximately 10% of legal students. By contrast, those groups who are considered URM’s have a much lower law school representation relative to their status in the U.S. population. Law schools (perhaps at the ABA’s prodding) have generally expressed that they would like their student body to be at least as diverse as the general population.

How do I (a mere applicant) know who is considered URM? Aside from anecdotal evidence, we have very few resources to outline who is and is not considered a URM. However, one powerful resource we have of understanding the URM process is Grutter v. Bollinger, a recent case that questioned the validity of race-based admissions.

In this case, Grutter – a Caucasian Michigan resident – argued that the four groups considered URM’s (American Indians/Alaskan Natives, African Americans/Blacks, Mexican Americans, and Puerto Ricans) were reviewed under more favorable admissions standards, resulting in her denial of admission at the University of Michigan.

From this case we are able to deduce the four groups outlined did in fact receive (at least some) “boost” at Michigan and, most likely, other law schools as well. “What about me? I was born in Laos! Law schools can’t have that many Laotians!” You are probably correct in your assertion that there are few Laotians at XYZ Law School.

However, the categories in which law schools report their admissions numbers are wide ranging, fair or not.
On the LSAC’s website, the Asian category is not broken down into individual countries.
So, while your dream school may not have many Laotians, they may have a large number of Asians and that is the category that (for the purpose of admission) Laotians are grouped with.

Your story may make for a compelling diversity statement, but it doesn’t necessarily make you a URM. Should I check the box for “URM” on my application? This question (in various forms) plagues the URM forum and is a difficult one to address. In most cases, if you have to ask this question, the answer is probably no.

The generally accepted threshold for claiming a race is ¼ (does not include Native Americans, which are a more grey area). Beyond that, claims of minority status tend to become a bit more dubious. If you have never checked the box before, don’t check it now. If you have never identified as a minority, why start now? While very few educational institutes will attempt to confirm that your race is indeed your race, the Character and Fitness portion of the bar will certainly raise some questions about how you were not listed as on LSAC/or undergraduate applications, but (conveniently) chose to do so for the URM-sensitive law school application process.

There are, of course, occasions where this question is legitimate. Most commonly, it comes from those applicants who are either mixed-raced persons who are concerned about checking one box and limiting themselves, or URM applicants from wealthy backgrounds who feel unjustified in checking a box and receiving an unfair boost.

There is really no right or wrong answer here; ultimately, you must choose the option that makes you most comfortable. For the former applicants, we (the authors) recommend checking the box(es) you feel most comfortable checking and expounding on any additional information in a “diversity statement”.

For the latter applicant, we emphasize that you are not forced to check any box. In fact, on most applications there is an “I choose not to answer” box. Wait! Is there any more information specific to Native American Admissions? As I mentioned earlier, there is limited information on Native American applicant outcomes.

Native Americans who provide a tribal affiliation number or who “are card carrying” members seem to have a more significant bump. This evidence is largely anecdotal from myself (an African-American/Native American re-applicant who neglected to fill in my tribal affiliation the first time I applied to schools) and various other applicants on many law school admission discussion boards. Checking the box and failing to elaborate in a diversity statement seems to have a negative effect on the expected weight of the Native American boost. I contend that this is due in part to a larger number of applicants checking the boxes and schools, in turn, needing a way to differentiate between those who have close tribal ties or are closely affiliated with the tribe and those who are checking the box just to “get the boost.” Finally, we do know that demonstrating current activity within the Native American community also has a positive effect on the “level” of a boost that one receives. This information was extrapolated from reviewing the LSN data of sub-160 LSAT score Native American applicants and their cycle outcomes. Those listed specific details about their URM affiliations fared far better than their counterparts who listed limited information.

Is there more to being considered as a URM than just “checking the box”? This is a difficult question to answer because the information seems to be so convoluted. Lets start with the ” no” portion of our answer. Think back to the beginning of this article where we outlined why some minorities are URM’s while others are not.

We discussed that when XYZ Law School compiles its applicant data, they want it to be as simplified as possible. On a practical level, this would mean that if you checked white on you application, the admissions committee would most likely consider you “white”. The “yes” portion of the question signals the difficulty of this subject.

While the above applicant might have “checked” white on his applicant; his/her compelling (we presume) personal statement about their connection with their grandmother’s tribe might gain a boostof another sort. Many schools –Yale, for example – are known for a holistic application evaluation and willingness to look beyond numbers for remarkable applicants.

With this in mind, there is only so much that applicants can come to understand about URM admissions at law schools.
What are “softs” and what role do they play in URM Admissions? “Soft” factors, with regard to the law school admissions process, apply to those compelling components of an applicant’s package that fall outside of the objective LSAT/GPA formula.

Soft factors permit admissions committees to look beyond the numbers of an applicant to get a more definitive and complete picture. Additionally, in the case of someone who has overcome socioeconomic, physical, or personal hardship, softs can put the rest of the applicant’s application in context.

For example, a student who battled cancer during their undergraduate career is likely to have missed a few classes during that time which might have affected their GPA.
If that student chooses to share that in a personal statement or addendum, the lowered GPA would be viewed in a more complete context.

