Will Admissions Officers pick up on clues in application regarding URM?

[Anonymous]

In the past, NHRP was not particularly meaningful for admissions. Will it be more useful now, for high-scoring Hispanics?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For those who think colleges already have a workaround in place, I did not see many URMs at my kid's ivy. Just walk around. This is admittedly a sample size of 1 ivy. However, I've not been able to verify published URM demographics.

And even the ones you do see are likely not 'true' URMs but children of recent immigrants.

[Anonymous]

Competing with Asian kids w/o AA too difficult? Why not let your kids compete with other kids (of all races) academically? Let the best ones win.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those who think colleges already have a workaround in place, I did not see many URMs at my kid's ivy. Just walk around. This is admittedly a sample size of 1 ivy. However, I've not been able to verify published URM demographics.

Well, you will see significantly fewer URM kids in the future. Free gravy train is over.

What I meant was when colleges claim that nothing will change, my suspicious mind says they will simply exaggerate the percentage of black students on their campus. That's their workaround.

As far as I know no colleges have claimed that. They all say they will continue to work to find a different path. But as AP article (link up-thread) reported, they have not identified a workaround. Many have tried, none found.

The one who claim nothing will change are some DCUM posters here. I think many of them are still in denial and, it appears, many don't read news.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those who think colleges already have a workaround in place, I did not see many URMs at my kid's ivy. Just walk around. This is admittedly a sample size of 1 ivy. However, I've not been able to verify published URM demographics.

Well, you will see significantly fewer URM kids in the future. Free gravy train is over.

What I meant was when colleges claim that nothing will change, my suspicious mind says they will simply exaggerate the percentage of black students on their campus. That's their workaround.

As far as I know no colleges have claimed that. They all say they will continue to work to find a different path. But as AP article (link up-thread) reported, they have not identified a workaround. Many have tried, none found.

The one who claim nothing will change are some DCUM posters here. I think many of them are still in denial and, it appears, many don't read news.

I think OP's question is off. Ivies publicly claim they will continue to try to diversify. The reality is that there aren't that many black students to begin with. What they say publicly may not be what they do in private.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those who think colleges already have a workaround in place, I did not see many URMs at my kid's ivy. Just walk around. This is admittedly a sample size of 1 ivy. However, I've not been able to verify published URM demographics.

Well, you will see significantly fewer URM kids in the future. Free gravy train is over.

What I meant was when colleges claim that nothing will change, my suspicious mind says they will simply exaggerate the percentage of black students on their campus. That's their workaround.

As far as I know no colleges have claimed that. They all say they will continue to work to find a different path. But as AP article (link up-thread) reported, they have not identified a workaround. Many have tried, none found.

The one who claim nothing will change are some DCUM posters here. I think many of them are still in denial and, it appears, many don't read news.

I think OP's question is off. Ivies publicly claim they will continue to try to diversify. The reality is that there aren't that many black students to begin with. What they say publicly may not be what they do in private.

I don't doubt they will continue to try that. This decision just makes it more difficult. The fact you didn't see too many of URMs on campus doesn't necessary mean the school didn't try hard enough. It just means that, even w/ help of AA, there just aren't enough URM kids to select from.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those who think colleges already have a workaround in place, I did not see many URMs at my kid's ivy. Just walk around. This is admittedly a sample size of 1 ivy. However, I've not been able to verify published URM demographics.

Well, you will see significantly fewer URM kids in the future. Free gravy train is over.

What I meant was when colleges claim that nothing will change, my suspicious mind says they will simply exaggerate the percentage of black students on their campus. That's their workaround.

As far as I know no colleges have claimed that. They all say they will continue to work to find a different path. But as AP article (link up-thread) reported, they have not identified a workaround. Many have tried, none found.

The one who claim nothing will change are some DCUM posters here. I think many of them are still in denial and, it appears, many don't read news.

I think OP's question is off. Ivies publicly claim they will continue to try to diversify. The reality is that there aren't that many black students to begin with. What they say publicly may not be what they do in private.

I completely agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those who think colleges already have a workaround in place, I did not see many URMs at my kid's ivy. Just walk around. This is admittedly a sample size of 1 ivy. However, I've not been able to verify published URM demographics.

Well, you will see significantly fewer URM kids in the future. Free gravy train is over.

You can feel how you want about AA but this kind of language “free gravy train” is really gross, after everything this nation has done to black people. You are not a good person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those who think colleges already have a workaround in place, I did not see many URMs at my kid's ivy. Just walk around. This is admittedly a sample size of 1 ivy. However, I've not been able to verify published URM demographics.

Well, you will see significantly fewer URM kids in the future. Free gravy train is over.

What I meant was when colleges claim that nothing will change, my suspicious mind says they will simply exaggerate the percentage of black students on their campus. That's their workaround.

As far as I know no colleges have claimed that. They all say they will continue to work to find a different path. But as AP article (link up-thread) reported, they have not identified a workaround. Many have tried, none found.

The one who claim nothing will change are some DCUM posters here. I think many of them are still in denial and, it appears, many don't read news.

I think OP's question is off. Ivies publicly claim they will continue to try to diversify. The reality is that there aren't that many black students to begin with. What they say publicly may not be what they do in private.

