<p>Well since I’m an interviewer, I can back up the post that that Northstarmom’s post. </p>
<p>Get off this old tired horse about URM’s being underqualified. Unless you’re prepared to all level that at women, white rural kids, orphans and foster kids, etc.</p>
<p>Colleges find - within a certain test range - that students do equally well. Some who score lower, actually perform better as students. Stats aren’t everything and are the easiest thing to manipulate with enough specialized coaching and prep work. Which is why “scores” are being de-emphasized and many Adcoms (whether they tell you that or not) glance at them, but give the majority of weight to the applicants other “attributes.”</p>
<p>I just looked at the MIT stats from this past year and it would surprise people to know that the largest pool of applicants to be accepted are not scoring in the top category and based on my interviews over the last few decades, a lot of them are white males.</p>
<p>So could we skip the tired, worn out speculation? At least at top schools, the pool of applicants runs 10 for every spot. There isn’t any need to adjust standards for any one subset of student to achieve campus diversity.</p>
<p>But - more often than not - that finger you are pointing may actually apply to a white kid who suffered some adversity, or grew up in a rural area without access to resources, not the stereotype of a woman or URM people keep stoking as a smokescreen to mask their own failure to achieve something.</p>
<p>I never understood why some - who have traditionally been the beneficiaries of an advantage, suddenly howl with outrage when the “playing field” is leveled for everyone else.</p>
<p>Get over it people. Give Adcoms more credit than that. If you didn’t get your top choice - “attitude” may have done more to doom the application than someone taking “your spot.”</p>