Shrinkrap

"Does anyone know detailed acceptance rate (by race) at Ivy League colleges?

Overall acceptance rate:
White acceptance rate:
Asian acceptance rate:
URM acceptance rate: "

You can get information on some schools regarding black and overall admission rates via an annual report published by "The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education".

Here is one from 2008
http://www.jbhe.com/features/61_enrollments.html

In some years, for some schools, the numbers are much higer for blacks, but in many schools they are similar or less. I don't always know how to interpret it becuase I wonder about the impact of a very small N. For example, if 2 of 4 black applicants get in, for a fifty percent admit rate, does that mean the same thing as 200 of 400. I really don't know. I also expect many, many students are counted twice among the admissions, and that is reflected in the enrollment rates. In my D's year, she seemed to see a lot of the same kids at all the diversity events and admitted student days.

fabrizio

So there are no racial preferences, but if racial classification is not considered, then schools will cease to have "diversity"? Is that what you're saying?


For whatever reason, I have not made myself clear. I do not, I repeat, do not, view racial classification as the driver behind diversity. I am asking why racial preference supporters believe it is.

A simple question: would the school you read for no longer be diverse if it stopped considering racial classification?

lookingforward

Admittance rates by any category do not correlate directly to yield. Other factors contribute, including fin aid and the kid's own preferences and needs. Not every kid out there wants to go to the best-rated school that accepts him.

Often on CC, whether it's a Chance Me thread or just a poster's random comments, I am surprised how many misread the admissions process. When you're staring down thousands of apps, what really makes one kid compelling enough to advance and what is truly of value to a kid-savvy adult adcom? It's not enough to be a top performer in hs- you have to be a top applicant. And, we all realize holistic includes many elements.

So many high school top performers trip themselves up. One of the worst is when the "Why Us" (or any form of that question that seeks to understand how the kid chose to apply) shows a brain blip. I want to go to X because, since I was a kid, I loved NYC. [Not applying to a school in NYC. Not relevant, in any case.] They also say, I want to go to a top college and you are always listed among top colleges. More:

- I visited (the city another Ivy is in) and felt at home there.
- I want to major in economics because I love to travel and meet new people.
- I want to major in astrophysics because, well, honestly, I don't know if I want to. I think it would be nice to help people. I've never taken a class that covered that, but it sounds interesting. [Not knowing what you want is fine, being lame about it is not.]

You want more, just ask.

Fab, you're testing some of us. I said, I don't see preferences. Nothing that shows me the school prefers Blacks or Hispanics over others. That exclusionary practice would be self-defeating at an academically competitive college. Some Newtonian law applies to top colleges: they seek to maintain their reps and standing, their level of academics, their non-academic vitality, etc.

Shrinkrap

"Admittance rates by any category do not correlate directly to yield. Other factors contribute, including fin aid and the kid's own preferences and needs. Not every kid out there wants to go to the best-rated school that accepts him."

I get that. But I also notice, at least on the "actual results threads" in the AA students forum, that many of the kids who get into one prestigious college, get into several. Of course many of the kids reporting on those threads get into NO prestigious colleges, and many dont even APPLY to prestigious colleges, which I think is much closer to the real world.

My point is, if in fact there are "just" 2000 highly sought after AA seniors, and they all get into 5 prestigious schools, it would inflate the admit rate in a way that it might not in other groups of kids. And outside of those kids, the statistics are quite different. Is that far fetched? I think it is supported by that VERY OLD Esplanade paper that says below a certain SAT score, admit rates for AA students drop quite a bit, even below the admit rates for white students with the same scores.

fabrizio

Well, I don't know which school you read for; maybe it does not practice racial preferences. But the language I use is not idiosyncratic; Justice O'Connor used the term several times in Grutter to refer to Michigan Law's policy.

