<p>Sorry, I disagree the whole site is racist. The fact that people do fit into categories does not, in itself, imply bias or prejudice. Colleges like STEM kids, athletes, legacies, valedictorians, etc. No admissions guarantee comes from this. Colleges seek a balance- in socio-economics, gender, race, ethnic origin, first-gen, geographics, majors, non-academic interests- even allowing for disabilities. In fact, in some majors, it is an advantage to be female. That’s not sexism. They are under-represented. One prominent LAC allows kids to label themselves under-represented if they are LGBT. In some regions where certain schools overload the applicant pool, it can be an advantage to be from an under-represented school. You still have to have the goods to get admitted. </p>
<p>If you do get into a great school, please be proud. Never let anyone tell you you didn’t deserve it and slid by. Thousand compete for limited admit slots. There is no one perfect explanation for who gets in. You won’t get into an Ivy if your package is sub-par, just because you are X. On the other hand, yes, some schools, recognizing that their representation is unbalanced, will seek to rectify, with highly qualified candidates. </p>
<p>I am an admission reviewer for a top school and I see how it works. Any kid, of any sort, if the school needs his profile, can have his application package viewed through a filter. Any kid. But, he or she still needs to match the academic standards. There’s a joke about left-handed bassoonists getting an edge- fact is, if the school needs one, that kid might just get one extra minute on the review. </p>
<p>I understand some are sensitive to labels. What is hurtful is to face a wall of anger- yours or someone else’s. When someone ignorantly says, “He got in because he’s URM,” I speak up. Anger is a wonderful and potent tool. Use it wisely, to effect change. I understand others’ ignorance can be exhausting and frustrating.</p>