“Softs” seem to play an even more important role for URM applicants, perhaps because their previous experiences allow URM’s to stand out among from others with similar numbers. Additionally, within the URM forum on TLS, many have contended that law schools look for not only racial diversity in URM applicants but also experiential diversity.

Being a current of past member of the military Overcoming significant economic/educational barriers Having a background with extensive community service Participating in Teach for American, AmeriCorps, United Way, etc. Authoring a book, magazine, manuscript, play, movie, article etc. that was published Truman/Marshall/Rhodes Scholars Having unique and/or significant work experience Founding a charity or business Overcoming physical limitations Winning an Olympic medal

What kind of boost should I expect? There is (with rare exception) no specific number of points that can be paired with an applicant based solely on race. I am generally unwilling to engage in any sort of conjecture on this matter but for the sake of answering the question, I turned to Anna Ivey’s ” The Ivey Guide to Law School Admissions: Straight Advice on Essays, Resumes, Interviews, and More”.

In it, Ivey (a former admissions Dean at University of Chicago Law School) contends that schools may give as much as a ten point boost in the LSAT score to URMs.
Unfortunately, she does not elaborate on this number and fails to differentiate between the various URMs.
However, before counting up your LSAT points with a boost, I have to admonish that, universally, there is limited empirical data regarding a general boost.

For more expansive numbers based answers I suggest visiting http://lawschoolnumbers.com/ (though the data is self-reported), and http://officialguide.lsac.org/SearchResults/ShowAllSchools.aspx (click on the school you choose ‘law school data’ and scroll to the bottom of the page).

What law schools should I apply to if I am a URM? Like most candidates, it can be difficult for URMs to decide where to apply to law school. A commonly cited concern is that law schools vary in their commitment to recruiting URMs, and also vary in terms of which students are underrepresented at their school.

Generally speaking though, the variations are so subtle from one school to another that such variations should not be a deciding factor in where you choose to apply. Realistically, the most important factors cited in determining the best school for any applicant include that person’s personal and professional goals, chances of admissions, and geographical location (particularly for schools with a regional reputation).

Like others, URMs should apply to a wide range of schools. However, because URM cycles are so unpredictable, the need to cast a wide net becomes even more important. In this year’s URM forum, applicants on average applied to 4-5 reaches, 4 targets, and 3-4 safeties. Are their some schools that are “more receptive to minorities”? With so little empirical evidence to base an answer to this question on, I turned to the two resources that we do have – http://lawschoolnumbers.com and http://top-law-schools.com,

The T-14 schools that seem to show the most willingness to accept exception minority applicants with lower numbers (within a certain range) are: Harvard, NYU, UVA, and Cornell. “Everyone keeps telling me to apply early; why?” Most law schools employ “rolling” admissions, which can casually be defined as a sort of a ‘first come, first served’ process.

Therefore, it is to your advantage to get your application in as quickly as possible without sacrificing quality. To understand why this is so heavily emphasized, lets look at an illustration: As Dean Booke evaluates the first batch of applications at Academia Law School, he comes across a file labeled “Dualla, Anastasia”.

With an LSAT about 5 points below median and a median G.P.A; she is not an auto-accept. He reads her personal statement, diversity statement, and addendum. All are well-written. He is torn about whether to admit her. With the class only ten percent full, Dean Booke decides that he can offset her lower LSAT with another applicant and accepts her.

While I made up this scenario, anecdotal evidence shows that there is indeed a benefit to applying early. While that benefit may not necessarily be a quantifiable point increase, it may be that schools are more willing to take a chance on an applicant who applies earlier in the process. The Top-Law-Schools discussion forums have demonstrated that this application timing becomes more important for those with fairly generic applications, those with unusual circumstances but questionable numbers, and URMs.

To conclude, this is by no means an exhaustive list of questions and answers and you are certainly not required to take any of the advice offered here. As long as you approach the application process with deference and a well-articulated application package, you will most certainly be on the correct path.

What counts as a URM?

December 2019 – Underrepresented Minority (URM) and First Generation – Institutional Research and Strategic Analytics California is one of the most diverse states in the nation, that is comprised of people from ethnically and economically diverse backgrounds.

For many of our students, who may be the first in their family to go to college, who come from backgrounds of poverty, or who face other challenges, receiving a degree has the potential to change the trajectory of their lives.
The majority of California’s future college-age population will come from groups that have been historically underrepresented in higher education.

Two common measurements universities use to identify historically underserved students are underrepresented minority and first generation

Underrepresented Minority (URM) – is defined as a U.S. citizen who identifies as Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino, or American Indian. All other Race/Ethnicity categories or Non-U.S. citizens are considered as a Non-Underrepresented Minority (Non-URM), First generation – is defined as a student who reported both parents as not receiving a baccalaureate degree. All other students are considered as Not First Generation

Definitions taken from the,

What does URM mean on applications?

