<p>That’s not really what it shows. Though it may be true there are more hispanics than blacks or asians in the most recent class, for the previous years, the number of blacks has increased slightly and the number of asians has fluctuated both up and down while the number of hispanics has increased. I don’t think these numbers definitively proof anything about what type of students Stanford favors or does not.</p>
<p>What about the numbers is misleading, inconclusive or “insufficient?” If these are true numbers, it is abundantly clear that Stanford has substantially increased Hispanic enrollment while Black and Asian enrollment has decreased. Given a finite number of seats in each class, the numbers clearly state that Hispanics are now the favored “minority.” It is up to Stanford to choose whom it wants in its classes, and it now wants Hispanics. Nothing “wrong” or “unfair” at all about this: it is merely a choice, frieghted with no moral content whatsoever. The consequences of Stanford’s bias will be felt only a few generations from now, when these classes prove themselves either wealthy enough or not wealthy enough to keep the university in coin. It is already well-documented that Asians tend not to give back their universities (they are heavily family-focused, whereas university attendance is status-focused and so less deserving of support). The jury is out on Hispanics as donors, as too few for too long have been admitted. Thus, we’ll just have to wait a couple of generations to see whether Stanford’s version of social engineering will benefit any of itself or society. Given the substantial population of Hispanics in California, I would also suspect there is a stong element of home cooking involved.</p>
<p>GUYS, I HAVE A CRAZY IDEA.
What if, and stay with me here, there are simply more hispanic applicants because there are more hispanics in the US now? What if hispanics are supposed to account for 50% of the US population of 2050?</p>
<p>What if this is mostly due to a change in demographics rather than affirmative action of anything like that?</p>
<p>^The quoted data doesn’t indicate the total number of applicants of each subgroup who sought admission, nor the relative qualifications of each. Among other possible explanations for the results, Stanford may have received a significantly greater proportion of competitive applications from Hispanic applicants than from Black applicants in the past few years. It may additionally, or alternatively, be the case that Stanford was more successful in getting Hispanic students to matriculate there during the time period in question. In either (or both) cases, the numbers cited above wouldn’t represent the admission of more students of one group “at the expense of” another, as the OP stated. Statistics 101: correlation doesn’t imply causation.</p>
<p>The usual argument of quality versus quantity is raised here. A very well-known article published several years ago by a Princeton professor and has been cited on CC numerous times – used normalized data and determined asians have an admission rate several times lower than that for other ethnic groups.</p>
<p>Evaluating the data, “advanced statistics” says that the drastic rise and fall in one-year freshman enrollment is the result of favorism (be it come from students or the university admission).</p>
<p>Sorry, caldad, but it proves no such thing–and did you mean “favoritism”? I smell the usual “scapegoat-ism” (to coin my own new word) so often found on these forums.</p>
<p>I am a parent and post here to inform and help. Please stay to the point of the forum and do not side track provoking others. You will learn a lot more new words as you go to college.</p>
<p>^LOL, caldad. I certainly haven’t strayed from the matter raised in this thread, nor am I provoking anyone. You just seem unhappy with the fact that I revealed the flaw in your claim. There’s not much else that can be said on the issue, so that’s all, folks.</p>
<p>"A very few of you might remember that my daughter (Chinese-American) was admitted into Harvard, MIT, Stanford, UPenn (Management & Tech Program), Norwestern (BS/MD program), Rice, UCSD (full-ride) … but Princeton was the only one that denied her admission … well, Brown did too but Brown asked her if she was still interested and she said no, so Brown returned with a rejection letter.</p>
<p>We were quite curious to what it might be the reason for the Princeton rejection."</p>
<p>Caldad - I found this 2006 post of yours on the Parents thread. Where did your daughter end up going to college? Did she go to a school with a diverse student body? If so, what did she think of her experience? Did you ever discover why she was rejected at Princeton? Have you compiled 5 year admission stats from everywhere where she applied?</p>
<p>She chose Havard and had enjoyed the experience. We never intended to find out reasons for her Princeton rejection. Statistically (applicant qualifications) speaking – we assumed Princeton had a quota and selective asian admission.</p>
<p>The data shows a sudden (versus gradual) change in values which is alarming.</p>
<p>The article was published by this professor who is an authority on the subject of minority college admission. You can find numerous articles (references) there –</p>
Wait really!? And I thought Asians had it easier in college admissions… </p>
<p>Anyways first of all the quoted claim is nothing new. Second of all even if there is a preference for URMs and against Asians, this doesn’t mean there is a trend that these preferences are getting more and more extreme. </p>
<p>There are just way too many other variables for me to believe your original claim based on the statistics you gave. These include, among others: number of applicants, quality of applicants, and yield of applicants from each race profile. </p>
<p>Maybe you’re right about Asians having an increasingly tougher time to get into Stanford. I wouldn’t be surprised. But you don’t have enough proof as of now for me to believe you.</p>
<p>People here are arguing that there is insufficient data on which to base any conclusions that Hispanics are being favored in the admissions process at Stanford. A key argument is that we don’t see the “quality” of the various ethnic applicant pools, nor do we know the number in each pool and the acceptance rate versus each pool – all we see is the raw data that shows, clearly, that Hispanic admissions numbers have increased and blacks and Asians have decreased.</p>
<p>Given that Stanford will receive probably around 30,000 + applications this year, I would argue that this is a substantial statistical sample of applications and, within it, probably covers a very fair representation of the various ethnic pools. Assuming every ethnic group applied in equal numbers, we could conclude that the Hispanic pool was “better” for Stanford than any of the other pools (note the “for Stanford” qualifier, as it eliminates all the fuss about relative test scores, etc.). Based upon experience and belief, however, all of us on CC know that is is highly unlikely that the number of Black and Hispanic applicants would equal the number of Asian applicants. Stanford has substantial outreach programs for Blacks and Hispanics precisely because it can’t get enough of them; there is no Asian outreach. thus, we can assume that the applicant pool has fewer Blacks and Hispanics than Asians and that, therefore, the acceptance rate of these ethnic groups are greater in proportion to their pool than Asians. Given the widely publicised (by College Board and by ACT) difference in test scores between Blacks, Asians and Hispanics (all of which is tracked and is public information), and given the vast size of the statistical pool of applicants at Stanford, we can assume that the test statistics of the various ethnic pools at Stanford should only be a few points different than the State or national averages themselves. This being so, and the statistical sample being as broad as it is, we can reasonably conclude that (a) the Hispanic pool is smaller than the Asian pool and its test stats are likely to be lower and (b) indifferent to this broad proposition, Stanford chooses to promote Hispanics in preference to the other ethnic groups.</p>
<p>Stanford will get what it gets and must be happy with it. The exegesis shows the bias here, but the bias is merely something to be noted with a shrug – there probably is a bias at Notre Dame towards Catholics, for example, but no one jumps up and down about it. Similarly, if Stanford wants to lard its classes with Hispanics, that’s Stanford’s own business. More power to 'em.</p>
<p>^Okay but again that is nothing new. Preferences in admission for Hispanics are pretty much a given at Stanford and many other private universities. What the OP is arguing (unsuccessfully imo) is that this preference is getting larger and larger as the years progress.</p>
<p>There are more Hispanics being admitted now than ever before. Doesn’t that data confirm the obvious: “this preference is getting larger and larger as the years progress.” What don’t you see in the numbers? In my school, talented Black kids were denied at Stanford and the mediocre Hispanics were deferred. That told me all I needed to know about the reality of Stanford admissions.</p>