@usma87 While I clearly get the point that you are trying to make, they do break down the ethnic categories in what seems like some detail, so I am not sure that anyone can simply assume that the remaining international students are all what you define as people of color. Having a student visa does not make you by definition a minority. Many are from Australia and the UK, for example.
But yes… efforts at diversity and inclusion do have their impacts. In reality, they lead to caps and quotas being applied. In the 1980s, for example, white males as a demographic category faced the greatest challenge when applying to highly competitive colleges and universities due to the fact that far too many overachieving white males were applying. If you fast forward to the last decade, the challenge has shifted to Asians & Asian-Americans (who now face the greatest obstacle) and white female applicants (who by many accounts now face the second greatest challenge). Too many quality applicants of both make-up are applying these days. There have been many articles on this topic in recent years. White males are now deemed fairly neutral in terms of applying, as their numbers have dropped off in terms of the total applying as a percentage.
But of course there are still inherent advantages when applying if you are deemed URM or FirstGen. There are also geographic and economic considerations at play. The program you apply to, especially in terms of applying to USC, can have a monumental impact as well. There are some degree programs at USC with only a staggering 1-2% acceptance rate. But… it is not all about USC simply favoring people of color. There is a lot more that goes into each individual’s holistic analysis of their application packet. Let’s face it, USC has recently had to turn away 90% of all legacy applicants and 4K+ applicants with 4.0 unweighted GPAs and 99th percentile test scores.
Clearly, anyone being rejected may wish to point to a simple reason why. And if you are white/caucasian, ethnicity or targeted diversity could be an easy target. But it could also be the case that a well-qualified candidate with stellar stats sort of coasted through the application process, assuming admission, and did not really put forth the proper effort in terms of essays, their well-researched Why USC? answer, etc. Or… it could simply be the #s. If you applied for a BFA in writing for film and television within SCA and faced rejection, well so did 98% of all applicants. In that case, it more likely came down to your creativity and writing ability. I have watched this all rather intently emerge over the last 5-6 years now. With the admission rates falling as they have, there is no easy answer as to why one quality applicant got rejected while others got in. But as long as any individual applicant can honestly look back at their application process effort and be content with all they did to try and succeed, then failure is actually more due to circumstances beyond your control. If you did your best, and USC did not deem the fit superior to others who received the nod, you will hopefully find a successful landing spot elsewhere. Steven Spielberg tried three times and was rejected all three times. Clearly USC missed the mark with that decision. They have likely also missed out on many thousands of other quality candidates. But there are many other quality colleges and universities to excel at elsewhere.