Diversity & small colleges

Parents Forum
41

<p>Papa:</p>

<p>The USNEWS database has percentage of need-based aid as well. Look under the tab for "financial aid". Also, the USNEWS "white" number includes everyone who has not self-reported as an Af-Am, Latino, Asian-Am, Native Am, or International, so it's an easily referenced "diversity index". Look under the "student body" tab.</p>

<p>Numbers that I have found useful in this kind of analysis are:</p>

<p>Percentage of non-white and non-US students
Percentage qualifying for need-based aid
Percentage of Pell Grant recepients
Percentage of public school students</p>

<p>All of these except the last one are easy to find. In total, they present a fairly complete statistical snapshot of "diversity".</p>

<p>When you find a school that lacks diversity, there are four potential contributing factors:</p>

<p>a) Geographic location. Most college students still go to school within a few hours of home, so the ethnicity of the underlying regional population plays a role.</p>

<p>b) Financial strength. Diversity is very expensive for a college. If the financial structure of a school relies heavily on tuition revenue, the school must emphasize attracting full-fare customers in admissions. This reduces the ability to attract a diverse student body.</p>

<p>c) Selectivity. The higher the academic standards of a school, the more difficult it is to attract a diverse student body (economically and ethnically), simply because poor, non-white students tend to not have high SATs and the like. This highlights how hard the most selective colleges work at enrolling a diverse class and the intense competition for high-stat minority applicants. For example, of the acceptance letters Swarthmore mailed for this year's class, only 45% were to white US citizens. Yet, by the time they battled with other schools over the minority students, 57% of the actual enrolled class was white, US students.</p>

<p>d) Institutional culture. Some schools are just more institutionally committed to diversity than others. For example, Davidson faces many challenges in enrolling a diverse class (endowment, high percentage of full-fare customers, geographic location). However, the fact that they did not change their by-law preventing Jewish or Hindu or Buddhist or Muslim alumni from serving on the board of directors until last year indicates an historically less robust embrace of diversity than some of the other schools on your list. Ways of examing instutitional commitment include looking at the the percentage of minority faculty, the presence of minorities on the dean's staff, and the percentage of minority students in leadership positions (student council, RAs, etc.).</p>

42

<p>how many buddhist, hindi or muslims sit on the Swarthmore Board of directors?</p>

<p>I am guesiing, maybe ONE?</p>

<pre><code> http://www.swarthmore.edu/academics/course_catalog/corporation_board.html
</code></pre>

43

<p>" For example, Davidson faces many challenges they did not change their by-law preventing Jewish or Hindu or Buddhist or Muslim alumni from serving on the board of directors until last year indicates an historically less robust embrace of diversity..."</p>

<p>Wow! I wonder how many other colleges do things like this. Seems very narrow minded even for colleges affiliated with religious denominations.</p>

44

<p>jez hubblell.....would you stop the negative comments!! I for one appreciate interesteddad, mini, and others for their constructively intended comments.</p>

45

<p>The fact is that Davidson did change the policy. And the reality is that anti-Semitism is still rife among all sorts of elite institutions, even when the policy is not officially recognized. </p>

<p>Also in fairness, the Davidson policy was not a result of anti-Semitism per se and clearly addressed members of other non-Christian faiths. Nor wa it really a result of being anti anything but rather a somewhat archaic and now discarded effort to retain an identity that is no longer as narrowly defined as it was once. It should be noted as well that the school has a fairly active Islamic community.</p>

46

<p>they are not meant to be negative, it's that there have been umpity-ump number of discussions on diversity-they all turn out to be similar to chasing rainbows-everyone sees a different part of it and never find what they are looking for. ID's long history of subtle Davidson bashing gets old and Swarthmore is not the heaven on earth he alludes to all the time. Otherwise, I hope you find nirvana for your son.</p>

47

<p>Ditto hubbell. Lord knows I've argued with interesteddad from time to time, most recently on binge drinking definitions, but your knee jerk reactions and negativity are really boring. A needle to interesteddad's love affair with Swarthmore every now and then is one thing, but you're becoming a distraction. Davidson's a wonderful school. I mean that sincerely. I wish my S had numbers that would make it even a possibility for admission. Feel better now?</p>

48

<p>
[quote]
Wow! I wonder how many other colleges do things like this. Seems very narrow minded even for colleges affiliated with religious denominations.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I would hazard a guess that virtually all of them have done so at some point in their histories. For example, Swarthmore, in its early years, only considered Quakers for the Board of Managers. Williams did not offer one of its largest early contributors (a former Gov. of New York and founder of Lehman Brothers), a seat on the board -- presumably due to religious affiliation issues. I'm guessing that you wouldn't have to go back beyond the early 20th century (if that) to find the first Jewish member of Harvard's board. The sea change appears to have begun in the 1920s. These were all lilly-white institutions at some point in their histories.</p>

49

<p>I looked at the Reed board but aside from various northwesty types of businesses I couldn't tell what religion anyone was- although if they are from the northwest- we are fairly "unchurched" as Garrison Keillor puts it. The names were also hard to pinpoint, not really any names that sounded from the far , middle or near east- mostly scottish, english and german? although some could be spanish or italian. Guess they better work on that ;)</p>

