<p>To keep on picking on Princeton, here’s info as presented by College Board:</p>
<pre><code>* 50% Women
50% Men
<1% American Indian or Alaska Native
18% Asian
7% Black or African American
8% Hispanic/Latino
<1% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
50% White
4% Two or more races
11% Non-Resident Alien
</code></pre>
<p>Several comments. First, does anybody doubt that there’s finagling going on to keep that 50/50 gender balance? Is anybody mad about that?</p>
<p>Second, who are those non-resident aliens? Depending on where they are from, Princeton may be more Asian than these numbers suggest.</p>
<p>Finally, these add up (if my math is correct) to about 99%. So where are the people who don’t identify race on their forms? Are they just omitted? Or does Princeton figure out what they are and count them anyway?</p>
<p>Hunt,
Way back in one of our older threads on this subject, someone (tokenadult, I think) provided information stating that for statistical purposes, the “decline to state” admits are automatically assigned to the White category.</p>
They’re not as good, or rather, some of them are not as good. They’re not quite as good. They’re still plenty good enough to thrive at Harvard, as would several thousand other rejected applicants who weren’t quite as good as those who were accepted. You seem to think that this is a binary choice: either they are all good enough to need no help, or they are so inferior that they don’t deserve to be at Harvard. But it isn’t. Harvard rejects deserving people all the time who don’t fit in with Harvard’s plans. You might be the guy from New Jersey who would have gotten in if they didn’t take anybody from Idaho this year. But they want somebody from Idaho, and so you get rejected in favor for somebody who’s not as good as you. That’s a tough break. But Harvard thinks it’s a good thing to have some kids from Idaho, and they think it’s a good thing to have a few percent URMs. That’s just how they do it. Lucky for Harvard, they don’t have to accept anybody dumb or undeserving to fill those slots. (Caveat: they might accept somebody who is really undeserving personally if it was the kid of a billionaire.)</p>
<p>Everyone should go and complain to collegeboard. They have the influence and jurisdiction to change stuff. Either that or the U.S. board of Education</p>
<p>Did you think I was being stealth in posting these stats? I was merely adding to the previous stats posted, and putting the 18% recent admit rate in the context of a gradual increase since '06, not some sudden response by Princeton Admissions of ‘fear and trembling.’ </p>
<p>However, since you asked, one could reflect on the fact that whether it’s a 14% enrollment or an 18% **enrollment<a href=“of%20any%20category”>/b</a>, such statistics should always be related to the numbers who applied and the numbers who were admitted. We do not know the percentage of Asian-Americans (or any other category other than gender) who applied to Princeton in any given year (from the cds, anyway), but we do know that for those four years, these percentages apply:</p>
I don’t think it makes any more sense to consider gender than it does race. Like race, the person’s gender is something they were born with (well, for most people), nothing they had a choice in, and no impact on their academic performance. If males are favored because they hit their limit on female admits then they’re rejecting people simply because they happen to be female rather than male. That doesn’t seem right to me.</p>
<p>I guess the only reason I can see for the college to include gender and race in their admission criteria is to create an artificial demographic according to whatever criteria they choose to use. Why exactly they’re doing this is hard to say - to be politically correct so as to not receive criticism, acknowledgement that without the demographic they might not be as appealing to attract some of the students they want (“too Asian”, “not enough guys”, “not enough of my race”, etc.), because they truly believe there should be the particular demographic they’ve chosen, maybe some other reasons.</p>
<p>This is why I chuckled a bit when GA2012MOM “went after me” and my alma mater a bit. First, I’m not the one saying that a lot of the "URM"s at elites would’ve been rejected had there been no racial preferences. Second, my alma mater doesn’t even practice racial preferences. Moreover, until [url=<a href=“http://thechoice.blogs.nytimes.com/page/4/]recently[/url”>http://thechoice.blogs.nytimes.com/page/4/]recently[/url</a>], it admitted more than it rejected (i.e. wasn’t selective), so in theory, it had no “need” for them.</p>
