I'd go so far as to argue that it's harder to get by as a white Appalachian than as a black urbanite. Plenty of people & programmes care about the latter; few about the former.
A conversation with the Wash U financial aid office made it very clear just how bad the low-income white situation can be. We were working on my financial aid package and trying to figure out some way I could get the loans and grants I needed (I nearly had to quit school) - and as the woman was looking through her options, she jokingly asked if I was hispanic, saying they had a number of full-tuition scholarships and other funding opportunities for black and hispanic students plus a few opportunities for inner city St. Louis residents. Nothing targeting the low-income and rural.
The good news is that they (along with many other schools) later dropped the race requirements for their scholarships. They also offer free tuition for most, if not all, low-income students now. Sadly, those changes were too late to help me avoid $100k in student loans.
Even now, though, I wonder if many rural students would know about those opportunities. When I was applying to colleges, I went through a couple guidance counselors before I found one who didn't try to talk me into going to community college and studying something easier, like cosmetology or secretarial work. It takes an abnormal amount of effort and drive to get beyond that kind of rural upbringing and educational system, but people tend to ignore the fact that white people can also have a lot of systemic disadvantages.
This also hurts immigrants from other countries: they may be well-educated but on first sight they appear to belong to a lower class. It's very unfortunate.
There's also the reverse effect, notably lampooned in the film Love, Actually: if you've a British accent, Americans will assume you're posh.
Got a link? I'm not questioning you, I'm curious to know more.