<p>Several points-
Not all URMs have lower "stats." Likewise not all whites/asians have high stats. There is continuum and significant overlap. Some of the most highly accomplished students I knew at Amherst were URMs. That experience destroyed many of my own preconceived notions on race and achievement which I am sad to say that I had before entering college. That type of enlightenment is priceless and necessasry given the multicultural, multiracial society we are all a part of. Also, not all URMs come from "disadvantaged" backgrounds. Some URMs also have had many of the socioeconomic advantages that upper middle class kids have (educated parents, stable family, good local schools) or were able to attend elite prep schools if their parents were wealthy, or if these schools themselves, tried to diversify and bring in kids who would otherwise never have had such an opportunity. In some ways, these programs have merit because they help prepare such students for the transition to a challenging college environment early. In any event, I do believe that race is not the only criterion the college is looking at when it tries to diversify. Amherst also is going after socio-economic diversity, which includes whites and asians. An Asian student from New York Chinatown will be looked at differently than an Asian student from Scarsdale. It also is trying to recruit first-generation college students of all races.</p>
<p>It is too easy to look at admissions only through the lens of race. For any demographic that the college needs and prizes, it will go out and get the best possible student to fill that niche. I also believe, places like Amherst, are small enough to read applications with sensitivity and insight on these matters (although I hope they increase their staff as applications rise!). "Soft" factors such as life circumstance, personal character, leadership, motivation are important and that is why essays and recs are looked at closely.</p>
<p>To illustrate my preceding points, let me paint a different scenario. I have been told that it is not easy to find premiere athletes in hockey and football that match the college's median stats. Finding someone who knows how to tackle well , benchpress 200 lbs, runs the 40 in less than 5 seconds, and scores over 1400 on the SAT is not easy to find (although I know there are such students at Amherst and other elite schools) so it is possible that admissions staff may have to take someone who scores 1250 if that person is a recruited athlete. The college has made a decision that they want someone like that, and they will go out and get the best person, academically and athletically. that fits the bill. The student/athlete comes to Amherst and helps the football team beat Williams. Mission Accomplished :). But something more also happens. Surprsingly, the student/athlete with the lower stats finds his academic passion and ends up graduating magna cum laude. It turns out that his motivation, discipline, work ethic more than compensated for his pre-college ability to take a standardized test. The same thing happens (obviously not always) for many of the students that fill other important demographics for the college, including URMs. Colleges like Amherst are looking for students that will not just merely graduate but excel when given a chance. The Tony Jack story is a great example of what someone can do when given such asn opportunity and support. </p>
<p>In the U.S., admission to elite colleges is not purely based on stats as Madville aptly has pointed out. It is stats PLUS whatever the student brings to the college. The latter is difficult quantify. I was involved in medical school admissions previously at one of our top medical schools. We used stats a lot, particularly for our initial screening of applicants. However, once that was done, we tried to look at other soft criteria. These criteria are somewhat different than for college admissions as we do not care whether we have a first rate orchestra or football team. However, we did try to assess factors like personal character, motivation, perseverance, leadership, potential to contribute to medicine and society (even though we never had training in fortune telling) as well as "fit" for our school (Would student X be able to take full advantage of the opportunities at our school?). All of us took our responsibiities seriously, although one could argue that the class could have been determined solely by stats, and we would have selected an outstanding class by all the metrics that U.S. News deems important (I am being facetious here). On the other hand, if we didn't believe that soft factors mattered, we would not have put such efforts (all voluntarily) to meet candidates, review their apps, and argue among ourselves who we felt would be the best students for the class. I really do believe that careful consideration of these matters is important. It not only produces a better learning environment for students and faculty, but also produces that best graduates for a given school. I talked with a Japanese colleague about medical school admissions in his country which is based solely on test scores. He said they have considered moving to an American type of application as they have found that good test takers do not always make for good doctors. I think the same can be said at the undergraduate level, too.</p>
<p>Sorry about being long-winded. I got carried away but I want students, particularly those that may feel that they did not get a place despite high "stats", to realize there is a lot more than meets the eye. It also is good to wrestle with these issues, whether it be in a forum like this, or more openly with classmates, teachers, and friends. Race and racism still matters and should not be swept under the rug. Obama's recent speech on race highlights how far we have come but also how far we still need to go as a society.</p>