Underrepresented Minority Definition At UCSF our working definition of an underrepresented minority (URM) is someone whose racial or ethnic makeup is from one of the following:

African American / Black Asian: Filipino, Hmong*, or Vietnamese only Hispanic / Latinx Native American / Alaskan Native Native Hawaiian / Other Pacific Islander Two or more races, when one or more are from the preceding racial and ethnic categories in this list

* Hmong is not an explicit option on the UC employment forms at this time. Are you creating or chairing a committee? Please see the, : Underrepresented Minority Definition

How much does being a URM help?

As you can see in Table 1a, law schools typically give a 7% boost to URM applicants. In other words, a URM applicant who is exactly equal to a non-URM candidate, including all other factors we control for, is 7% more likely to be admitted to any law school than a non-URM equivalent.

Are Hispanics URM in law school?

Indo-Guyaneses are not URMs. URMs are going to be Blacks, Hispanics (of Mexican and PR ancestry- not others), and Natives. Indians, Middle Easterners, Jews, Hispanics of differing origin, Asians, etc., do not count as URMs for the sake of law school admissions.

Does being a URM help in college admissions?

“Underrepresented Minority” Versus “Minority” – The terms “minority” and “underrepresented minority” are often conflated. The former term is well-understood by most people, while the latter requires some context. In the context of college admissions, not all traditional U.S.

Minorities are considered URMs.
URMs are black, Hispanic, and Native American applicants—often including Alaskan Natives, Hawaiian Natives, and Pacific Islanders.
For example, Asian Americans, while a U.S.
Minority, are not considered URMs because their enrollment levels at top colleges are relatively high.

Also, African Americans are a U.S. minority, but black international students from Africa are not. And while colleges should classify students from Africa as international—not minority—this isn’t always the case. The same issues arise when considering Hispanic students—Central and South American international students may be presented as minority students to make the college appear to have a higher minority count.

Note that while such international students would not be viewed as URM applicants during admissions, top colleges may classify them as minority students once they have been admitted. These colleges generally want to have, It is important to understand the distinction between URM applicants and U.S. minority applicants: unless you are a URM applicant, minority status will likely have little impact on your chances of admission.

On the other hand, being a URM applicant can significantly increase your odds of being admitted. As mentioned earlier, the key to being admitted to a top college is to make your admissions profile stand out. Therefore, you need to craft a unique, personal,

Does being URM help for residency?

Full Member. Yeah URM is a distinct advantage in residency application process too.

Does being a URM help in law school?

The URM Boost in Law School Admission – Although official data from law schools regarding the effect of URM status on admissions is hard to come by, there’s overwhelming anecdotal support for the existence of this “URM boost” from Law School Numbers (a website collecting self-reported admission data from applicants) as well as from admissions consultants and former admissions deans. What Is Urm Law School If you’re part of the URM group, this doesn’t mean that the numbers aren’t important for you. But it does mean that the LSAT and GPA medians published by law schools every year don’t represent the medians of URMs who were admitted to the school. If you identify as a URM, you shouldn’t be disheartened about your chances of admissions with an LSAT or GPA that’s below a school’s reported medians or their 25th percentiles.

Am I an underrepresented minority?

Underrepresented Minority (URM) Underrepresented Minority can be defined as a group whose percentage of the population in a given group is lower than their percentage of the population in the country.

Are you an underrepresented minority student?

Historically Underrepresented Minority Students (HURMS) – According to NACME (2013), HURMS are persons who are members of racial, ethnic, or gender groups that have been disproportionately underrepresented for a period of more than ten years. Traditionally, Historically Underrepresented Minority (HURM) students are members of groups that have ” historically comprised a minority of the US population,” This typically includes African Americans, American Indians/Alaskan Natives, and Hispanics.

A broader definition includes Asian and Pacific Islanders. If we are considering HURM students in the context of certain academic disciplines such as STEM, this definition should evolve to also include women. Bourke (2016) states that members of underrepresented racial groups are not only underrepresented numerically but also systemically through social structures and the ways in which power is situated among groups.

This systemic underrepresentation reinforces the need for consideration of invisibility over time and how it continues to impact access and equity issues. For example, racial minorities represent about 15% of the college-aged population in the US, but at top-tier institutions their presence represents only about 6% since 1980.

What is URM Harvard?

On the verge of the year 2020, we should strive to have a clear perfect vision for the bright future of all of Harvard University’s affiliates. Harvard University wants to promote equal opportunity, awareness and understanding of our rich and diverse community that comprise the staff, students, and faculty.

Harvard University also wants to ensure that this institution is a welcoming inclusive space for everyone.
Upcoming changes to Harvard’s campus will play a key role in promoting broader collaboration and interaction across the University community.
The plan for Harvard’s physical footprint in the coming decades envisions a blended, vibrant campus with the Charles River at its core.

This non-exclusive One Underrepresented Minority (URM) Community site has been created to empower and support selected vulnerable populations aligning with the mission of the university and individual schools within. The site has also been created to promote, support, and continuing advancing the needs and goals of each underrepresented racial minority across campus.

*URM (traditionally, African-American/Black, Hispanic/Latinx, Native American, Pacific Islander, multi-racial, including international persons) GOALS : *Increase the visibility and promote the work and accomplishments of members of Harvard’s URM communities not only here at Harvard but across the metropolitan area.