50

<p>Returning to the OP's query and concern, though, I would say, as some earlier posters have, that in a small community you may find a degree of interaction among various ethnic groups that you might not find in a larger institution that is more diverse on paper. When you only have a few hundred people in your class you are more likely to know many of them as individuals; ethnicity, while obviously a part of everyone's identity, may be secondary to personality, interests, and the fact that they live next door to you. So while I think it's important to find a school where you do not feel isolated, I also think there is perhaps a greater chance of real cultural interaction in a more intimate setting. I am quite sure that most LACs, no matter what their "diversity numbers," want to their students and staff to form a varied and respectful community.</p>

51

<p>
[quote]
Also in fairness, the Davidson policy was not a result of anti-Semitism per se

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I grew up in the South during the 1960's (when Davidson added its by-law requiring all board members to be active members of a Christian congregation). Based on my historical perspective, I think reasonable people could probably disagree about the intent of the new by-law, especially considering that it followed closely on the heels of the administration's decision to begin hiring "non-Christian" faculty for the first time.</p>

52

<p>Well, it is the old by-law now, so maybe it's time to consider the racism and prejudice prevalent in American society as a whole, while also celebrating the great strides made in racial harmony over the last few decades. (Davidson, as I and others have noted elsewhere on this forum, tries very hard and usually successfully to do the right thing and thus may in fact be a microcosm of what's right and to be celebrated. Just as it is wonderful, in several ways, that Williams now has a Jewish president even if there was a time when Jewish students were marginalized.)</p>

53

<p>Just from appearances, the students at American U when we visited seemed like a pretty diverse bunch--not an LAC but a smallish university. </p>

<p>Amherst is part of the five college program--with MHC, Smith, Hampshire and U Mass. Members of minorities from all five colleges organize activities together sometimes.</p>

54

<p>The whole question of religious barriers gets quite gnarly the further back you go in history; Brown, for instance, required it's board and President not only to be Christians, but, Baptists, specifically, until the mid-nineteen thirties when Henry Merritt Wriston -- a Methodist --became it's first non-Baptist president. And yes, he was a graduate of Wesleyan which, until the same point in time, had required its own board to be comprised of a majority of Methodists!</p>

55

<p>True diversity will only exist where there is economic diversity. That would be at public univeristies -- or better yet, your local community college.</p>

56

<p>
[quote]
they did not change their by-law preventing Jewish or Hindu or Buddhist or Muslim alumni from serving on the board of directors until last year indicates an historically less robust embrace of diversity...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yes, the law effectively "forbid" Jews and Hindus from serving, but to clarify to the people who seem so shocked by this, it's not how the bylaw explicitly reads. We've argued about this before. I find it likely that when the by-law was written, it was more about "we want people who go to a church we're familiar with and believe in God" than a specific thought that they had to have a law to KEEP OUT Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, and Jews. They were probably more worried about secular humanists on the boards than Buddhists. </p>

<p>I also continue to challenge the alleged connection between board makeup and an institutions "true commitment to diversity". Many colleges also want rich people on the board. That doesn't mean they are not committed to recruiting poor students. Women's colleges allow men on the boards, yet remain committed to single-sex colleges. In sum, what the institution believes best serves its governance needs can be different from what it looks for in a student body.</p>

<p>Few colleges can match the historical standard that Swarthmore can proudly claim, but I don't agree that Davidson's by-law is some smoking gun indicating its true feelings about student diversity.</p>

57

<p>Weenie, most community colleges skew the other way: you'll find relatively few students from higher SES families in CC.</p>

58

<p>
[quote]
They were probably more worried about secular humanists on the boards than Buddhists.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Oh. That explains it. God help us if any "secular humanists" are involved in higher education.</p>

<p>Having grown up on a steady diet of TV preachers in the 1960's, I don't recall that the Falwellian jihad against "secular humanists" was a big issue at the time. The TV preachers of the time mostly stuck with your basic fire and brimstone, interspersed with a healthy condemnation of the Devil, commie pinkos, and integration.</p>

<p>Come on, Hoedown. Since the only people in North Carolina who weren't active members of a Christian congregation in the 1960s were the Jews, the intent of the bylaw was pretty transparent.</p>

59

<p>Happy New Year ID.</p>

<p>Do you ever think that the 60's were a very long time ago, and that it may be time for y'all to shed your somewhat biased view of southern schools and perhaps the south in general ? :)</p>

60

<p>It's not as 'transparent' to me. As I recall, Christians who didn't attend church regularly were also barred by the wording of the by-law. What do you make of that, if the real purpose of the bylaw was to keep Jews out of the boardroom? </p>

<p>
[quote]
Oh. That explains it. God help us if any "secular humanists" are involved in higher education.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Your sarcasm is wasted on me. Perhaps you missed my point? I said the board, not in academe overall.</p>

<p>Obviously there may be all sorts involved in higher education at various levels. You know my background, no need to 'educate" me on this. </p>

<p>I simply believe there are other interpretations of their bylaws, and feel CC would be well-served to be reminded of that. Some people seem to be shocked over this (I recall you were nearly prostrate with grief that you allowed your child to consider Davidson). That's an opinion, but it's not the only way to regard that bylaw. I just don't see it as the "OH MY GOD THEY HATE DIVERSITY" signal flag you do when a Christian college wants Christians serving on its board. </p>

<p>Perhaps they were all raging anti-semites when they wrote it--maybe they hated blacks, too, and thought Hindus were heathen savages. But I just don't see this as the big "AHA!!!!!" about their commitment to student diversity you continue to claim it is.</p>