I repeat my question: would the school you read for no longer be diverse if it stopped considering racial classification?

akbear

"Fab, you're testing some of us. I said, I don't see preferences. Nothing that shows me the school prefers Blacks or Hispanics over others. That exclusionary practice would be self-defeating at an academically competitive college. Some Newtonian law applies to top colleges: they seek to maintain their reps and standing, their level of academics, their non-academic vitality, etc. "

With all these numbers out there, if one is still in denying about the race preference, it is more a honest issue to me. There is one top school (among the top 10 colleges in the U.S.) that probably does not use race preference in admission. The resulting race compositions are:
<1% American Indian or Alaska Native
42% Asian
2% Black or African American
5% Hispanic/Latino
33% White
5% Two or more races
10% Non-Resident Alien

Here are some more good readings from two Ivy professors using the eight Ivy college admission data:
Racial Preferences by the Numbers - Robert VerBruggen - National Review Online

Shrinkrap

Better readings might be the original research from which this article, and the book ("No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal") was derived.

Is there anybody left who hasn't seen it?
http://www.princeton.edu/~tje/files/...Dec%202004.pdf

This is the part I referred to a few posts ago (#199).

"The penalty for scoring less than 1200 on the SAT is
significantly greater for African-American and Hispanic students than the
penalty for white students who score less than 1200 (Model 2). Similarly,
the reward (i.e., increased likelihood of admission) that is produced by
scoring more than 1300 is significantly smaller for African-American and
especially for Hispanic students than the reward for white students who
score more than 1300. Thus, we find that the underrepresented minority advantage is greatest for African-American and Hispanic applicants with SAT scores in the 1200–1300 range and not for applicants with relatively low scores (cf. Dugan et. al., 1996)."


PS, that ^ would have been me (1200-1300), back when some of this data was collected (1983....ok, I applied to college in 1976)


Maybe that is me being "petty".

lookingforward

Can we all shift to a debate on national health policy?

If you want a school that looks only at the top % kids or sets a minimum gpa, fine. The Grutter does a nice job of defending positives about diversity. The Princeton folks state: The Court’s decisions legitimated the use of an applicant’s self-described race or ethnicity as one among many factors that university officials may consider in a ‘‘highly individualized, holistic review’’ of each candidate’s qualifications.

Should a Black kid get an advantage since the country has a history of unfair treatment? I don't know. Should applications be anonymous, strip out all identifying factors, including the high school? I don't know. Are some identifiable groups in this country under-represented and should there be an effort to build up their numbers? Well, why not? That is, if you accept the Court's affirmation of diversity.

Do I think there is a lot of confusion in this thread, and much emotion? That we are throwing in so many factors that it's like trying to climb a greased pole? Yeah.

fabrizio

Who wants this? You keep repeating this straw man, but I don't see anyone advocating for "only top % kids" being admitted.

I thought it did a horrible job. It basically said that a fixed number is a quota but a range (i.e. "critical mass") isn't. Outright racial balancing is patently un-Constitutional, but call it a "critical mass" and you're good to go. What a joke!

fabrizio

What kind of effort are we talking about here? Do you mean aggressive recruiting (i.e. encouraging applications from so-called "underrepresented" minority students) and outreach? Or do you mean racial preferences, or if you prefer your euphemism, "diversity considerations"?

transfers2010

Some groups are underrepresented in the NBA. Should there be an effort to "build up their numbers"? Or are the underrepresented groups simply worse at what the NBA is looking for?

CCsniper

"You keep repeating this straw man, but I don't see anyone advocating for "only top % kids" being admitted."


Why not? Why should elite institutions accept anything but elite students? Why should a less qualified applicant be accepted in lieu of an elite one?

saraha

To me, it doesn't seem that race matters much when going to college (whether prestigious or not). I think it's based more on GPA and test scores that really 'wow' admissions. I guess a minority will really good test score and GPA might have a slight advantage since a lot of Ivy League or 1st tier don't have much diversity.

As for me, (a black female) I don't think I have a standing at any top tier school due to my average, non amazing GPA of a 3.0. I am trying to raise it but I only have until this winter/spring to raise it enough to start applying for colleges to transfer to.

Shrinkrap

Good luck Saraha, and think hard about making yourself vulnerable here.

saraha

Thanks Shrinkrap! Doing all this school work will be worth it in the end (hopefully!) lol.