*Celebrate the difference within the URM communities while also promoting inclusion, belonging, and collaboration. *Develop a unified nurturing URM community through professional development, counseling, mentoring, and social networking events. *Assist Harvard in its efforts to increase retention, recruitment, and promotion of URM faculty/staff/researchers/students.

One stop shop for all URM student affinity groups as well as employee resource networks.
Promote and support the academic and professional excellence of URM affiliates.
Become a means of communication to address not only challenges but to also foster opportunities impacting the various URM communities.

*Calendar of all URM events

Are Native Americans URM?

Underrepresented minorities (URM) include persons who identify as American Indian, Alaskan Native, Black (not of Hispanic origin), Hispanic (including persons of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, and Central or South American origin) or, Pacific Islander.

What is the average LSAT score?

Guide to Your LSAT Scores Your LSAT score is the most important factor for admission to law school. The highest LSAT score is a 180. The average LSAT score is about a 152. A “good” LSAT score depends on the law schools you are considering. Compare your LSAT scores to the score ranges for admitted students at on your list. Read on to learn more about LSAT scoring. What Is Urm Law School

Why are Latino students falling behind academically?

More Black and Latino students do not have digital access – Black, Latino, and low-income students are falling further behind than their peers because of unequal access to reliable internet and computers, and less learning time with their teachers and peers. Some districts moved fast to get families devices and internet. Yet, students are struggling to engage in learning because they lack access to reliable internet. Many families cannot afford internet and some live in communities that lack high-speed internet infrastructure.

What percent of lawyers are Latinas?

There are more than 1.3 million lawyers in the United States, and that number has barely changed in the past decade, according to the 2022 ABA National Lawyer Population Survey, The legal profession grew slowly in recent years, increasing just 6.6% in the past decade. Getty Images / Caroline Purser The survey also found growing numbers of women, Asian Americans, Hispanics and mixed-race lawyers in the legal profession. The number of Black lawyers remained nearly constant over the past decade.

The annual survey of state bars and licensing agencies includes a national count of lawyers going back to 1878; the number of active resident lawyers in each state for the past decade; and the percentage of lawyers by gender, race and ethnicity from 2012 to 2022. Among the survey’s findings: Slower growth: The legal profession grew slowly in recent years.

During the past decade, the number of lawyers nationwide rose just 6.6% – from 1,245,205 in 2012 to 1,327,010 in 2022. The profession grew faster in the 20th century – from 114,000 lawyers in 1900 to just over 1 million in 2000. That’s nearly a nine-fold increase over the century.

The number of lawyers exploded in the 1970s, when it ballooned from 326,000 lawyers in 1970 to 574,000 in 1980. States: One in four lawyers live in just two states – New York (187,246 lawyers) and California (170,306 lawyers). Combined, they have 27% of the nation’s lawyers. The state with the fewest lawyers? North Dakota with 1,685.

Ten states lost lawyers over the past decade, led by Alabama (-15%), Alaska (-12%) and Ohio (-8%). Gender: More than a third of all lawyers are women, and that number is growing. Ten years ago, 33% of all lawyers were female. Today, it is 38%. In other words, the percentage of women in the profession is growing at roughly one-half of 1% per year.

A small number of lawyers (0.2%) said they are neither male nor female. Race and ethnicity: The share of Asian American lawyers in the profession is now almost the same as the share of Asians in the U.S. population. The survey found 5.5% of all lawyers are Asian American. The U.S. population is 5.9% Asian.

Hispanics, however, are still very underrepresented in the legal profession. The survey found 5.8% of all lawyers are Hispanic. The U.S. population is 18.5% Hispanic. The percentage of Black lawyers is nearly unchanged over the past decade. In 2012, the survey found 4.7% of all lawyers were Black.

Today, the number is 4.5%.
That’s far less than the share of Black people in the U.S.
Population (13.4%).
Native Americans are the smallest racial or ethnic group among U.S. lawyers.
One-half of 1% of all lawyers (0.5%) are Native American – nearly unchanged from 0.6% a decade earlier. The U.S.
Population is 1.3% Native American.

The number of mixed-race lawyers is growing – as is the number of mixed-race individuals in the population at large. The survey found 1.2% of lawyers were of mixed race in 2016. Today, that number has more than doubled to 2.7% of all lawyers. That’s almost identical to the share of mixed-race people in the U.S.

Are Asians URM law school?

Asians aren’t considered URMs because law schools considered all Asians under the broad umbrella of Asian.

How many minorities are in law school?

Top Takeaways – Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the resurgent drive for social and racial justice, and many other factors, we saw a dramatic increase in the number of law school applicants, with strong growth across nearly every racial and ethnic group.

Many schools saw significant increases in applicants, and significant increases in highly qualified applicants.
The incoming class of 2021 is the largest incoming class in nearly a decade — roughly 41,700 first-year students, representing a more than 9% increase over the 2020 incoming class.
The incoming class of 2021 is also the most racially diverse class in history — 34.7% are students of color, representing an increase of of nearly 1,500 matriculants of color.

