<p>Princeton at 21.9% (enrolled)
Yale at 21.1% (enrolled)
U Penn 20.8 % (enrolled)
Harvard at 22% (?) (I see 21%, enrolled at <a href=“http://www.admissions.college.harvard.edu/apply/statistics.html[/url]”>http://www.admissions.college.harvard.edu/apply/statistics.html</a> )
Columbia at 29% (enrolled)</p>
<p>It would appear that Unz’ numbers are out of date…and if his position is that Asian enrollment is capped at 16+/-2%, then his premise is already way off.</p>
<p>^ Do have to comment that a 14-17 yo doing what he loves is not quite the same as what an elite adcom will see as reflecting the personal qualities adcoms seek. Many hs kids like to play computer games. Fine for them, not something that makes one a better candidate. Expectations aren’t always bad.</p>
<p>The Ivy agreement does agree to need-blind. Nothing says it can’t change, no.</p>
<p>ohmom - all numbers are for 2016 class and Harvard has 22% in that class.</p>
<p>Well, I am not a statistician and was probably not particularly precise, but I’m just not all that worried if this is the enrollment at the Ivies. (I can’t find Brown for some reason)…</p>
<p>So, yeah, with the exception of Cornell, at 16.9% enrollment and 5% enrolled african americans, most seem to be getting pretty high in the percentage of class. </p>
<p>I think this would be a tough case to win in the supreme court, but anyone who wants to try should give it a go.</p>
<p>tex, link above says 21, do you see 22 somewhere else? Maybe enrolled or accepted was 22 and I am not seeing it.</p>
<p>Brown’s only 15% according to <a href=“Undergraduate Admission | Brown University”>Undergraduate Admission | Brown University;
<p>Dartmouth 16.6% <a href=“http://www.dartmouth.edu/admissions/facts/class.html[/url]”>http://www.dartmouth.edu/admissions/facts/class.html</a></p>
<p>Cornell 16.9% <a href=“http://dpb.cornell.edu/documents/1000001.pdf[/url]”>http://dpb.cornell.edu/documents/1000001.pdf</a></p>
<p>Do you want to bet that Brown and Dartmouth do not have an 89% yield on applications from Asian-Americans they accept?</p>
<p>Also, it’s important to track how the colleges are treating internationals, which include a bunch of ethnic Asians most places. For example, Columbia’s 29% clearly includes internationals, while Harvard’s 22% clearly doesn’t. Harvard and Columbia could easily be within a couple percentage points of each other. I don’t know about Brown/Cornell/Dartmouth.</p>
<p>It also matters how the colleges treat people who decline to specify race or ethnicity on the forms. If they respect that, their “Asian” number is going to be way lower than the actual number of Asian students on campus. If they do a post-enrollment survey to re-allocate the “no race” applicants, the numbers will be higher. Without checking, I suspect that comes into play in these big differences, too.</p>
<p>With checking, Brown has 17% Asian, but 12% International and 7% Not Reported. I am morally certain more than 20% of Brown’s entering class was ethnically Asian.</p>
<p>Cornell also has 17% Asian, alongside 10% International, 9% Not Reported, and 2%+ “Mixed Race, Not URM”. Sound like Cornell is probably over 20%, too.</p>
<p>Dartmouth, you really can’t tell, because they don’t give you numbers that add up to 100%.</p>
<p>OHmom - it was from an announcement back in August I posted somewhere here on Saturday (is that another thread LF?). Looks like the numbers dropped by a 1% from that announcement.</p>
<p>JHS - did you notice 19% internationals at Columbia? What do make of that?</p>
<p>I think the Ivy numbers have always been a little hard to shake out, because in the past, the “international” number has never been included in the racial categories, and was not broken out by race. It looks like Columbia has done this for the first time. Also, some reports (by the feds, maybe?) would automatically categorize the decline-to-staters as White, when they are probably 50-50 White and Asian. Under those standard categorizations, a college might have an official number (excluding internationals) of Asians that hovered around 17-20%, when in fact there were more Asians than that on campus due to the internationals and unknowns.</p>
<p>The #s I posted above exclude internationals and “no race checked”. So I think you can take them as a MINIMUM % of Asians in the class.</p>
<p>Columbia clearly includes internationals in its ethnicity numbers. Columbia is also clearly admitting way more internationals than anyone else. Did it expand its class? But it’s not clear to me that Columbia actually has a higher percentage of Asians than Penn or Harvard.</p>
<p>Harvard, you can’t tell, because their numbers don’t account for 100% (I’m sorry I said internationals were clearly excluded above; they aren’t clearly excluded).</p>
<p>Penn’s 20.8% does not include about 7% international students from Asia or 10% Not Reported. If Penn used Columbia’s calculation method, it would have 29%, too (which would surprise no one who spends any time there).</p>
<p>I am really heartened to see these new numbers. Notwithstanding my tendency to defend these colleges, I did believe something was going on to limit Asian acceptances. That may still be happening, but it’s a lot less clear than when everyone was stuck at 15%.</p>
<p>Okay, so let’s call Columbia an outlier, and say, on average, we’ve got 1/5 of the Ivy population being Asian. I think we’ve got acceptances in the significant numbers at that point, personally.</p>
<p>I think the holistic process is working for that 5% of the population as well as it is working for any subset. </p>
<p>Did anyone notice how small the regional percentages are for some areas of the country.</p>
<p>Lookingforward brought this up a while back on the thread. I think some of the regional groups should get in here and fight it out for a while. Forget racism.</p>
<p>Regionalism is what I say. :p</p>
<p>Native Americans popped out to me as I read…their %s are ZERO at some Ivy Leagues.</p>
<p>I don’t think Columbia is an outlier. Penn would be at 28% if it included its international students from Asia. (They may not all be “Asian”, but then some of the internationals from Australia, Europe, and South America probably are.)</p>
<p>I am a little bit surprised by the sentiments here, maybe just a little. </p>
<p>Asian Americans apparently are still not real Americans, to some.</p>
<p>Chas, it was the asian americans on the thread who began to discuss the anti asian bias.</p>
<p>Perhaps asian americans are still not americans to themselves?</p>
<p>Where is the outrage that Cornell only has 5% african american enrollment? In the state of New York??? wow.</p>
<p>AND with it’s landgrant status, too?</p>
<p>My understanding is that colleges do not generally break out their international numbers because the fed does not require it. The federal government is only interested in what is happening to American citizens, and requires that particular breakdown to be reported.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s in Providence, Rhode Island, poetgrl. ;)</p>
<p>Lorem - get out of here. You are blinding everyone. We can only bear one splendid one to behold and poetgirl is already here.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>that’s a relief. I wouldn’t want my favorite Ivy to get lost.</p>
<p>TEX, you are supposed to be “just really nice” right now. Remember?</p>