<p><a href=“http://www.jbhe.com/news_views/47_black-admissions_colleges.html[/url]”>http://www.jbhe.com/news_views/47_black-admissions_colleges.html</a></p>
<p>Amount of African Americans accepted</p>
<li>Wesleyan</li>
<li>Oberlin</li>
<li>Smith</li>
<li>Trinity </li>
<li>Vassar</li>
<li>Amherst </li>
</ol>
<p>Middlebury accepts 71.6%, but very few students apply.</p>
<p>I am surprised that Swarthmore is not listed at the highest echelons. I always thought the PA powerhouse to have an exemplary record for american-african admission and retention. </p>
<p>I'll check the methodology behind the numbers because listing the admission numbers without controlling the overall admission rate could be misleading. </p>
<p>For instance a school with an overall admission rate of 55-60% that accepts 50% of blacks should NOT be considered to have a better record than a school with 20% rate that accepts 50% of blacks. </p>
<p>A reference is made in the webpage; "At Williams College and Amherst College, two of the most selective liberal arts colleges in the nation, more than 50 percent of all black applicants have been accepted over the past decade. The acceptance rate at these top-ranking colleges for applicants of all races stands at about 20 percent." </p>
<p>Listing the NUMBER (amount?) of black enrolled students is a number that has to be controlled for overall applications/admissions. Again, there is no way to adequately compare two schools such as Harvey Mudd and Colgate or Wesleyan and Haverford. The differences in applications and enrollment are simply too large. Colgate ADMITS more students than Harvey Mudds has in applications. Wesleyan enrolls as many students as Haverford admits.</p>
<p>Lastly, it also appears that there are vaster gender disparities among blacks when it comes to college admissions and retention.</p>
<p>I think the yield is the more interesting number. It is one thing to admit a certain number of any student sub-population, but how many actually end up enrolling?</p>
<p>xiggi, It is complicated. Why does Middlebury or Claremont (a school you are familiar with) have a small number of apps compared to other schools? The same with Pomona? </p>
<p>Oberlin and Wesleyan have a history so I can see why African Americans would apply to those schools.</p>
<p>Amherst looks like they are really making an effort.</p>
<p>Then, the information leaves out the wealth of the families. Is Amherst letting in rich African American or poor African Americans? In the past Amherst hasn't done a very good job with poor students of any color.</p>
<p>If I was an African American student and I could handle Middlebury I might throw them an app. The same with Macalester and Carleton, Williams and Amherst.</p>
<p>Texastaximom, I'd also like to know the yield.</p>
<p>Note that these numbers are for black, not necessarily African-American students. There are a lot of black foreign students, often from former British colonies, that end up in these top schools. This has become an issue among African American faculty members, notably at Harvard (the article has been posted on CC before, but I don't have time to look for it now.)</p>
<p>One chart says "blacks", the other "African Americans". Because the acceptance rate is the same in both charts, I'd like to think we are talking about African Americans. But it is true, many black foreign students do end up in the schools.</p>
<p>Hi Driver,</p>
<p>The harvard article is Roots and Race</p>
<p><a href="http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/090443.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/090443.html</a>
In June, a New York Times article raised a long-simmering issue: the origins and ancestry of Harvard's black students. The piece described the celebratory mood at a reunion of African-American Harvard alumni, who applauded Harvard's progress over the past three decades in enrolling larger numbers of black students. But it also noted that this mood was broken when "some speakers brought up the thorny issue of exactly who those black students are." The question arises because, even though in recent years 7 to 9 percent of Harvard's incoming freshmen (8.9 percent for the class of 2008) have been African Americans, some studies suggest that more than half of these students, and perhaps as many as two-thirds, are West Indian or African immigrants or their children. A substantial number also identify themselves as children of biracial couples.</p>
<p>Ms. Waters has a very flawed view. She wants even more affirmative action? She forgets that West Indians are also the descendants of slaves... Interesting article.</p>
<p>dstark,</p>
<p>I also agree that you have to look past the numbers. </p>
<p>While it is true that Middlebury accepted 71% of the 81 students (about 58 students) only 18 students decided to attend.</p>
<p>There are schools that during the same time period may have accepted a lower percentage of black students but more black students applied to those schools (amherst, williams and swat). </p>
<p>At williams 129 admitted and 56 attended</p>
<p>At Swat
Out of an admitted class of 885 11% (97) were black 25 attended</p>
<p>At Amherst</p>
<p>49 chose to attend</p>