Between 2020 and 2021, 148 schools reported an increase in their incoming class size, while three schools remained unchanged and 45 recorded slight reductions in class size. When using single reporting, the reporting method currently used by the ABA, people of color represent 34.7% of 2021 matriculants.

(The ABA and LSAC use slightly different approaches for single-reporting; The ABA uses an additional category for non-resident alien matriculants, and in some cases counts certain matriculants more than once. For the purposes of this analysis, we are using LSAC’s approach, which counts each matriculant once.) Black/African American students comprise 7.9% of 2021 matriculants, compared to 7.6% in 2020 and 7.4% in 2019.

Hispanic/Latinx students comprise 6.9% of 2021 matriculants, compared to 7.1% in 2020 and 6.9% in 2019. When using maximum reporting, LSAC’s preferred reporting method because it captures all the racial and ethnic categories in which a candidate self-identifies, Black/African American students comprise 10.0% of 2021 matriculants, up from 9.7% in 2020 and 9.5% in 2019.

Hispanic/Latinx students make up 12.3% of this year’s incoming class, compared to 12.4% in 2020 and 11.8% in 2019. Looking at gender identity, we continue to see steady growth in the proportion of women entering law school. This year, 57.4% of incoming students are women. For comparison, as recently as 2015, men comprised more than half of incoming law students.

We are also seeing steady increase in the number of candidates who identify as nonbinary or who decline to state their gender. In aggregate, the incoming class of 2021 had higher undergraduate GPAs and LSAT scores than previous years — median GPA was up 0.05 points and average LSAT score was up 1.27 points.

Several factors account for the increase in LSAT scores : the significant spike in the number of test takers, resulting in a larger number of high scores; people with high scores tend to apply; and, perhaps most importantly, test takers reported spending on average 25% to 30% more time preparing due to COVID-19 lockdowns.

As a reminder, LSAT scores are not curved to meet a predetermined distribution, so if test takers prepared more, and performed better, that will result in more high scores. The length of the test does not appear to be a factor; LSAC analyses found no significant performance difference between test takers who took the same test sections in the three-section LSAT-Flex, the four-section online LSAT, or the five-section in-person LSAT.

Do law schools consider race?

Racially/Ethnically Diverse Applicants Minority groups have been historically underrepresented in the legal profession. Both law school and the profession do not currently reflect the vibrant and expanding racial and ethnic population of our society. Law schools seek qualified African American, Latino, Asian, and Native American students, as well as other students of color, to enrich the learning process for all students.

Is Middle Eastern a URM?

I’m pretty sure middle easterners fall under the “Caucasian” category depending on what region you’re talking about exactly, which is def. not a URM. Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

I’m pretty sure middle easterners fall under the “Caucasian” category depending on what region you’re talking about exactly, which is def. not a URM. Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile Do they really fall under Caucasian? Interesting. I’m talking specifically Iran/Afghanistan

I don’t think so. As far as I’m aware, only Hispanic, African American, and Native American fall under “URM.” Thank you Pablo!

You’re considered white, you can list yourself as Asian since the Middle East is in Asia but I would highly recommend against that

Have you seen the demographics at dental schools? You are definelty not URM in 2018.

Have you seen the demographics at dental schools? You are definelty not URM in 2018. I have not sir

#11

@FanOfCostco where does everyone go to see these brand spankin new demographics!? Every time I google it, it always shows me super old stuff from 2010! I’d also like to see avg GPA’s and DAT scores of accepted students by race too if that’s possible, but idk where to go Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

#12

#13

Lol no, we are considered white

Is North African URM?

North African, URM? According to the US Census definitions, people from Moroccan, Egyptian and other North Afridan descent are classified as “White” and they are not URM. White. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa.

It includes people who indicate their race as “White” or report entries such as Irish, German, Italian, Lebanese, Arab, Moroccan, or Caucasian.
Black or African American.
A person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa.
It includes people who indicate their race as “Black, African Am., or Negro”; or report entries such as African American, Kenyan, Nigerian, or Haitian.

American Indian and Alaska Native. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America) and who maintains tribal affiliation or community attachment. This category includes people who indicate their race as “American Indian or Alaska Native” or report entries such as Navajo, Blackfeet, Inupiat, Yup’ik, or Central American Indian groups or South American Indian groups.

Asian. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam.
It includes people who indicate their race as “Asian Indian,” “Chinese,” “Filipino,” “Korean,” “Japanese,” “Vietnamese,” and “Other Asian” or provide other detailed Asian responses.

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands. It includes people who indicate their race as “Native Hawaiian,” “Guamanian or Chamorro,” “Samoan,” and “Other Pacific Islander” or provide other detailed Pacific Islander responses.

Two or more races.
People may have chosen to provide two or more races either by checking two or more race response check boxes, by providing multiple responses, or by some combination of check boxes and other responses.
The concept of race is separate from the concept of Hispanic origin.
Percentages for the various race categories add to 100 percent, and should not be combined with the percent Hispanic.

Non-Hispanic White alone persons. Individuals who responded “No, not Spanish/Hispanic/Latino” and who reported “White” as their only entry in the race question. Tallies that show race categories for Hispanics and non-Hispanics separately are also available.