<p>My position is simple. If GA2012MOM is right that “For every URM that may have got a break on test scores, there are many more that are just as competetive in that respect (as my D was.),” then I see absolutely no point in continuing the policy. If they are “just as competitive,” then they shouldn’t be any less likely to get in. That doesn’t mean they will get in, of course, but nor does it mean that they surely would not.</p>
<p>Answer to Question 1: Yes I doubt. Look at what I posted below, derived form the CDS. This is also, btw, what private K-12 schools usually try to do: account for larger percentages applying. Thus, the year 1992 was a banner year for girls applying to private kindergartens in my region. To accommodate for that, some privates chose not to construct a 50/50 gender split class, but rather, to reflect the gender split of applications. Princeton has clearly done that:</p>
<p>from epiphany’s post 569:
</p>
<p>The CDS for 2010 and 2011 are not available yet.</p>
<p>I think you’ve mistakenly attributed something to me, for I have not attacked “certain groups” (i.e. "URM"s). If you want to comment on Tech’s basketball team, of course I can, but you’d have to either acknowledge that I haven’t attacked “certain groups” or provide quotes on this thread demonstrating that I have.</p>
<p>fabrizio, I think GA2012MOM is suggesting that enrolling athletes who can’t do the work and flunk out is morally worse than enrolling URMs who can do the work but who are slightly less qualified than unhooked candidates. Georgia Tech’s graduation rate for football players is 49%. For men’s basketball, it’s 36%. Of course, Georgia Tech is not alone in this.</p>
<p>I’m not sure that is her suggestion, since she has said “For every URM that may have got a break on test scores, there are many more that are just as competetive in that respect (as my D was.).” To me, that implies that there is NO gap in qualifications; "URM"s are NOT “slightly less qualified than unhooked candidates.” Given that is how I interpreted it, I asked why racial preferences should be kept at all. You clearly have interpreted it differently than I have. GA2012MOM has given no indication that I have misunderstood her.</p>
<p>^ I can envision a scenerio where a group of URMs are on average JUST as qualified as the regular applicant pool (based on stats). They still need to be given a preference in that when they come across the desk of the adcom they are much more likely to get in. If they did not have this type of preference, their numbers would fall below a desirable level. Maybe we are getting close with Latinos…anecdotal evidence would have me believe this is the case, but maybe it’s just wishful thinking on my part.</p>
<p>“The CDS for 2010 and 2011 are not available yet.”</p>
<p>It would be hard for 2011 to be available, as the school year has not started yet. Otoh, most CDS are available for 2010/2011. Princeton’s surely is :</p>
<p>First of all, as usual, you use the misleading straw man, “Racial Preferences,” implying a hierarchical order. The issue is racial proportion, not “preferences.” I can guarantee you that if the elite universities were overrun with non-Asian applications for some reason, Asians would become highly “preferred,” being at that point considered under-represented, and those with 2200 SATs might be admitted over non-Asians with 2300 SAT’s… Because these Universities value diversity highly, and do not consider a 2200 SAT “less” qualified than a 2300 SAT, unless other elements of the application are problematic, such as courses completed, level of difficulty of those courses, gpa, etc.</p>
<p>But the bigger issue, addressing your question, is that there are so many more students qualified among all students who apply, that the admitted pool does not represent the only qualified students. And sometimes those qualified (for example, with high test scores) include URM’s. Not every URM who applies to an elite U gets accepted, regardless of how under-represented that group might be at any particular elite U. The school is not going to stretch the standards to admit someone (athlete, URM, or anyone) who does not look capable of doing the work, based on the academic profile.</p>
<p>The reason that racial proportion is even considered at all, is that the pool of qualified applicants is so huge. Among the rejected are included highly qualified whites, Asians, and URM’s. There are more qualified students of every category (racially, ethnically, nationally, income-wise, geographically, field of study) than there are seats in any particular elite U.</p>
<p>Oh not this again. When Grutter uses the phrase “racial preferences” in the COURT’s opinion, “racial preferences” isn’t a straw man. If you like, I can use the phrase in the dissents: racial discrimination.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They shouldn’t become highly “preferred” if they’re underperforming in the 9+1 categories you referred to earlier.</p>