<p>Is an african from africa (not american) considered URM and enjoys some advantage for college admission ?</p>
<p>yes, any blacks/african americans are at advantage
a urm is an under represented minority, meaning (i think) their arent a lot with amazing stats etc…</p>
<p>^my question is about african-africans not the american variety 
Since they would be part of the international pool would they benefit of an edge because of them being black?</p>
<p>^ yes, Harvard wants more black students so Africans are at an advantage</p>
<p>Assuming there is a shortage of highly qualified applicants from Africa, those who apply from there would get an advantage.</p>
<p>silverturtle, did you see my post on HYP cross admits ? the question was directly for you
<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/yale-university/840756-hyp-admission-correlation.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/yale-university/840756-hyp-admission-correlation.html</a></p>
<p>Is there any reason to assume that there is a shortage of qualified applicants from africa ? there are probably less applicants from africa compared to asia simply because of the difference in population size.</p>
<p>Do you have any knowledge of how the school systems of most Asian countries differ from those of most African countries?</p>
<p>I’ll give you a hint: in most African countries, only the very rich or very lucky have access to the education necessary for college level work. In most Asian countries (particularly South Korea, Japan, China, and India) that kind of education is widely accessible.</p>
<p>To imply that the number of qualified applicants from Africa can be written off as due to raw population differences is a misstatement at best. It’s probably more indicative of ignorance and a sheltered existence.</p>
<p>Do you have to be this aggressive on a 1st of january ?
Africa goes from Mediterranean countries to south africa and I am not sure that the image you have of its education system is accurate as it is as varied as the many countries which make this huge continent. To imply that only the rich can get an education is also indicative of ignorance.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>not cool…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Even though colleges look for general diversity, they also consider proportional representation. In turn, being from a low-population region is an advantange, as is being from an under-represented region.</p>
<p>I do not have hard data that suggest a dearth of qualified African applicants. But my overwhelming impression is that the Asian (the continent not the race) applicant pool is far more competitive.</p>
<p>An African-American, Mexican-American, Puerto Rican, or Native American.</p>
<p>Native Hawaiians, Samoans, Tahitians, Vanuatuans, and other Pacific Islanders are considered URM as well, as are Alaskan Natives.</p>
<p>I said most, Papex. That’s a pretty important qualifier. Check out the UNESCO studies or any of the other numerous findings if you don’t believe me.</p>
<p>Most inhabitants of North Africa are considered white, by the way. Libya, Egypt, Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia have very little in common with the rest of the continent.</p>
<p>North Africans are heterogenous. A great amount of them are Berber, which is a indigneous group of North Africa that is completely different from Caucasian or Arab. However, there are sub-Saharan africans (black Africans) that are natives of Berber-rich countries, such as Algeria and Egypt though their numbers are not great in size.</p>
<p>Since we’re into nitpicking now,</p>
<p>“I’ll give you a hint: in most African countries, only the very rich or very lucky have access to the education necessary for college level work. In most Asian countries (particularly South Korea, Japan, China, and India) that kind of education is widely accessible.”</p>
<p>Yes, most kids in India have access to the education necessary for college level work. That definitely explains India’s 61% literacy rate, which is less than 23 African countries (as I recall, there are 50 or so countries in Africa), most of which are sub-Saharan.</p>
<p>So what gives with Asia producing so many qualified applicants? Apparently it’s not a population difference, even though either China or India alone is more populous than the continent of Africa. If we said it was due to cultural differences in the value of classical education versus work experience/vocational training, that would be racist. We also can’t say that the imperial history that gives African nations closer ties to Britain, France, Italy, Germany, Belgium, Portugal, or the Netherlands plays any role, because imperialism isn’t nice to talk about.</p>
<p>My favorite part about a rigid insistence on political correctness is that it replaces thoughtful analysis of the problem with an insistence that the world is too big and complicated to understand without generalizing.</p>
<p>Closer ties to Belgium? Have you ever heard of Leopold II? Apartheid? This is not an issue of political correctness. It’s an issue of geopolitical impact on education. Africa was exploited on a level not seen by most Asian countries. The Opium Wars were nothing compared to the absolute dismantling of African culture and the pre-existing political ties.</p>
<p>China and India had been unified at times throughout history by various empires and were more or less homogeneous when they were spat out on a political map. Africa was divied up in a that grouped traditionally warring tribes together. There is absolutely no comparison between the imperial impact on Asia and Africa.</p>
<p>I can’t begin to imagine how you think that imperialism in Africa would give it closer ties to European countries.</p>
<p>^ I think Christiansoldier is suggesting that China/India had cultures of achievement and education for thousands of years PRIOR to Africa being exploited by anyone, whereas Africa didn’t…though his point about positive “ties” to Europe is a poor one.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>First of all, you make two different points:</p>
<p>a. Indian kids DO have a significant amount of readiness for college level education, yes.
b. India has a low literacy rate in the ENTIRE population. The 61% is including people from older generations back when most Indians did not go to college. I’d reckon that only in the past two decades (1990s and 2000s) is when a lot of young Indians started utilizing their education.</p>
<p>If you look at the Indian literacy rate for children between the age of 15-24, it’s 82% ([Literacy</a> in India: Facts, Discussion Forum, and Encyclopedia Article](<a href=“Page Not Found”>Literacy in India - AbsoluteAstronomy.com)). </p>
<p>CONSIDER this:</p>
<p>Half of India is under the age of 25. 82% of 15-24 year old Indians are literate. It’s also a safe guess to say that a higher literacy rate exists amongst those aged 6-14. I could guess 90% of Indians aged 6-14 are literate. Meaning an 86% literacy rate for aged 6-25 in India.</p>
<p>to get back to my question, let me be more specific:
I am african, black, leaving in one of the poorest sub-saharan country, neither rich nor particularly lucky but I think I am getting a decent education in a public HS (although I cannot compare with any other school or country, so maybe what I think is decent is actually terrible).
I am an international applicant, so my question is: would I have an edge over another applicant with the same grades and similar activities simply because I am african ?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, you would have an edge. </p>
<p>Which country are you from anyway?</p>