According to the US Census definitions, people from Moroccan, Egyptian and other North Afridan descent are classified as “White” and they are not URM. White. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa. It includes people who indicate their race as “White” or report entries such as Irish, German, Italian, Lebanese, Arab, Moroccan, or Caucasian.

Black or African American. A person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa. It includes people who indicate their race as “Black, African Am., or Negro”; or report entries such as African American, Kenyan, Nigerian, or Haitian. American Indian and Alaska Native.

A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America) and who maintains tribal affiliation or community attachment. This category includes people who indicate their race as “American Indian or Alaska Native” or report entries such as Navajo, Blackfeet, Inupiat, Yup’ik, or Central American Indian groups or South American Indian groups.

Asian. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam. It includes people who indicate their race as “Asian Indian,” “Chinese,” “Filipino,” “Korean,” “Japanese,” “Vietnamese,” and “Other Asian” or provide other detailed Asian responses.

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands. It includes people who indicate their race as “Native Hawaiian,” “Guamanian or Chamorro,” “Samoan,” and “Other Pacific Islander” or provide other detailed Pacific Islander responses.

Two or more races. People may have chosen to provide two or more races either by checking two or more race response check boxes, by providing multiple responses, or by some combination of check boxes and other responses. The concept of race is separate from the concept of Hispanic origin.

Percentages for the various race categories add to 100 percent, and should not be combined with the percent Hispanic.
Non-Hispanic White alone persons.
Individuals who responded “No, not Spanish/Hispanic/Latino” and who reported “White” as their only entry in the race question.
Tallies that show race categories for Hispanics and non-Hispanics separately are also available.

Using color to describe a group of people. Confusing/misleading, who would have thought? The reason North African and Arabs are *white* is because in the early days they couldn’t get citizenship. So they sued, it went to the Supreme Court and via testimony of an anthropologist they were deemed white.

Read this: FYI I know that not all North Africans are *Caucasian* so if you are a black student, just check African American. Otherwise you can’t check that box. According to the US Census definitions, people from Moroccan, Egyptian and other North Afridan descent are classified as “White” and they are not URM.

The US Census Bureau really has to update its definition for “Asian race”.
Not that it makes a difference for medical school admissions since both are obviously ORM, but the distinction must be made between East Asians and South Asians.
And besides, South Asians are much more similar to Middle Easterners than to East Asians, so they are technically considered white.

Last edited: Sep 7, 2015 How about we all do everyone a favor, and refuse to answer the race question? I REFUSE to answer the race question. I will not ever answer, ever, ever, ever. We should all be judged for who we are as a human being, not our race.

How about we all do everyone a favor, and refuse to answer the race question? I REFUSE to answer the race question.
I will not ever answer, ever, ever, ever.
We should all be judged for who we are as a human being, not our race.
And thus contribute to the inability to call out ” the powers that be” on racial discrimination or provide the powers that be the data they need to defend themselves against false charges of racial discrimination.

And thus contribute to the inability to call out ” the powers that be” on racial discrimination or provide the powers that be the data they need to defend themselves against false charges of racial discrimination. When they come knocking tell em’ everyone at your school is a human, and that is all that matters.

Well that’s nice in theory though I guess? lol Man just look at how University of Alabama was under fire for that sorority video. I suppose Med Schools don’t want that kind of publicity. The US Census Bureau really has to update its definition for “Asian race”. Not that it makes a difference for medical school admissions since both are obviously ORM, but the distinction must be made between East Asians and South Asians.

Why? Do we need to further split the US population by “race”. I do believe that ethnicity is asked as well as “race” so any further splitting is done at that level rather than what is, most broadly, the continent of one’s heritage. (with that historical footnote that makes those of Middle Eastern heritage “white” which was a huge advantage to immigrants 100 years ago.) How about we all do everyone a favor, and refuse to answer the race question? I REFUSE to answer the race question.

I will not ever answer, ever, ever, ever.
We should all be judged for who we are as a human being, not our race.
Lol it would be pretty obvious from names/photo.
Why? Do we need to further split the US population by “race”.
I do believe that ethnicity is asked as well as “race” so any further splitting is done at that level rather than what is, most broadly, the continent of one’s heritage.

(with that historical footnote that makes those of Middle Eastern heritage “white” which was a huge advantage to immigrants 100 years ago.) Well, Europe solved the problem quite easily with some reorganization (and I think Canada followed it, but not too sure about it).

It’s really all about consistency and accuracy.
Like I mentioned earlier, South Asians really are similar to Middle Easterners than to East Asians, so it would only make sense to categorize South Asians as white.
Or categorize East Asians as something else, as Europe followed.
Historically, the US has a bad problem of defining race anyways.

Ethnicity helps of course, but distinctions are so apparent that a split or reorganization is necessary. When they come knocking tell em’ everyone at your school is a human, and that is all that matters. Well that’s nice in theory though I guess? lol Man just look at how University of Alabama was under fire for that sorority video. But that even leads to greater confusion! Simply put, if race is viewed as an anthropological term, South Asians and East Asians are entirely two different groups of people. If race is viewed as a geographical term, then all of Africa would be considered black, all of Middle East would be considered Asian etc.