I don't doubt they will continue to try that. This decision just makes it more difficult. The fact you didn't see too many of URMs on campus doesn't necessary mean the school didn't try hard enough. It just means that, even w/ help of AA, there just aren't enough URM kids to select from.

Keep believing that, while Ling Ling gets rejected.

There are enough high stats URMs to get to the 5-6% average at elite colleges for Blacks, 7-8% for Hispanics, and 0 5% for Native Americans.

[Anonymous]

There arent as many academically qualified URMs. Naturally, their numbers will decline. As they should. Over time, motivated kids of all backgrounds will get the message:try harder. You arent owed anything simply based on your skin color.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Whatever they do, better be very very careful.

+1. You know you will have 10,000 eyes on your results. CA school system already tried and showed, even after spending 500 million to increase URMs, it didn't work. If a top tier school somehow maintains good URM numbers, you know someone will scrub school's data.

This is BS. California’s universities are some of the most diverse in the nation.

In California, the promise drew students from a wider geographic area but did little to expand racial diversity, the system said in a brief to the Supreme Court. It had almost no impact at Berkeley and UCLA, where students compete against tens of thousands of other applicants.


The University of California also saw enrollment slides after a statewide ban in 1996. Within two years, Black and Hispanic enrollments fell by half at the system’s two most selective campuses, Berkeley and UCLA. The system would go on to spend more than $500 million on programs aimed at low-income and first-generation college students.

It also started a program that promises admission to the top 9% of students in each high school across the state, an attempt to reach strong students from all backgrounds. A similar promise in Texas has been credited for expanding racial diversity, and opponents of affirmative action cite it as a successful model.
Today at UCLA and Berkeley, Hispanic students make up 20% of undergraduates, higher than in 1996 but lower than their 53% share among California’s high school graduates. Black students, meanwhile, have a smaller presence than they did in 1996, accounting for 2% of undergraduates at Berkeley.

Blacks at UC Berkeley has averaged 3.8% for the past three years. Blacks are 6% of the California population. Not bad for an elite college given that underrepresented means underrepresented, you know, URM.

You can stay mad. The diversity initiatives will continue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those who think colleges already have a workaround in place, I did not see many URMs at my kid's ivy. Just walk around. This is admittedly a sample size of 1 ivy. However, I've not been able to verify published URM demographics.

Well, you will see significantly fewer URM kids in the future. Free gravy train is over.

You can feel how you want about AA but this kind of language “free gravy train” is really gross, after everything this nation has done to black people. You are not a good person.

When PP wrote, ""everything this nation has done to black people", what PP meant was "everything whites have done to black people.". PP did not mean what Asians, Muslims, Indians (from India) have done to black people. What the original gravy train PP meant to ask is, why, because of what whites have done to black people, should Asian, Muslim, and Indian children have to pay the price of the sins of the white people?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those who think colleges already have a workaround in place, I did not see many URMs at my kid's ivy. Just walk around. This is admittedly a sample size of 1 ivy. However, I've not been able to verify published URM demographics.

Well, you will see significantly fewer URM kids in the future. Free gravy train is over.

You can feel how you want about AA but this kind of language “free gravy train” is really gross, after everything this nation has done to black people. You are not a good person.

When PP wrote, ""everything this nation has done to black people", what PP meant was "everything whites have done to black people.". PP did not mean what Asians, Muslims, Indians (from India) have done to black people. What the original gravy train PP meant to ask is, why, because of what whites have done to black people, should Asian, Muslim, and Indian children have to pay the price of the sins of the white people?

Because what the PP wrote was right. It’s not what whites have done to black people. No one is asking us to solve what happened in Kenya or Brazil or the Caribbean. The issue is what the US did to black people living in the US. So just like Asian, Muslim and Indian children in the US get to reap the advantage of living in a developed country which has horrifically been built on the backs of exploited African-Americans, then they will be part of the process to pay them back. It’s a national debt, not a white people debt. The white children today are no more personally responsible than the Asian, Muslim or Indian children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, it is a great work around. Students with " black sounding names" will be advantaged; whereas, in the job world people with black names have been discriminated against.

This was debunked when researchers tried to replicate the study.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those who think colleges already have a workaround in place, I did not see many URMs at my kid's ivy. Just walk around. This is admittedly a sample size of 1 ivy. However, I've not been able to verify published URM demographics.

Well, you will see significantly fewer URM kids in the future. Free gravy train is over.

You can feel how you want about AA but this kind of language “free gravy train” is really gross, after everything this nation has done to black people. You are not a good person.

When PP wrote, ""everything this nation has done to black people", what PP meant was "everything whites have done to black people.". PP did not mean what Asians, Muslims, Indians (from India) have done to black people. What the original gravy train PP meant to ask is, why, because of what whites have done to black people, should Asian, Muslim, and Indian children have to pay the price of the sins of the white people?

Because what the PP wrote was right. It’s not what whites have done to black people. No one is asking us to solve what happened in Kenya or Brazil or the Caribbean. The issue is what the US did to black people living in the US. So just like Asian, Muslim and Indian children in the US get to reap the advantage of living in a developed country which has horrifically been built on the backs of exploited African-Americans, then they will be part of the process to pay them back. It’s a national debt, not a white people debt. The white children today are no more personally responsible than the Asian, Muslim or Indian children.

This country has also been built on the exploitation of Asians. Pure ignorance.