<p>Does the fact that the percentage of hispanic and latino students at WashU is less than 5% help me if I'm latino and have the grades in? How much does race play into admissions?</p>
<p>I think they are actively soliciting latinos; they started mailing to my D when she was 14. But they are also known for having a huge marketing engine....they want the acceptance and yield stats that will help them move up in the rankings. My D is not applying; while she would have a great chance of getting in, we don't qualify for financial aid, and she likely not be at the top of the merit pool. For you, if you have comparable grades and stats to your peers, your URM will definitely be a benefit.</p>
<p>How about Native applicants at WashU? Lol, on SparkCollege the percentage is "N/A", wow......how will WashU view my application (quite good stats, ECs) amongst the rest of the RD pool?</p>
<p>thanks, I also plan to apply ED. WashU is the total package for me at least and I don't want to compete with the Ivy washouts when RD time comes around</p>
<p>"How about Native applicants at WashU? Lol, on SparkCollege the percentage is "N/A", wow......how will WashU view my application (quite good stats, ECs) amongst the rest of the RD pool?"</p>
<p>This can only help you. Don't think too much on the fact that the Native American population is N/A. Native Americans only account for about 1% of the US population as a whole so even if there are some Native Americans here, they constitute a statistically insignificant number.</p>
<p>Well, yeah, about 1% of the population is Native American, but I think the fact that WashU lists their percentage as N/A means that they can't even round up to 1%, as many colleges do. </p>
<p>However, what I wonder is how colleges view the whole Native American situation? Yes, about 1% of the population is Native American, but schools like Stanford have nearly 3% Native undergrads.....wouldn't this mean Natives are overrepresented at Stanford? However, Native Americans are usually considered URMs, right?</p>
<p>
schools like Stanford have nearly 3% Native undergrads.....wouldn't this mean Natives are overrepresented at Stanford? However, Native Americans are usually considered URMs, right?
That's because those schools overcompensate by lowering their academic requirements for URMs so that they can claim to have a higher percentage of URMs so as to improve their public image.</p>
<p>Okay, so how will my application, being a Native American involved with my tribe, be viewed in both WashU's and Stanford's applicant pool?</p>
<p>
Okay, so how will my application, being a Native American involved with my tribe, be viewed in both WashU's and Stanford's applicant pool?
It will obviously increase your chance of getting in. And (if you are applying next year and aren't just asking what chance you have of getting in this year after having already applied) make sure you write your essay about something related to your ethnic background, because they love that kind of stuff.</p>
<p>I applied RD this year.....I wrote my commonapp essay on a trip to Africa, kind of comparing culutural experiences and diversity....so I didn't really focus on my heritage, but I think it's better if I just incorporated it a little, like I did.</p>
<p>What do you think they'll think of this? </p>
<p>Also, I wrote my Annika Rodriguez essay specifically about my heritage.</p>
<p>does that mean that if student A is a URM and has the same grades and everything as student B, mr. white male, student A is better off?</p>
<p>The general assumption is yes.</p>
<p>WEll, yeah, I guess so and what irritates people is that top colleges sometimes take less qualified URMs over more qualified white (or Asian) applicants.</p>
<p>yeah, generally that sort of thing happens a lot. i personally don't agree with it - i mean, i'm colombian, so it works to my advantage, but i think that this focus on "diversity" can be detrimental in many cases. i see where they're coming from, but it seems weird and unnecessary, and in many cases just further irritates caucasian applicants and their families when they seem to be looked upon less favorably for being white. and this sort of thing is prevalent throughout higher education, because such a low percentage of minorities, blacks and latinos especially, go to college, and they don't want to seem like elite, white colleges.</p>
<p>not to sound cocky...but I think that I'm at or above the average for whites and asians applying to wash u. after my latest semester grades get processed I'll have above a 4.0 and i have 3-4 really strong extra currics that I do all the time and hopefull (fingers crossed twice) I got above a 2200 on my SAT. I find out in two weeks. IS this cause for optimism :]?</p>
<p>I completely agree with erika27, and as you can probably deduce from my name, I, too, am Colombian.</p>
<p>Yeah, I think it's kind of unfair sometimes, but I also think schools want people with different perspectives on life, they don't just take URMs or internationals over the typical WASP because they want to look like a "diverse" school, I think it actually enhances the college experience. This is an interesting blurb from Stanford's FAQ page.....
"10. Does Stanford practice Affirmative Action?</p>
<p>Stanford has a strong commitment to admitting and enrolling a student body that is both highly qualified and diverse. We read all applications with a sensitive awareness to the applicant’s personal experiences, family background, and potential to add to the rich and dynamic texture of our campus. We recognize special circumstances, and we pay close attention to the unique educational contexts and life experiences of students from low-income families and nontraditional backgrounds. We believe that diversity is essential to the educational process and that it affects the student body in all of the ways that our students experience the University. At a place like Stanford, where students learn so much from one another, a dynamic range of perspectives and experiences influences learning both in and out of the classroom. We are committed to making Stanford as strong a university as possible, and this entails enrolling the most promising students from all backgrounds."</p>
<p>Yeah it's also not like they're taking "unqualified" URMs. I mean would they really take someone into their school that wouldn't be able to keep up with the work? Granted there might be some difference between the average stats between admitted ethnic groups but nobody getting accepted into a prestigious school is going to be stupid by any stretch of the imagination. Affirmative action was only instated "to right past wrongs" against URMs in the United States and in the words of a Supreme Court Justice "it won't be necessary in 20 years"</p>
<p>When did the justice say that? Lol, the 1980s, when AA began? haha, that would be funny because, especially at top schools, AA is practiced, as Stanford's response suggests.</p>
<p>i'm saying the reason why it's practiced is to better represent all of the different people in the United States. Hispanics and Latinos just past African Americans yet they are not accurately represented in universities hence affirmative action. These are some notable court cases dealing with affirmative action:</p>
<p>Regents of University of California v. Bakke (1978) Allan Bakke, a white male, successfully sues to gain admittance into the University of California Davis medical school based on reverse discrimination. In a separate decision, U.S. Supreme Court upholds principle of affirmative action by ruling that race can be a factor in college admissions policies. (with affirmative action being defined as: policies that promote or require special treatment, or positive steps, to compensate for past injustices)</p>
<p>(U Michigan cases)
Gratz v. Bollinger Ruling:6-3- Undergraduate admissions policy that awards minority students 20 of 150 points to be admitted is struck down.
Grutter v. Bollinger Ruling:5-4- Law School admissions policy that allows for afirmative action is upheld. Minority students are judged individually to achieve a "critical mass" of African-American, Latinos, and Native Americans etc. The Court, following the 1978 Bakke case, affirms affirmative action, but continues to strike down quotas (of URMS) as unconstitutional. USSC urges universities to end practice of diversity-based affirmative action within 25 years.</p>
<p>Well, it looks like I'm getting in on the tail end of AA. Pretty soon I guess the only thing left of AA will be the way that MIT uses to get their % of male to females close to 50-50. e.g. its easier for women to get accepted than men. AA is essentially that concept applied to race. Something I don't necessarily agree with but....I'm not going to complain about it.</p>