The US Census Bureau haphazardly mixed up both terms rather than simply sticking with the former.
Not according to Christopher Columbus apparently.
But that even leads to greater confusion! Simply put, if race is viewed as an anthropological term, South Asians and East Asians are entirely two different groups of people.

If race is viewed as a geographical term, then all of Africa would be considered black, all of Middle East would be considered Asian etc. The US Census Bureau haphazardly mixed up both terms rather than simply sticking with the former. Not according to Christopher Columbus apparently.

Arguably Northern Pakistanis who are pashtun are more middle eastern/white than they are Asian. Same with the Kashmiri people, Hazara, etc Race is *extremely* complex Even saying all middle eastern = white is not enough. What about the Kurdish? What about the black Arabs? What about the various other nomadic ethnic groups? My solution if we must, is just have a box and have applicants write their race out.

We’ll see Kurdish, Pashtun, Indian, Native Indian, Inuit, Black, Arab, Slavic, Angl-Saxon, Han, etc. Arguably Northern Pakistanis who are pashtun are more middle eastern/white than they are Asian. Same with the Kashmiri people, Hazara, etc Race is *extremely* complex Even saying all middle eastern = white is not enough.

What about the Kurdish? What about the black Arabs? What about the various other nomadic ethnic groups? My solution if we must, is just have a box and have applicants write their race out.
We’ll see Kurdish, Pashtun, Indian, Native Indian, Inuit, Black, Arab, Slavic, Angl-Saxon, Han, etc.
If anything, your examples would provide the additional merits of increasing diversity that can’t be addressed just by looking at the applicant’s demographics.

And that’s where secondary essays come into play. But like I said, race and ethnicity are accurate measures of assessing demographics. The US Census Bureau is good enough, but there is simply one critical flaw that can be very easily resolved just by reorganization or a split. Hey, Europe identified the problem easily and repaired it! It’s just a pet peeve of mine.

But that even leads to greater confusion! Simply put, if race is viewed as an anthropological term, South Asians and East Asians are entirely two different groups of people.
If race is viewed as a geographical term, then all of Africa would be considered black, all of Middle East would be considered Asian etc.

The US Census Bureau haphazardly mixed up both terms rather than simply sticking with the former. Not according to Christopher Columbus apparently. Swedes and Sicilians are classified as white although they are very different but ORM. Eastern Asians and South Asians are ORM so why care about lumping or splitting? Only 5.3% of the US population is Asian alone.

Doesn’t make much sense to subdivide 5.3% of the population into smaller subdivisions. Swedes and Sicilians are classified as white although they are very different but ORM. Eastern Asians and South Asians are ORM so why care about lumping or splitting? Only 5.3% of the US population is Asian alone. Doesn’t make much sense to subdivide 5.3% of the population into smaller subdivisions.

Wait wait wait wait 5.3% of the population is an over represented minority in med schools?? Swedes and Sicilians are classified as white although they are very different but ORM. Eastern Asians and South Asians are ORM so why care about lumping or splitting? Only 5.3% of the US population is Asian alone.

Doesn’t make much sense to subdivide 5.3% of the population into smaller subdivisions.
I’m not arguing for a split/reorganization in regards to ORM/URM, but rather for the sake of accuracy and consistency.
South Asians make up roughly 1.2% of the US population, so the fraction of Asians under the reorganization scheme would reduce to 4.1%.

Hardly any difference, and better than splitting 5.3% into two groups of 1.2% and 4.1%. I just wish the US Census Bureau was consistent in its definition, and stick with anthropology where its due rather than relying on geography. South Asians (Indians, Pakistanis etc.) are not similar to Middle Easterners (Lebanese, Syrians, Iraqis).

The only common thing is that they share the same religion, Islam. Except there are Hindu Indians, and there are Christian and Jewish Middle Easterners. And because Arab is not a race, it’s a culture, you can have multiple races within. South Asians (Indians, Pakistanis etc.) are not similar to Middle Easterners (Lebanese, Syrians, Iraqis).

The only common thing is that they share the same religion, Islam. Except there are Hindu Indians, and there are Christian and Jewish Middle Easterners. And because Arab is not a race, it’s a culture, you can have multiple races within. I know that but the similarity between the two is more apparent than between South Asians and East Asians.

Look beyond religion, culture etc.
The race classification is broadly anthropological, and there are many ethnic divisions involved.
It would make sense to group people based on similar superficial characteristics than on geography.
There are zero non-geographical arguments that can support South and East Asians being grouped into one category, and this include “hybrids” like Nepal, Bhutan and Tibet.

South Asians (Indians, Pakistanis etc.) are not similar to Middle Easterners (Lebanese, Syrians, Iraqis). The only common thing is that they share the same religion, Islam. Except there are Hindu Indians, and there are Christian and Jewish Middle Easterners.

And because Arab is not a race, it’s a culture, you can have multiple races within.
Pakistani isn’t a race though.
Arguably the Pashtun in Pakistan are more closely related to Arabs than they are South Asian.
So what do they check, white or Asian? There are health outcomes riding on this for minority populations.

