are colleges racist?

[Professor101]

<p>

Stanford numbers at 23-24% or so makes sense for Asians. If Ivies are keeping them around 17-18% and Stanford is a peer, they should have similar numbers. Stanford differs a bit because they take 40% in State. So proportionally, they can take more Asians to follow the instate model to compete with Berkeley and UCLA but don’t have to match the same numbers for the other 60% of the admits. </p>

<p>So out of 100 admits, they admit 35% of 40 people (14 people) and 17% of 60 people (10.2) and you get 24 out of a hundred. I have no way of proving that the instate admits are actually 35% Asian.

This is the most reasonable analysis I have found so far for Stanford.</p>

<p>The key is the percent of in-state Asian admits. 35% is probably on the low end. The in-state rate should mirror those of Caltech and Berkeley. It could range from 35 to 50%, or 24-30.2% Asians overall. Caltech’s overall is about 39% Asian and it in-state definitely will be higher than that. As many of you know, Stanford along MIT, Berkely, and Caltech is among the top science and engineering schools in the country. If any of the stereotyping about Asians being STEM oriented stands, then Stanford should have more Asian students, like the other three.</p>

<p>

FALL 2010
Nonresident aliens 138 493 7%
Hispanic / Latino 306 1079 16%
Black or African American 128 506 7%
White, non-Hispanic/Latino 534 2,350 34%
American Indian or Alaska Native 23 88 1%
Asian 273 1223 18% … …NEW CATEGORY
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 8 19 0% …NEW CATEGORY
Two or more races, 135 581 8% …NEW CATEGORY
Race/ethnicity unknown 127 548 8%
Total 1672 6887 100%

Xiggi: The Asian percent for 2010 is: 273/1676=16.3% that year; and 1223/6887=17.8% overall.</p>

[xiggi]

<p>

Xiggi: The Asian percent for 2010 is: 273/1676=16.3% that year; and 1223/6887=17.8% overall.

</p>

<p>Should I conclude you did not spend much time reading my post nor try to understand that the categories changed?</p>

[VeilOfMaya]

<p>If you define diversity by how much melanin a person has in their skin, then what about eye color, hair color? I realize that skin color may seem to have more impact on a person then say eye color, but in reality it is the culture of where that person lives that defines who they are. ‘Black’ people tend to live in certain cultures and develop certain characteristics, and the same for ‘white’, ‘yellow’, etc…</p>

<p>But then there are plenty of people who live outside of these pre-determined boundaries, blacks who live in white neighborhoods for instance. Or in the case of one of my friends who is the son of an inter-racial marriage, in which he is black and his sister is white. Do you think accepting both of them is going to bring cultural diversity to a school?</p>

<p>The problem then is how should colleges handle this situation? And there is no easy answer. Race is probably the easiest way, even as imperfect as it is, to define diversity. Yet as long as we use it as a determining factor there will always be the problem of racism.</p>

[Professor101]

<p>

Should I conclude you did not spend much time reading my post nor try to understand that the categories changed?

</p>

<p>I noticed the change a while ago. I was arguing there was a bias even before the change. My purpose was to point out that the 18% was incorrect.</p>

[xiggi]

<p>

I noticed the change a while ago. I was arguing there was a bias even before the change.

</p>

<p>If you did notice (and understand the nature of the change,) why do you insist on using incorrect numbers? For shock value? </p>

<p>

My purpose was to point out that the 18% was incorrect.

</p>

<p>Really? Numbers can be hard to interpret, aren’t they! </p>

<p>Why don’t you read again my post? Try this Asian “273 1223 18%” and read this slowly "PS First column is freshman enrollment. Second column is total enrollment. Percentages represent the % of the total enrollment.</p>

[texaspg]

<p>[The</a> Undergraduate Program: Stanford University Facts](<a href=“http://www.stanford.edu/about/facts/undergraduate.html]The”>http://www.stanford.edu/about/facts/undergraduate.html)</p>

<p>I am a bit lost on the numbers being presented for Stanford. From the above link, I see the following for the overall undergraduate population for 2010-11 at Stanford.</p>

<p>Race/Ethnicity
African American 707 (10%)
American Indian or Alaska Native 190 (3%)
Asian American or Pacific Islander 1,548 (23%)
White 2,385 (35%)
International 493 (7%)
Mexican American 573 (8%)
Other Hispanic 443 (6%)
Unidentified 548 (8%)</p>

<p>Geographic Origin
California 2,742 (40%)
Other U.S. 3,652 (53%)
Foreign (89 countries) 493 (7%)
Asia 274 (56%)
The Americas 76 (16%)
Europe 75 (15%)
Africa 36 (7%)
Middle East and North Africa 26 (5%)
Pacific Basin 6 (1%)</p>

[xiggi]

<p>

I am a bit lost on the numbers being presented for Stanford. From the above link, I see the following for the overall undergraduate population for 2010-11 at Stanford.

