@privatebanker . . . shouldn’t that be that they do have a “uniformity of process,” that they (the applicants) do check all the boxes? Isn’t the argument that the OP doesn’t (not in reference to yield-protect, unhooked, etc.)?.
The mathematical truth of the matter is that when there are a limited number of spots available , the more reserved seats there are, the fewer there are left for those applying for what’s left open. Though, the college application process leaves spots in a fuzzy logic way by not specifically using quotas, for example, schools all look for diversity in a number of ways. For students who do not have those features, the number of seats left will be less just as a matter of fact.
It leads to a lot of resentment. The resentment tends to be targeted more towards URM admissions than development, celebrity, connections , IMO.
However, even if the URM kids at a given school were not in the picture for admission at the same schools as the OP, it doesn’t mean he would have been admitted. It doesn’t work that way. Even if all underrepresented categories were not given a bump, there are so many students vying for those few spots.
@cptofthehouse - this is so true and honestly it’s so disappointing and very painful to read so frequently here in CC. As if no URMs work hard enough to qualify for an opportunity at admission to an elite university. I was watching a YouTube video a few nights ago where a group of URMs at an Ivy were discussing how often they spend trying to justify that affirmative action is not the only reason that they were admitted. I remember going to the Princeton University store with my family to browse and purchase Princeton gear when asked if someone was attending Princeton. I replied that DS09 was. I was then asked if he plays basketball. Ummm… no he does not and the exchange goes on but I will stop right here.
There probably wasn’t one reason, or two, or even five, at any of those one schools. You’re a strong student. You were probably a solid applicant (no one here can know that for certain with the few data points provided). You didn’t increase your chances at being accepted to any of of them, by applying to multiple ‘remote-chance’ schools. With admissions rates that low, and more high stakes apps, all you gained was a high probability of being rejected by more of those schools.
Did race play some role? Possibly, probably, maybe, or sure… why not? What I can tell you probably didn’t happen is that super-selective schools looked at your school and decided that YOU couldn’t be admitted because a Hispanic kid(s) applied or got accepted. You had an equally remote chance as the next kid (even URMs) who have ridiculously remote chances too. What likely happened is that you’re one of many average excellent applicants aspiring to so-called elite schools. When you’re one of many, for so few spots, distinguishing oneself can be difficult. Using self-selected criteria for excellence and then asking why a university didn’t agree with your selection criteria is an exercise in futility. The real question is if you fit the right need/desire at the right time for each of the schools that you applied to separately? AND, were you able to convey that you fit that need (without even knowing what the criteria was). The college admissions game, here in the U.S., is not just about “high stats”. It’s also not just about checking boxes that the general CC population collectively agree is above average ECs. It’s about finding a way to stand out and convey qualification, fit-for-purpose, and value that they can’t risk missing. That’s not nearly as easy as it sounds, and sometimes we think we hit the ball out of the park, but it was really a close foul. Even in matters of diversity, because diversity (all kinds, not just race) do and should matter. University campuses often are, and should be microcosms of intellectualism. Intellectualism isn’t measured by how much money your parent can toss at test prep, or whether or not your school had the most rigor. People, from all different backgrounds and playing fields at many levels add value to the intellectual body. You’re not “less smart” or “less worthy” if you come from a background that has (and continues to be) marginalized in the society that you live in. You’re not less bright, less capable, and you shouldn’t be less valued if you’ve have to compete against stacked odds.
Ivies and T-20s cannot accept every exceedingly bright and accomplished white/asian/hispanic/black etc… student, or a kid of rich/famous person with a pulse who wants to attend. Or athletes who fall within the academic index, or artist, or musician, or social activist, or aspiring physicist. There are more applicants than spots. But the good news is that there are plenty of other amazing schools that will have a spot for Asian students, and Hispanic students, and White students, and Black Students, and Pacific Island students, and every other kind and combination of student. Even if it isn’t on the USNWR or Forbes Top 10 or Top 20. And, you’ll still be great.
I’m glad to read that you were smart, and applied to an in-state public, UT Austin! Did you get your first or second choice major. For those not in the know, nobody can consider UT Austin a “safety”, not even an auto-admit, unless they’re choosing a non-impacted major in COLA or Undecided in the College of Undergraduate Studies as their 1st choice. Automatic admissions only applies to admittance to university, not to major. However, if you did get your 1st or 2nd choice major, being #1 will get you two semesters of waived tuition. I presume that if you applied, that you found it to be wonderful. My own student may choose UT Austin (decisions, decisions!). It’s a great school, and one that will love you back.
???