I see people rummaging through their purse/bag/backpack in search of keys/money/id/lipstick/phone all the time. I have long ago switched to using pants with enough pockets to keep at least the basics on me: keys, wallet, cell phone, a dedicated pocket for each, so I know where every item is and can feel the weight change/imbalance if something is missing. I have learned to always put each item back in its own pocket after use. This is harder for ladies but not impossible: a couple of keys, a cell phone and a tiny wallet with just enough room for an id, a credit/debit card and a few bills can fit, for example, in almost any jeans' pockets without visible bulging. The rest can go in the purse or backpack. Does not work for formal wear, of course, but there are usually plenty of suitable casual choices.

So I've recently decided to change my real name from an oriental one to John Adams. I am not white.

There’s a significant amount of evidence that shows that

(1) Common names have better reception in many areas, especially publication and job interviews.

(2) White names do significantly better than non-white names

(3) Last names that begin with the early letters of the alphabet have a significant advantage over last names beginning with the latter letters of the alphabet.

Source :

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19020207 http://blog.simplejustice.us/files/66432-58232/SSQUKalistFinal.pdf http://ideas.repec.org/p/hhs/sunrpe/2006_0013.html http://www.nber.org/papers/w9873.pdf?new_window=1 http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html

Therefore if I were to use "John", one of the most common 'white' first names, along with Adams, a 'white' surname that also begins with the letter A, it should stand that I would be conferred a number of advantages.

Furthermore, I have very little attachment to my family heritage. Switching names doesn’t cost me anything beyond a minor inconvenience of having to do paperwork. For some people, changing your name may be extremely worthwhile, depending on your current name, and how attached you are to it. At least, it may be worthwhile to consider it, and depending on the person, may be a very cheap optimization with significant benefits.

Given that they canonically keep tabs on underage witches and wizards with magic, I suspect that they judge based on some combination of how magically promising the prospective student appears to be, what their social connections are (are they related to any highly placed individuals who graduated from Hogwarts?) and possibly some sort of affirmative action for muggle born students.

Hogwarts was referred to on a number of occasions in canon as the "best" wizarding school in Britain.

As long as it doesn't directly bear on the storyline though, I wouldn't trust J. K. Rowling to keep careful track of everything she's already written; I suspect she had different ideas at different times of whether Hogwarts was the only wizarding school in Britain.

In Deathly Hallows, the Ministry made it mandatory for every wizarding child of school-going age to attend Hogwarts.

I'd forgotten about that; but then again, I formed most of my opinions regarding Potter canon when I was a teenager reading books 3 and 4. I was an adult by the time I got to Deathly Hallows, and I didn't read it too closely.

I suppose Goblet of Fire could be said to imply wizarding schools are fairly rare, though; it never mentions any continental schools besides Durmstrang and Beauxbatons. The movies seem to imply that those are all-male and all-female respectively, which might in turn suggest more schools offscreen, but I don't think the books do.