doing an extracurricular that makes you appears like an URM when you are not

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People: this is what OP is asking:

Do you think this could go wrong or help her college applications?

OP is not asking if it is dishonest or if she should retitle it.

Oh. I thought she was asking does it look like her DD pulled a Liz Warren and if she should address it in her applications.

What else would go wrong? I don’t get it

And to answer, yes she should obviously take the internship and also yes she should caveat that they combined programs and I’d even write my essay about how this experience and decision affected her thought processes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How weird. They aren’t changing the name of the merged program? As long as she actually did the program and represents it honestly, she’s done nothing wrong.

Sometimes I wonder about my DS - he has a name that inadvertently sounds Black and also attends a majority black schook district.

If it’s the Harriet Tubman program I would hope they wouldn’t change the name

[Anonymous]

<<Sigh>>

You are the sort of person who throws salt over their shoulder and actually believes it does something.

Nobody cares about your kid's one-off summer EC. Like, really. Nobody

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thoughts on this?
My kid is doing a summer program that is meant for minorities (when she is not a minority).
She and a few other kids were merged into this program through another pathway (she applied for something else and the secondary program dropped it's hires into this slightly larger internship).
Do you think this could go wrong or help her college applications?
Essentially she is now a white girl doing an internship (at a major US company) for "Black women in XX industry"
She would consider backing out but it starts on Monday and she just found out.

Thoughts?

What's wrong with this? If she doesn't like the program, then back out. If not, just do it and list is as is on the application. If the college assumes she's Black and she gets brownie points for that, so be it.

[Anonymous]

Just say "GloboCorp, Summer Intern. Frobulated madlidobs, analayzed data, presented report to management, launched to XXX customers" .

If you include one demographic signal that doesn't match the rest of your app, it will backfire because they'll think you are trying to trick the diversity evaluation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:URM favoritism is banned, so a moot point anyways.

Wrong. It is banned based on race alone. Race as part of the lived experience is - permissible thing to consider.

I love your logic. According to those who favored AA, URMs needed a leg up because they faced a lack of opportunity.
In reality, though, today nearly all opportunities (like this internship) are for URMs only. We all know this when our children were looking for opportunities. As this thread shows, even if there is the - extremely rare - opportunity that allows applications by non-URMs, in the end, your child ends up in a URM-labeled program.

Now, with the SCOTUS decision, AOs are no longer allowed to look at race (as a sign of being disadvantaged), but they are allowed to look at participation in URM-only opportunities like this internship. So participation in URM-only internships has no become a sign of "lived experience" - presumably, the lived experience of being selected because of race for opportunities others aren't generally offered.

What country do you live in? Clearly from this line, it's not the USA, so I'm curious.

I think your kids should write their essay about the lived experience of having a parent who views the world through such a distorted lens.

The country where I looked for opportunities that were not labeled URM is the USA where (I'm guessing) you live, too.

So, how about you prove me wrong and show me
- summer camp opportunities (not geared towards the super rich)
- HS and college internships
- etc.

that are not labeled as for URMs only. Start at middle school level and above. I'd be eternally grateful because it's something I'm truly interested in. Don't feel bad if you can't find any, I couldn't either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Again, for people who still don’t get it:

OP is asking:

Do you think this could go wrong or help her college applications?

OP is not asking if it is dishonest or if she should retitle it. OP wants the benefit as long as it won’t backfire.

Most people are saying if they are honest, they get the benefit of the actual experience of the program in their college application and minimize the risk of things going wrong. I thought that was the question. If Op is trying to back door discuss SC ruling or ask how they can intentionally give a false impression without it backfiring they need to clarify that’s what they are asking.

[Anonymous]

Do the participants in the URM program know it's been merged and there will be some non-URM people? If not could be awkward first days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again, for people who still don’t get it:

OP is asking:

Do you think this could go wrong or help her college applications?

OP is not asking if it is dishonest or if she should retitle it. OP wants the benefit as long as it won’t backfire.

Most people are saying if they are honest, they get the benefit of the actual experience of the program in their college application and minimize the risk of things going wrong. I thought that was the question. If Op is trying to back door discuss SC ruling or ask how they can intentionally give a false impression without it backfiring they need to clarify that’s what they are asking.

She is asking if the kid uses the correct title (but incorrect description as it relates to her child’s race) of her internship could this hurt her or help her? Would it be discovered? Would it look like she lied? Would it look like she is an URM and could this help her?

[Anonymous]

Why would it even matter if an application reader thought so???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why would it even matter if an application reader thought so???

It matters bc it can very likely provide a boost to the kid’s app (good) but if the AO suspects kid lied to access a program not intended for her, it can matter in a bad way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would it even matter if an application reader thought so???

It matters bc it can very likely provide a boost to the kid’s app (good) but if the AO suspects kid lied to access a program not intended for her, it can matter in a bad way.

No boost. Not even likely, much less "very likely." There is a whole army of lawyers swarming all over the applications process since before the SC decision. And now that it is the law of the land the potential payouts are so huge that some (of the lawyers) are betting their futures on catching just one school screwing up. The likelihood of that is vanishingly low. It is not worth it. Not one of these schools is going to risk their multi-billion dollar endowment on a kid who listed an EC that maybe means they are URM

[Anonymous]

All of this seems so dramatic. If it's holistic review, any number of components of the application could or could not have moved the needle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would it even matter if an application reader thought so???

It matters bc it can very likely provide a boost to the kid’s app (good) but if the AO suspects kid lied to access a program not intended for her, it can matter in a bad way.

No boost. Not even likely, much less "very likely." There is a whole army of lawyers swarming all over the applications process since before the SC decision. And now that it is the law of the land the potential payouts are so huge that some (of the lawyers) are betting their futures on catching just one school screwing up. The likelihood of that is vanishingly low. It is not worth it. Not one of these schools is going to risk their multi-billion dollar endowment on a kid who listed an EC that maybe means they are URM

This is simply not true. My kids attend a private and they are making sure that these kids' applications convey "URM" in a million ways. These kids are getting a boost (very obvious based on results). Ultimately colleges can take who they want and they still are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would it even matter if an application reader thought so???

It matters bc it can very likely provide a boost to the kid’s app (good) but if the AO suspects kid lied to access a program not intended for her, it can matter in a bad way.

No boost. Not even likely, much less "very likely." There is a whole army of lawyers swarming all over the applications process since before the SC decision. And now that it is the law of the land the potential payouts are so huge that some (of the lawyers) are betting their futures on catching just one school screwing up. The likelihood of that is vanishingly low. It is not worth it. Not one of these schools is going to risk their multi-billion dollar endowment on a kid who listed an EC that maybe means they are URM

This is simply not true. My kids attend a private and they are making sure that these kids' applications convey "URM" in a million ways. These kids are getting a boost (very obvious based on results). Ultimately colleges can take who they want and they still are.

This. In fact, my kid received many brochures from schools after ruling that specifically said URM status should be discussed in essays.