Here’s a little light reading material.I don’t have my Pubmed citations handy just now. Actually, if you pick some random schools, it’s more like 30% of the classes are either South or East Asian. Even at the HBCs, some 10% of the Class is Asian! As I am fond of saying, Asians are the most successful minority group in the history of this country, even more than the Jews.

It’s the culture.
Very status driven.
Inb4 I get crucified by a social justice warrior) There is a reason why almost every Indian kid I know, his/her parents were engineers, doctors, or businessmen.
Of course that might be different in NYC or Baltimore, but I live where most of the Indian folks are professionals of some sort.( I always see em’ at the YMCA too???) I think in my town a good bunch of the doctors are South Asian, or Asian of some variety.

And my town is majority white! My pediatrician is South Asian. Of course I don’t see a peds doc anymore. My moms family doc is East Asian.

What counts as URM Reddit?

That was their definition as used before 2003. URM has not been limited to those four ethnic/racial groups for over a decade now. The AAMC definition of underrepresented in medicine is: “Underrepresented in medicine means those racial and ethnic populations that are underrepresented in the medical profession relative to their numbers in the general population.” Adopted by the AAMC’s Executive Council on June 26, 2003, the definition helps medical schools accomplish three important objectives:

a shift in focus from a fixed aggregation of four racial and ethnic groups to a continually evolving underlying reality. The definition accommodates including and removing underrepresented groups on the basis of changing demographics of society and the profession,

a shift in focus from a national perspective to a regional or local perspective on underrepresentation, and

stimulate data collection and reporting on the broad range of racial and ethnic self-descriptions.

Before June 26, 2003, the AAMC used the term “underrepresented minority (URM),” which consisted of Blacks, Mexican-Americans, Native Americans (that is, American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians), and mainland Puerto Ricans. The AAMC remains committed to ensuring access to medical education and medicine-related careers for individuals from these four historically underrepresented racial/ethnic groups.

What qualifies underrepresented?

Underrepresented Minority can be defined as a group whose percentage of the population in a given group is lower than their percentage of the population in the country.

Who counts as underrepresented?

Historically underrepresented populations are the largest “untapped STEM talent pools in the United States.””Given the shifting demographic landscape, the United States should encourage full participation of individuals from underrepresented populations in STEM fields.” – Public Law 114-329, American Innovation and Competitiveness Act of 2017.

Public Law 114-225, 21st Century Cures Act of 2016 requires the NIH Director to “evelop, modify, or prioritize policies, as needed to increase opportunities for new researchers to receive funding, enhance training and mentorship programs for researchers, and enhance workforce diversity.” “There is a national need for minority scientists in the fields of biomedical, clinical, behavioral, and health services research.”- Public Law 106-525, Minority Health and Health Disparities Research and Education Act of 2000.

The National Science Foundation reports that African Americans (or Blacks), American Indians and Alaska Natives, Hispanics (or Latinos), Native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders are underrepresented at many career stages in health-related sciences on a national basis.

See the report Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering, National Science Foundation, 2019 ).
Individuals from these groups are under-represented when compared to their age-cohorts in science-baccalaureate earners, among science-PhD earners, and in the biomedical workforce overall.

In 2015, only 7 percent of science and engineering doctorate holders employed as full-time, full professors at all institutions were from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups, and at Research Intensive institutions, this proportion falls to only four percent.

Moreover, among science and engineering doctorate holders with full-time faculty employment at any four-year institution, those from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups were less likely to receive federal grants or contracts than their white counterparts (See the report Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering, National Science Foundation, 2019),

Underrepresentation is also apparent among physicians and physician-scientists in the biomedical workforce. The Association of American Medical Colleges ( AAMC ) reports that nationally underrepresented racial and ethnic groups comprise about nine percent of the US physician workforce; this poses important concerns for effective health care delivery.

Among those with a medical degree, only about two percent report a career in research, and among MDs (or MD-PhDs) with NIH research grants, about seven percent were awarded to individuals from these underrepresented racial and ethnic groups. Data on overall participation of individuals from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups in biotechnology, contract research organizations and pharmaceutical industry career sectors is not readily available.

Job growth in these areas is strong, and several companies report a workforce with significant diversity, although there may be little diversity at the higher echelons of pharmaceutical firms (see the National Diversity Council’s “Leading While Diverse” report, below).

The following racial and ethnic groups have been shown by the National Science Foundation to be underrepresented in health-related sciences on a national basis: Blacks or African Americans, Hispanics or Latinos, American Indians or Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders.
See data at http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/showpub.cfm?TopID=2&SubID=27 ) and the report Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering ).

In addition, it is recognized that underrepresentation can vary from setting to setting; individuals from racial or ethnic groups that can be demonstrated convincingly to be underrepresented by the grantee institution should be encouraged to participate in NIH programs to enhance diversity.

Are you an underrepresented minority student?

A broader definition includes Asian and Pacific Islanders.
If we are considering HURM students in the context of certain academic disciplines such as STEM, this definition should evolve to also include women.
Bourke (2016) states that members of underrepresented racial groups are not only underrepresented numerically but also systemically through social structures and the ways in which power is situated among groups.