<p>You must also remember that students applying to these schools are also applying to overlapping schools and are admitted in multiple places. In the end there are different factors that makes a student choose one school over another : location, money, support both on and off campus, quality of life issues-where does one get theri hair cut and purchase skin care items.</p>
<p>
[quote]
There are a lot of black foreign students, often from former British colonies, that end up in these top schools.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That doesn't mean they are included in the numbers. Conventionally, international students AREN'T reported in figures on race/ethnicity. Besides which, in this context it would be very misleading because sometimes they are admitted under a different process. </p>
<p>The concern with Harvard wasn't about foreign students, I thought, but rather the backgrounds of "domestic" black/african-american students (whether their families were recent arrivals from Caribbean countries, or had been subject to the conditions of American race relations for generations).</p>
<p>Filmxoxo:</p>
<p>Where do you see that Ms. Waters want more AA? She wants more outreach--which does not mean indiscrimate admission. Nor does she forget that West Indians are also the descendants of slaves. She actually mentions it. But she is right in that West Indians are more like other immigrants than African Americans.<br>
I take cabs in Boston all the time. The Haitian cab drivers are uniformly well educated; many speak beautiful French, Kreyol, as well as English.</p>
<p>I just don't think it's right to divide students <em>further</em>, now not only along racial lines, but ethnic lines as well. If the African and West Indian students are out preforming, then there's nothing more to do. She suggests that students should have to specify the country of their parents' origin, which she no doubt intends to do to identify African Americans for admissions purposes. I don't see how it's a West Indian or African's fault that they are well educated. :/</p>
<p>It's not their fault. Nobody says so, least of all a college prof! But if the purpose of AA is to reach out to underprivileged minorities, using skin color as criterion may lead to targeting the wrong population. West Indians would most likely be eligible on financial grounds for need-based aid. But assumptions about being 1 first-generation college applicant would not hold.</p>
<p>And, as the young woman who did the senior thesis described in the article shows, there is self-identification already among students. I will never forget the reaction of an African student who attended college at the same time I did, when colleges were making the first push to enroll African-Americans, and there was a lot of activism in support. He flatly refused to join the African-American Student Association on the ground that he had nothing in common with its members in terms of experience and concerns (he was the son of a tribal chief, not the descendent of slaves). Instead, he stuck with the international students association.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Ms. Waters has a very flawed view. She wants even more affirmative action? She forgets that West Indians are also the descendants of slaves
[/quote]
</p>
<p>While West Indians were indeed slaves, they were not slaves in the United States. When the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was written it to redress the history of what blacks in the U.S. went through under Jim Crow laws, segregation and discrimination.</p>
<p>It is true that at most selective colleges that a large number of blacks on campus are african and west indian. It is also true that many african and west indians do not identify themselves with 'american blacks" as far as becoming members of the African American Societies,, but choose to form Carribean American Societies, etc.</p>
<p>*The president of Amherst College, Anthony W. Marx, says that colleges should care about the ethnicity of black students because in overlooking those with predominantly American roots, colleges are missing an "opportunity to correct a past injustice" and depriving their campuses "of voices that are particular to being African-American, with all the historical disadvantages that that entails."</p>
<p>But others say there is no reason to take the ancestry of black students into account. </p>
<p>"I don't think it should matter for purposes of admissions in higher education," said Lee C. Bollinger, the president of Columbia University, who as president of the University of Michigan fiercely defended its use of affirmative action. "The issue is not origin, but social practices. It matters in American society whether you grow up black or white. It's that differential effect that really is the basis for affirmative action." </p>
<p>"You need a philosophical discussion about what are the aims of affirmative action,'' Professor Waters said. "If it's about getting black faces at Harvard, then you're doing fine. If it's about making up for 200 to 500 years of slavery in this country and its aftermath, then you're not doing well. And if it's about having diversity that includes African-Americans from the South or from inner-city high schools, then you're not doing well, either."</p>
<p>Even among black scholars there is disagreement on whether a discussion about the origins of black students is helpful. Orlando Patterson, a Harvard sociologist and West Indian native, said he wished others would "let sleeping dogs lie." </p>
