I believe your belief is completely baseless. It’s just showing your personal bias.
Many biases are formed through preconceived opinion and selective heresay.
Many Ivy affirmative action slots are filled with recent or 2nd generation black immigrants, this alone negates the rationales behind affirmative action.
@Data10 The category of “2 or more” also appeared at the same time. Presumably, students who otherwise would have selected a category could go there, too. Without detailed analysis, it would be very difficult to extrapolate what was happening.
I also have to presume the CDS reflects the best data available, short of genetic typing.
Re: Recent or 2nd generation black immigrants.
who may have gone to a prep school like Phillips Exeter Academy? LOL.
Although both national research universities like Ivies and the elite LACs may do this, I heard the latter tend to do worse because the former tend to have their first pick of more “genuine” minorities.
Re: some international students from Asia value the experience on a campus.
The most filthy rich student that DS has ever met was actually from Asia (her father/mother are actually European/Asian.) She valued the life in Manhattan and often stayed there in her own apartment there, after she had been bored with the typical college life. Not sure whether she bothered to finish the degree in 4 or 5 years, because she really does not need the degree at all (may have owned her own company or something like that as her hobby on the side before graduation. But she is definitely not someone like Bill Gates or Michael Dell.)
Regarding the large number of unknowns in 2007, they seem to be primarily Caucasian, rather than a minority. When the unknowns jumped up by 96 in from 2006 to 2007, Caucasians had a corresponding decrease by 93. And when the unknowns dropped down by 123 from 2007 to 2008, Caucasians had a corresponding increase by 111. Similarly in the year when they added the “2 or more” category, unknowns had a similarly sized corresponding decrease… In any case, regardless of how you treat unknowns or “2 or more”, or which data source you use, it is clear that the percentage of Asians increased rapidly between 2006 and 2012, much more so than is typical for highly selective colleges.
I did a quick and dirty regression analysis on the data in post #35 using year as the X value and percent Asian admits as the Y value and found that the percent increase in Asian students admitted is highly linear over time ( R Squared=0.949, P value for X variable = 0.000199) which suggests (but does not prove) that the percent increase in Asian admits over this time frame was deliberately manipulated by the Admission office in a controlled fashion.
or, perhaps over that same time period, the college counselors have encouraged the Asian applicants to take up rugby or other EC’s; in other words, the applicant profile changed towards more of what the Ivies are seeking. 
^^ Unlikely. That data was for Princeton only. Dara10 has noted that the same kind of increase didn’t happen in other Ivies over the same period of time, suggesting Princeton “took actions” in response to the lawsuit that started in 2006.
See, that’s the thing with “data” and statistics. You HAVE to thoroughly examine all of the possible variables before making a “suggestion.”
My bad. Is “suggests (but does not prove)” better?
I’m new to this, so maybe I’m missing something, but I thought the issue was that nobody knows if there is a quota and, if there is, how many students of each race are accepted to try to meet it. If that’s true, how do we know how many Ivy League students were accepted to meet an AA quota and which students in particular were selected to fill those “slots”? Is every AA student assumed to be there solely to meet some predetermined quota?
“Many Ivy affirmative action slots are filled with recent or 2nd generation black immigrants, this alone negates the rationales behind affirmative action.”
Because recent black immigrants don’t have to deal with being black in America, and can’t contribute perspectives on that?
because recent black immigrants sometimes represent the economic elites of their nation, elites who do not identify with the locals, not people who need affirmative action. I once had a roommate who belived her wealthy, Spanish immigrant boyfriend was helped into med school by his last name, mistaken for some disadvantaged Latino, people whom he disdained.
Asian Americans are not against affirmative action, they are against race based quotas. Since discrimination based on race is obnoxious and illegal, I wonder why all Americans are not against race based quotas.
Under the current law, universities are not allowed to have raced-based affirmative action predicated on a theory of racial disadvantage. It’s only about the diversity of opinions and experiences in the classroom. Rich black people still know all about being black.
My guess is that rich blacks know a lot less about some aspects of the “black experience” than most poor and middle income blacks because, like rich people everywhere, money acts as a shield against many of life’s harsher realities.
As I read it, the OCR did examine the admission process in detail, including sifting through the comments on (if I recall correctly) 1000 admissions files. They looked at such details as whether applicants were referred to as “shy” or not. The bottom line is that they found nothing–which means one of the following things:
- No discrimination is happening.
- If discrimination is happening, it is due to internal bias on the behalf of reviewers.
- There is a super-secret conspiracy that Princeton managed to keep from OCR.
- OCR is part of the conspiracy.
Now, if you have bought into the concept of a conspiracy, every piece of evidence that shows there is no conspiracy just serves as proof that the conspiracy is even more widespread. That’s not my point of view, though. I think conspiracies are hard to keep secret.
^^or, 1.a. No discrimination is happening that is statistically ‘provable’…
In 2003-2004, presumably before this investigation started, total undergraduate enrollment at Princeton was 4676. By 2011-2012, this had increased to 5173, 497 additional students, and an enrollment increase of 10.6%. That’s a very large increase in a short period of time for an Ivy league school. I don’t know in what areas the additional students tended to be studying. But if the total enrollment expanded that much, and if the seats for which Asian students tend to be underrepresented (sports teams, etc) didn’t expand significantly, then there may have been quite a few more spaces available to them.
Did the other Ivy league schools being compared also expand total enrollment by 10% over the period being discussed? If not, is it fair to compare?
Princeton made a deliberate decision to expand its class size (which was previously, with Dartmouth, the smallest in the Ivy League) when it completed and opened what became Whitman College.
As far as I know, the other Ivy League colleges have not expanded their class sizes in the past decade, although Yale expects to begin a major expansion (ultimately another ~800 students total) in the 2016-2017 admission season in anticipation of the completion of its two new residential colleges.
"It’s interesting that when the case began in 2006, Princeton’s percentage of Asian students had remained steady at 14% for years, then the percentage rapidly increased up to 22% in 2011, a similar percentage to what the referenced Princeton study concluded would occur in a non-biased admission process. In contrast, HYSM have had little change in their percentage of Asian students during this period. "
In recent years, Yale has been making an effort to recruit more students interested in STEM. They were the only Ivy league school to send my STEMy daughter extensive unsolicited information. In 2010-1011 there were 14.1% Asians, and that increased to 16.6% Asians in 2014-2015.
Not sure whether Princeton also had such an institutional objective during the time period under discussion. Looking at the OCR, it appears that in 2003-2004, 29.2% of Princeton degrees were in STEM; in 2011-2012, the number had risen to 36.6%.