<p>Northstarmom usually posts these, but here is this year's data on African American admissions at elite colleges and universities published by the Journal of Blacks in Higher Education:</p>
<p>There are comprehensive charts on applications, acceptances, and enrollments for universities and for liberal arts colleges.</p>
<p>This is a great source of data. My only personal quibble is that by looking at each freshman class as a separate data point means that the data is subject to wild swings from year to year. The "winners" sometimes get too much credit; the "losers" too much blame when the two often swap positions from year to year.</p>
<p>With that caveat, it's a fascinating look at admissions stats. I am encouraged that the black yield numbers are inching upwards and a little surprised that the acceptance rate numbers are as low as they they are, given the increasing black enrollments.</p>
<p>I know you've followed these annual reports for a while. Do you find this year's numbers as encouraging as I do?</p>
<p>Tied for the highest percentage in the freshman class ever at a highly ranked LAC. And, UNC-CH nearly equalled the highest percentage ever at a highly ranked university...set by UNC-CH a couple of years ago.</p>
<p>Even better, the vast majority of highly ranked LACs and universities had at least 5% African American freshmen -- a figure that probably approximates the "critical mass" for a healthy cohort on campus.</p>
<p>The declining acceptance rates and increasing yields are encouraging as well. This suggests to me that we are finally seeing many years of effort pay off....and perhaps the impact of significant second-generation elite college admissions. </p>
<p>Logically, each of these students triggers a multiplier effect down the road, not only with their children, but their families and friends. Maybe Sandra Day O'Conner was right and we are inching towards a time when affirmative action will no longer be necessary. For Swarthmore to reject 2 out of every 3 black applicants and still enroll over 11% of the freshman class is pretty amazing.</p>
<p>It seems to me that, as a group, the elite colleges and universities really deserve a round of applause. It is very hard to find fault with this year's data.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Explain WUSTL for me? The AFAm acceptance rate is lower than the regualr acceptance rate?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Affirmative action for white folk?</p>
<p>I don't know. That explanation would have to come from someone with local knowledge of WUSTL.</p>
<p>Given its midwest location, WUSTL has a LOT of black applicants. We already know that their marketing efforts are extensive across the board, so it would appear they are marketing successfully to attract Af Am applicants.</p>
<p>I assume the university draws many applicants from UCity High School, which counts Nelly and Tennessee Williams as alums. Disappointing mystery about the acceptance rate.</p>
<p>At the risk of sounding politically incorrect - Is it possible that the Afam students applying to WUSTL were more varied in their academic abilities than the AFam candidates applying to other top schools? Maybe more kids were encouraged to apply, even if they were not academically qualified. We all know how assertive WUSTL is in marketing itself; maybe that marketed themselves to students who were not qualified...</p>
<p>That seems to me the crux of the problem with this list. We really don't have enough information about the applicant pools for each university to have any idea what it all might mean.</p>
<p>The stats would be more useful if they included the demographics of the area served for the public schools where most applicants are from in state. For example, the AfAm percentage of population in California is very low relative to Virginia and Michigan so to compare strict numbers/percentages of attendees at particular schools without taking into account the percentage of AfAms in the state is misleading.</p>
<p>California: 7.4%
Michigan: 14.8%
Virginia: 20.4%
North Carolina: 22.1%</p>
<p>California's moderate percentage of Af Am citizens does not appear to have hampered the efforts of Stanford or Pomona to enroll sizeable cohorts of black students. Just as Massachusett's 6.3% does not appear to be an obstacle for elite colleges here.</p>
<p>BTW, I can't conceive of any way that 2% Af Am enrollment in the freshman class at UCLA this year could be "misleading". It is what it is. I wonder how many of the 99 freshmen would be left if we subtracted the football recruits? Funny how there hasn't been a statewide referendum to stop enrolling football players with combined 900 SATs. Now much outrage over accepting low-stat students who benefit the university in THAT way. It is precisely the lack of outrage over all of the other reasons schools "lower their standards" to fill needs that makes me question the real motivations of the anti-affirmative action lobby. It's always struck me as curious that black students are the one category of "affirmative" admits that generates so much anger.</p>