</p>

<p>Texaspg, the differences come from the changes in the categories in the Common Data Set (starting with Fall 2010). See above post on this and the sources below.</p>

<p>[Stanford</a> University: Common Data Set 2010-2011](<a href=“http://ucomm.stanford.edu/cds/2010.html#enrollment]Stanford”>http://ucomm.stanford.edu/cds/2010.html#enrollment)</p>

<p>[Stanford</a> University: Common Data Set 2009-2010](<a href=“http://ucomm.stanford.edu/cds/cds_2009.html]Stanford”>http://ucomm.stanford.edu/cds/cds_2009.html)</p>

<p>[Stanford</a> University: Common Data Set 2008-2009](<a href=“http://ucomm.stanford.edu/cds/cds_2008.html#enrollment]Stanford”>http://ucomm.stanford.edu/cds/cds_2008.html#enrollment)</p>

<p>[Common</a> Data Set 2007-08 | Stanford University](<a href=“http://ucomm.stanford.edu/cds/cds_2007.html]Common”>http://ucomm.stanford.edu/cds/cds_2007.html)</p>

<p>The numbers you present are the more “conventional” way. You can see the differences in the way students with multiples races are reported.</p>

<p>Fwiw, this is why Professor101’s comparison of 24-26 percent to the “latest” 16 percent is inaccurate and … misleading.</p>

[Professor101]

<p>^^ Sorry about that.

If you did notice (and understand the nature of the change,) why do you insist on using incorrect numbers?

16% of Asian was the correct number for 2010 published by Stanford.</p>

[texaspg]

<p>I am kind of curious why the facts say Asians/pacific islanders are 1,548 vs common data set saying 1223. It sounds like the common data set is counting only Asians in US while the facts is counting Asians from Asia (1223 + 274 + 19 (pacific islanders)) brings it to the ballpark of 1548.</p>

[xiggi]

<p>^^–^^</p>

<p>No, International Asians are not mixed. </p>

<p>See International 493 (7%) and
Foreign (89 countries) 493 (7%) in your figures and
Nonresident aliens 138 493 7% in the CDS 2010.</p>

<p>The differences come from segregating Pacific Islanders (not many) and multiple races students. </p>

<p>See Asian 273 1223 18% … …NEW CATEGORY
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 8 19 0% …NEW CATEGORY
Two or more races, 135 581 8% …NEW CATEGORY</p>

<p>PS From the CDS instructions:</p>

<p>SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO THE CDS FOR 2010-2011
B2
Enrollment by Racial/Ethnic Category reflects new reporting standards</p>

[epiphany]

<p>

The key is the percent of in-state Asian admits. 35% is probably on the low end. The in-state rate should mirror those of Caltech and Berkeley. It could range from 35 to 50%, or 24-30.2% Asians overall. Caltech’s overall is about 39% Asian and it in-state definitely will be higher than that. As many of you know, Stanford along MIT, Berkely, and Caltech is among the top science and engineering schools in the country. If any of the stereotyping about Asians being STEM oriented stands, then Stanford should have more Asian students, like the other three.

</p>

<p>Just because a university is strong in science does not mean that science programs disproportionately dominate (as with MIT, Caltech). Like Harvard, Stanford is a research university with strong science departments and with many other strong departments as well. They don’t have to mirror any other university’s acceptance or enrollment patterns just because you want them to.</p>

[Lemaitre1]

<p>My wife’s mother was Japanese and her father Caucasian and it would be interesting to know what the University of Oregon which she graduated from classified her as. Was she White, Asian, both or neither one? My two sons are one quarter Japanese and three quarters Caucasian and go to public universities in California. Since they are more than 50% White should they be classified as White or does having some Asian ancestry mean they could be counted as Asian? It is likely that in the coming years California will be home to a significant number of people that have both European and Asian ancestors and they tend to be high achievers in Academics and standardized test scores.</p>

[ucbalumnus]

<p>

@Lemaitre1

My wife’s mother was Japanese and her father Caucasian and it would be interesting to know what the University of Oregon which she graduated from classified her as. Was she White, Asian, both or neither one? My two sons are one quarter Japanese and three quarters Caucasian and go to public universities in California.

</p>

<p>These days, don’t most forms asking for racial/ethnic self-identification allow selecting multiple categories, rather than just one? I recall it was a big deal a few censuses ago when there were complaints from people who self-identified with multiple categories but could only check one racial category plus Hispanic / non-Hispanic.</p>

<p>Of course, in the context of university admissions, there is widespread belief that checking Asian, even in combination with some other category, will make it harder to be admitted to a selective university (the topic of this thread being whether it is true – something hard to prove either way from publicly available information, though the answer may vary between different schools – even though many posters are convinced it is or is not true). So some applicants who are both Asian and some other category might check only the other category for the purpose of university admissions.</p>

[Professor101]

<p>

Like Harvard, Stanford is a research university with strong science departments and with many other strong departments as well.

