Join for FREE,
and start talking with other members, weighing in on community discussions,
Also, by registering and logging in you'll see fewer ads and pesky
welcome messages (like this one!)
@DeepBlue86 - On the one hand, this represents a lot of progress; on the other, there's still a meaningful difference (for which undoubtedly there are many reasons).
I wish more statistics were available from which one could draw clearer conclusions.
That 3% is not far off the roughly 2% difference between men and women's grad rates at HYPS (women having the higher rate). What does that say about the difficulties men have in college, as a group?
Your data presentation is highly selective and misleading. First of all, to compare MIT/Caltech, as schools that don't consider legacy status, with a single school, Harvard, that considers legacy status and that happens to have the single largest endowment, is just disingenuous. Most elite colleges, including the Ivies, have legacy preferences. For a fairer comparison, you at least need to include schools like Brown, or Penn, or Northwestern, or Hopkins
@hebegebe Re the 2% rate male to female difference, it would be worthwhile determining how many of those men left to pursue startups in the hopes of being the next Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg.
I too see legacy preference and URM preference to be the two sides of the same coin. It's hard to justify being for one and against the other.
- diversity (the average rich person is more diverse than the average non-rich person. rich people have the time and money to have diverse experiences, that's the hard truth).