<p>Stanford and Pomona are private and not obliged to follow the non-AA law and they also draw from a larger population so there's little comparison.</p>
<p>It seems that it's the blacks that tend to be referred to the most in these discussions, perhaps because of demographics in the midwest and east, but in California I believe it's the Hispanics who are more negatively impacted by the non-AA law.</p>
<p>I don't know that football players with 900 SATs are being admitted to the UCs but if it's true, then I agree that they shouldn't be. The admissions of football players and other athletes with less than otherwise acceptable scores probably doesn't get as much outrage because it's a small niche that doesn't affect most people.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Stanford and Pomona are private and not obliged to follow the non-AA law...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I know why UCLA has no African American students. The voters of the state of California passed a referendum in 1996 that makes it impossible for UCLA to enroll black students. </p>
<p>That doesn't change the fact that UCLA is now at an extreme disadvantage competing with top private schools for not only the best and brightest black students, but many of the best and brightest white students as well.</p>
<p>
[quote]
it's a small niche that doesn't affect most people
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Affirmative action is also a small niche that doesn't affect most people. Let's say that UMich goes from 6% African American in this fall's freshman class to 0% three years from now. Is that really going to improve the odds of admission for the children of the white voters who passed Proposal 2? Probably not. In fact, it will probably reduce their chances as Asian American enrollment goes up. It certainly won't help the chances for white males who have been getting an affirmative action preference that is now illegal based on the language of the referendum.</p>
<p>Interesting. Article in LA Times today about UCLA wanting Af Am studnts to enroll.</p>
<p>The article shows Caltech with lowest ratio. I wonder how many Af Am apply. Caltech has a large proportion of non-Caucasian and international students relative to its small class size of 215.</p>
<p>Cal-Berkeley and UCLA's football teams both averaged a combined 886 on their SATs. Stanford topped the list with cobined SAT scores of 1051.</p>
<p>The schools are all tightly bunched because you have to get a combined SAT of around 820 and a GPA of 2.5 to qualify for an NCAA scholarship. There are still a lot of games to skirt that regulation....for example, the large number of junior college transfers.</p>
<p>It bothers me a LOT less that an African American female with 1250 SATs and demonstrated academic drive gets admitted to an elite college.</p>
<p>
[quoteThe voters of the state of California passed a referendum in 1996 that makes it impossible for UCLA to enroll black students.
[/quote]
This is a bit of an extreme statement ("impossible") that's not a true and implies that all Blacks are unable to compete without having their race as a factor which I don't think gives them enough credit. </p>
<p>This thread seems somewhat crossed with the UM thread on the Parent's side.</p>
<p>For all intents and purposes, UCLA is no longer enrolling African American freshmen. Only 99 this fall, out of a first-year class of nearly 4,000. BTW, just a quick persual of the football roster shows that at least 11 of those 99 are football players....maybe more, I'm not sure redshirts are included on the roster.</p>
<p>BTW, this Af Am enrollment is down from 282 in the Fall of 1994. What has to be very troubling to UCLA is that first year black enrollment is declining at a rapid rate. I don't know how many decades back you would have to go to find another year with only 99. Probably at least back to the 1970s.</p>
<p>Interested dad,
well said in post #11. It's probable that Black students who can throw a football or basketball will always be welcome at UCLA or other Div. 1 schools, regardless of their stats. Eventually, will most of the black students at these schools be there for entertainment purposes: football and basketball games and tournaments? Would the propositions in Ca and MI have passed if the rules extended to athletes? Maybe, but college sports (as we know them now) in those states would disappear.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Cal-Berkeley and UCLA's football teams both averaged a combined 886 on their SATs. Stanford topped the list with cobined SAT scores of 1051.
[/quote]
That data is a little old. The averages for recruited Duke athletes have increased slightly since then.
Baseball: 1206
Football: 1063
Basketball: 997
Other recruits: 1258</p>
<p>In all fairness, the 79 recruited athletes made up about 3% of the admit pool. Adding in developmental admits makes "special cases" compose about 4.5-5% of total admits.</p>