I am not aware Harvard is known for its engineering programs, but Stanford is renowned in engineering like MIT, Caltech and Berkeley. HP, Google, Yahoo, etc. just make Stanford more connected with engineering and technologies. The only President produced by Stanford was an engineer.</p>

[Professor101]

<p>

Fwiw, this is why Professor101’s comparison of 24-26 percent to the “latest” 16 percent is inaccurate and … misleading.

You cannot say I am misleading because you cannot prove the drop is due to reclassification. Is Asian multi-racial?</p>

[xiggi]

<p>Professor101, are you really unable to follow a logical presentation of numbers or are you determined to continue to show bad faith? I realize (from reading the admission history of your D) that you hope to find signs of “discrimination” at the office of Richard Shaw, but there ought to be limits in refusing to acknowledge simple facts. </p>

<p>Do you really believe that there have been wholesale changes in the enrolled student body from the Fall of 2009 to the Fall of 2010? Inasmuch as it would be more obvious to you if you could compare the “traditional presentation” for both the years 2009 and 2010, I will try )one more time) to point you in the right direction.</p>

<p>This is the traditional information posted by TexasPG:</p>

<p>African American 707 (10%)
American Indian or Alaska Native 190 (3%)
Asian American or Pacific Islander 1,548 (23%)
White 2,385 (35%)
International 493 (7%)
Mexican American 573 (8%)
Other Hispanic 443 (6%)
Unidentified 548 (8%)
Total 6887</p>

<p>This is the CDS format that follows the imposed changes in classification:
Nonresident aliens 493
Hispanic / Latino 1079
Black or African American 506
White, non-Hispanic/Latino 2,350
American Indian or Alaska Native 88
Asian, non-Hispanic/Latino 1223
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 19
Two or more races, non-Hispanic/Latino 581
Race/ethnicity unknown 548
Total 6887</p>

<p>Now, I will place them side by side, and show the difference.
Nonresident aliens 493 493 0
Hispanic / Latino 1079 1016 -63
Black or African American 506 707 +201
White, non-Hispanic/Latino 2,350 2385 +35
American Indian or Alaska Native 88 190 +102
Asian, non-Hispanic/Latino 1223 1548 +325
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 19 -19
Two or more races, non-Hispanic/Latino 581 -581
Race/ethnicity unknown 548 548 0
Total 6887 6887 0</p>

<p>Do you see how the 600 students that compose the Native Hawaiian, other Pacific Islander, and
two or more races vanishes in the traditional view? In this table, those 600 students are appearing as 325 Asians, 102 American Indians, 201 Blacks and so on. Please note that the reclassification also impacts the remaining categories, especially white and latinos.</p>

<p>It requires a tremendous display of bad faith to reject this presentation. I can assure you that the presentation DOES cover the same 6,887 students! </p>

<p>What say you now?</p>

[xiggi]

<p>

I noticed the change a while ago. I was arguing there was a bias even before the change. My purpose was to point out that the 18% was incorrect.

</p>

<p>If you prefer to deal with the year prior to the classification changes, here is the IPEDS link:</p>

<p>[College</a> Navigator - Stanford University](<a href=“College Navigator - Stanford University”>College Navigator - Stanford University)</p>

<p>In the Fall of 2009, the Asian population was still at 23%, not counting the internationals from Asia.</p>

[Professor101]

<p>

Professor101, are you really unable to follow a logical presentation of numbers or are you determined to continue to show bad faith? I realize (from reading the admission history of your D) that you hope to find signs of “discrimination” at the office of Richard Shaw, but there ought to be limits in refusing to acknowledge simple facts.

What is your logical presentation? If your presentation is logical, then Stanford had misrepresented their Asian numbers for many years (treat multi-racial as Asian). This will not alter the fact that Asian is about 16-18% of Stanford’s students’ body and my claim against Stanford remains as presented. </p>

<p>My D is as relevant as you are racially biased. </p>

<p>You are one of those who believe Simpson is not guilty (figuratively speaking). No amount of data will convince you otherwise.</p>

[Hunt]

<p>But Professor101, what exactly is your claim against Stanford? It doesn’t appear that the raw numbers of Asians have, in fact, dropped at Stanford in recent years. Thus, your claim has to be that 16-18% Asians isn’t “enough.” But as has been pointed out, Stanford draws nationally (where Asians are less than 5%) and from California (where Asians are about 12%). So once again, the challenge is to show that Asians “should” be more overrepresented than they are already. That’s what’s hard to show without data that don’t appear to me to exist.</p>

[woeishe]

<p>I don’t think a group can be overrepresented.</p>