<p>*</p>
<p>"xiggi, It is complicated. Why does Middlebury or Claremont (a school you are familiar with) have a small number of apps compared to other schools? The same with Pomona?"</p>
<p>The number of applications is influenced by the size of the enrollment. This is a table showing enrollment/total applications. For instance less than 8% of applicants at Amherst, CMC, or Pomona will end up enrolling. In comparison, 16 % of applicant will enrol at Wellesley and 24% at Smith. It does loosely track the admission rates of 19% at Pomona, 21% at Amherst and CMC, 35% at Wellesley, and 57% at Smith. </p>
<p>Amher 7.80%
Clare 7.94%
Pomon 8.00%
Willi 9.41%
Bowdo 9.71%
Swart 9.95%
Carle 10.02%
Hamil 10.26%
Colga 10.51%
Vassa 10.56%
Wesle 11.10%
HMudd 11.11%
David 11.15%
Middl 11.31%
Grinn 12.19%
Colby 12.47%
Haverf 12.49%
Wasle 12.61%
Welle 15.77%
Smith 23.86%</p>
<p>As far as the admissions of black students, it is interesting to ascertain the differences in admission rates between the overall population and blacks. The table shows admission rates of blacks and the difference with the overall rate. Middlebury shows a 46% positive difference -this would translate into 277% of the regular admit rate. </p>
<p>Middl 72% 46%
Pomon 52% 32%
Willi 50% 31%
Amher 49% 28%
Clare 43% 22%
Swart 47% 22%
Bowdo 47% 22%
Haver 50% 21%
Carle 44% 15%
Hamil 43% 8%
Colby 46% 9%
Vassa 36% 8%
David 28% 2%</p>
<h2>Wesle 30% 2% ^ Positive difference</h2>
<p>Welle 36% -2%
Colga 28% -4%
Smith 45% -11%
HMudd 23% -15%</p>
<p>Finally, we could look at the percentage of blacks admitted in the overall admitted pool:</p>
<p>Amher 12%
Swart 11%
Clare 11%
Willi 10%
Haver 10%
Pomon 9%
Wesle 9%
Smith 9%
Vassa 8%
Carle 7%
David 7%
Welle 6%
Bowdo 6%
Colga 5%
Hamil 5%
Middl 4%
Colby 2%
HMudd 1%</p>
<p>PS Tables are based on the top 20 schools as ranked by the most recent US News but the data is from 2008.</p>
<p>Very interesting figures. It appears that schools that are "going begging" for black applicants will be more aggressive to admit those who do apply (no surprise.)</p>
<p>The part I am more surprised by is that there are some schools that take relatively fewer of their black applicants than they do of their applicants at large. Is it because these schools are "known" for being great on admission/aid for black applicants, so many more black students apply, and some are underqualified?</p>
<p>SBMom, I do not think that there is one universal answer. </p>
<p>For instance, looking at two schools that are listed as accepting a smaller percentage of blacks: Harvey Mudd versus Smith. Among the top 20 or 40 liberal schools, Harvey Mudd has the highest SAT score and Smith one of the lowest. 93% of HMC students are in the top 10% of their class; Smith is well below 60%. Both schools have an element of self-selection: one is a very selective engineering school and the other one is non-coed. However, there is little chance that the pool of admitted students might overlap one another. I forgot the exact statistics that listed the numbers of black students who scored above 1450 on the SAT, but the number was very small and a very small fraction of the black students who score around 1250.</p>
<p>xiggi, do you think there is a conscious decision to end up with the similar enrollment percentages for whites and blacks?</p>
<p>Dstark, I honestly do not have a clue. :)</p>
<p>I believe that every one of the schools discussed herein is making a concerted effort to attract, admit, and graduate URM's. Without the recent changes in AA recruiting policies, I'd think that you would see even more dedicated programs such as the Fly Ins. </p>
<p>The biggest issue for the schools is to decide on how much of an advantage they are prepared to offer, be it in softening the admission requirements or offering more financial aid. It is obvious that there a number of URM candidates who do not need any special "treatment", but they are also heavily courted by everyone but can only attend ONE school. In fact, this may explain the yield statistics.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I am surprised that Swarthmore is not listed at the highest echelons. I always thought the PA powerhouse to have an exemplary record for american-african admission and retention.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Xiggi:</p>
<p>This is an example of needing to take an historic view. Swarthmore began a very aggressive affirmative action effort in 1969 (following a series of events known as "The Crisis" -- the takeover of the admissions office by the Af-Am Student Society and the heart attack death of the President during the negotiations). Within months, the admissions director was gone (to Princeton), and recruitment of black students began in earnest.</p>
<p>By the 1980s, Af-Am enrollment had already reached today's levels. For example, the Af-Am percentage was the same in 1985 as it was in the fall of 2004. In effect, they've been in a state of equilibrium, which is why the acceptance rate for Af-Am applicants has been so consistent over the last decade.</p>
<p>I think that state of equilibrium is still below the levels they would like to see. But, it is also a very rigorous school and it doesn't really benefit anybody to accept students who can't handle it. From what I've seen, their accepted URM students have outstanding qualifications.</p>