<p>I am a quarter black. Do you guys know if or how much that will help in the scholarship and financial aid process?</p>
<p>I would mention/abuse that 25% of you</p>
<p>you can use it because you can claim upto 25% of anything. BUT, unless you really need it, I dont think that you should mention it. I personally do not think that it is fair because it's like saying, well since black's aren't as smart as whites, we should lower our standards for letting them into our prestigious university. As an African-American myself, I think they should admit students on the basis of their achievement and character, not on the color of their skin</p>
<p>In theory, FA is color blind, and that holds true for FAFSA. However, when it comes to the Profile, private schools have more leeway with what they do with their institutional funds. Colleges have been known to give "preferred" FA packages to highly desirable candidates, due to URM or some other factor. However, just being URM does not necessarily make you desirable, it's your whole application package.</p>
<p>For merit scholarships, there are plenty of outside and institutional scholarships directed at URMs in general and AAs specifically.</p>
<p>A 2400 SAT is a bigger accomplishment for a poor-school inner-city kid than it is for a wealthy-school suburb kid. Some schools want their student bodies to better reflect the general population diversity. Put that together and you get some schools accepting the achievement and character of an inner city black kid with lower test scores and grades along with a suburban white kid with higher numbers. Self-identifying as black is information to schools.</p>
<p>The OP never said they were a poor inner-city kid, just a quarter AA.</p>
<p>Sorry, you're right; I was responding to pyles_m's "I think they should admit students on the basis of their achievement and character, not on the color of their skin" and not the OP. My mistake for not making that clear.</p>
<p>But not all black children live are poor inner city children getting a rotten education. Now I can see them lower the standards for THOSE students but to do it for blacks and other minorities, I feel like it is saying we in general are not as capable as anyone else which is totally not true. I also do not think it is fair that you are likening blacks as being "poor" and "inner city" either. I understand that schools want to be diverse but they should still be fair. If black students cannot match the other "white" students, then they do not deserve to be admitted. I say this as a black person myself before anyone jumps the gun</p>
<p>Well, I tried to be very careful with my wording on this sensitive subject. I specifically and purposefully referred to poor schools (please have another look) which, in general, I think, are at a disadvantage to rich schools in their ability to educate students. So sometimes a student with lower scores and grades can "match" a student with higher scores and grades in terms of achievement and character, based on the differences in the schools attended. It is also true that some colleges want to increase their racial diversity. This is why a high-achieving minority student from a poor school can be noticed and recruited by some colleges. These colleges are not trying to be fair; they are trying to increase their ability to attract the kinds of students they want.</p>
<p>The world certainly has changed. Back when I was young, the "one drop" rule still held. If one had any black ancestors, one was considered to be black even if one had blond hair, blue eyes, and looked as European as possible.</p>
<p>Vossron, I agree with you in that regards. I feel as though students with impoverished backgrounds and fewer advantages than richer folks should have a bit of advantage but it should not be ascribed to ALL minorities because not all grew up in "the ghetto". There are white people who live in poorer areas who also have fewer opportunities than richer suburbs. Shouldn't the poor white people also have an advantage also? It would be totally unfair if a rich black kids got in with the same stats of a poor white kid solely because he was black. That white kid should definitely get in because it was a greater challenge to get to where he is. I agree, there should be a descrepancy between socioeconomic status but if it is done solely by race, then that is totally unfair.</p>
<p>It's a complex question, and I surely don't disagree with you that SES should be a factor. But how about differences in "life experience" due to being a person of color (independent of SES) and the diversity that that brings to a college? There are social experiences that AA, Latinos, NA and even Asians will have simply due to their appearance, that white people (since they are in the majority) will never experience first hand. Also, people from these different backgrounds bring cultural differences which don't necessarily dissapear due to wealth. What about the middle or upper class URM that wants to give back to their community, does that make a difference?</p>
<p>Not trying to argue, just some thoughts.</p>
<p>Fairness is in the eye of the beholder; there are many factors that some find unfair to consider, but, nonetheless, are important to some adcoms (taken from the Common Data Set): </p>
<p>Interview performance
Extracurricular activities
Talent/ability (including athletic)
Character/personal qualities
First generation
Alumni/ae relation
Geographical residence
State residency
Religious affiliation/commitment
Racial/ethnic status
Volunteer work
Work experience
Level of applicant's interest</p>
<p>There's something here to offend most everyone. In addition to race, religion and athletics are offensive favorites. All other factors being equal (but they seldom if ever are), why should someone from Idaho be admitted over someone from Massachusetts? Race is just one of many tipping factors important to some schools, for the reasons entomom gave.</p>
<p>Totally agree with you vossron. I tell my kids, "fair" is what I take you to in the summer, get used to it!</p>