<p>Swarthmore posted the new Fall 2006 enrollment stats yesterday:</p>
<p>The percentage of non-white and international students jumped signficantly to the the highest levels in the school's history: 41.7%</p>
<p>Here's the breakdown for all 1484 students, including a handful of non-degree and part-timers:</p>
<p>International 6.0%
African American 8.7%
American Indian or Alaskan Native 0.8%
Asian American 15.8%
Latino/a 10.4%
White, or unknown 58.3%</p>
<p>looks to me like this school is engaging in caucasion discrimination. I bet there are more females than males, too.</p>
<p>There are slightly more women (52.4%) than men (47.6%), but not because men are "discriminated" against. Just the opposite. The acceptance rate for fall 2006 was 16% for women applicants and 23% for male applicants.</p>
<p>It's a reflection of the weak male college applicant pool nationally. Many of the top, most selective colleges have to practice affirmative action and lower their standards to enroll equal numbers of men these days. </p>
<p>Graduation rates for men are lower than for women, too. In addition to being more academically accomplished, women college students also appear to be more adventuresome. There is a huge disparity, for example, in study abroad percentages.</p>
<p>I am not one to post, I just read the info, but I feel compelled to respond. Interesteddad, you are generally very on target with your info and responses. I am dissapointed to see you have responded to someone who has posted something which I deem offensive about "caucasian discrimation" with the term "affirmative action" and "lowering standards" in the same sentence. That only perpetuates the distorted image that affirmative action has had for years. Affirmative Action was a policy that was put into place to level the playing field for groups who had suffered systemic and institutionalized discrimination for hundreds of years. The policy was NOT about "lowering standards", but rather recognizing that the instiutionalized "isms" had disadvantaged people to the point that a holistic look at candidates was needed to bring things more into balance. White men have NEVER as a group suffered discrimination. There is indeed a problem on a national level of males, including white males, not reaching their potential academically. That is not about affirmative action! If Swarthmore has chosen to "lower it's standards" to admit more males (white males), so be it--I don't know if that is fact or fiction, but please do not equate that with Affirmative Action.</p>
<p>Thanks.</p>
<p>"White males" includes a lot of people. ;) White is an incredibly misleading "race", rsinger, since if you're saying that "white men" have never faced discrimination, you're obviously overlooking Jews, and many Slavic groups, among MANY others. You really can't put that all together, and this has nothing to do with being pro or against affirmative action...it just has to do with a pretty ridiculous sweeping generalization.</p>
<p>I do agree that the term "affirmative action" wasn't used quite correctly, since it's about previous descrimination to currently URMs, but...that statement just bothered me. I didn't put my race since I don't consider myself "white" but that's how people end up marking me - there are so many different kinds of white. :/</p>
<p>Otherwise: great statistics...I'm really glad that Swat is such a diverse environment. :D</p>
<p>Actually, in their Grutter and Gratz briefs to the Supreme Court, the University of Michigan (and in briefs filed by supporting colleges including Swarthmore) explicity rejected that affirmative action has anything to do with correcting past wrongs. The colleges stated, very clearly, that affirmative action exists for only one reason: to increase diversity because diversity improves the quality of the education to all students. The Supreme Court endorsed this rationale, saying that diversity is sufficiently desireable to warrant a limited exception to the equal protection clause.</p>
<p>The lowering of standards is simply a result of the numbers. If you need to accept a higher percentage of your black applicants or male applicants in order to achieve desired diversity levels, you will be accepting students from lower down in that group's applicant barrel. In the same way, if Swarthmore suddenly had a shortage of women and decided to accept 30% more females next year, those new acceptees would, on average, have lower "stats" than the ones that were already being accepted. It's just a simple numbers game.</p>
<p>Harvard's stats are high because their extraordinarily high yield means they don't have to mail many extra acceptance letters. If their yield dropped in half, they would have to mail twice as many acceptance letters and their "stats" would drop accordingly as they dip a little lower in the barrel.</p>
<p>I am quite confident that with a 23% acceptance rate for males versus a 16% acceptance rate for females at Swat, the average "stats" of the males are lower than the females. I don't think that makes any difference except that it's probably a little easier for a guy to get accepted than for a girl. </p>
<p>BTW, I used "affirmative action" on purpose. I could tell by the way the question was phrased that it would get under his skin to think that white males need a special break to qualify for Swarthmore.</p>
<p>I think that one key point is that whether or not lower standards for men at LACs such as Swarthmore constitutes Affirmative Actions, the (comparatively) high percentages of non white students suggests that the non white applicant pool at swathmore is exceptionally strong, and perhaps (although not necessarily) that the yeild rate among non white students is up.</p>
<p>Does diversity actually increase the quality of education? </p>
<p>Who benefits from this argument? The less qualified black and hispanic students who have the chance to touch the seams of academia's most prized institutions? The overqualified Asian students who work twice as hard to move the same distance as everyone else? Or, the white students whose brush with diversity allows just enough semblance of acceptance for the mutli-cultural happy, politically correct liberal towers of ivory? </p>
<p>I wish I can bypass the quibbles and bickers, the pessimists and naysayers, the outcries of the victimized ORM students and atrocious bashing of URM students. But, diversity carries many meanings, subtle and flagrant, and its legs are giving out.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Does diversity actually increase the quality of education?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It does at Swarthmore. Diversity is at the highest levels in the school's history. Median SAT scores are as high as they have ever been. And, the students are well-prepared to comprehend a 21st century world.</p>
<p>My daugther does report one minority group seems to be present in fewer numbers than 3 years ago -- cape wearing SWIL members. The perception among some is that the admissions office is trying to admit a few more frat-boy types and that the student body is less eccentric than it used to be. But, then again, this may be a perception that every senior class has.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But, then again, this may be a perception that every senior class has.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah. That seems to be a perennial observation that has little to do with the admissions realities. I've seen that pop up in old Phoenix editorials from time to time.</p>
<p>If anything, the specific targeting of "frat-boy types" (to the extent that the moniker even applies to Swattie frat boys) probably declined with the demise of football recruiting in 2000.</p>
<p>My daughter's observation is that "frat-boy types" are a subset of Swarthmore frat-boys which, in turn, are a small subset of the student body.</p>