<p>Interesting point, Marian. Does anyone know or can infer what is the racial breakdown of internationals? I would assume the great majority to be white and Western European.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I would assume the great majority to be white and Western European.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's not the case for most of the schools I've looked at. Here's Swarthmore's list (far right column for Fall 2006).</p>
<p>According to USNWR for overall student body:
< White/Hispanic/African/Asian/Int'l ></p>
<p>Harvard....56 / 8 / 8 /18 / 9
Yale.........62 / 7 / 8 /14 / 8
CalTech....52 / 7 / 1 /33 / 7
Stanford...46 /11 /10 /24 / 6
MIT..........47 /11 / 6 /27 / 8
Penn.........60 / 6 / 7 /18 / 9
Chicago.....66 / 8 / 4 /14 / 7</p>
<p>UCB..........41 /11 / 4 /41 / 3
Michigan....70 / 5 / 7 /12 / 5
UVa..........72 / 4 / 9 /11 / 4
Wisconsin..85 / 3 / 3 / 5 / 3</p>
<p>According to collegeboard for 1st year students:
< White/Non-Hispanic + Race/Ethnicity unreported = total ></p>
<p>Harvard: 44 + 15 = 59
Yale: 49 + 13 = 62
CalTech: 37 + 2 = 39
Stanford: 41 + 5 = 46
MIT: 37 + 6 = 43
Penn: 43 + 13 = 56
Chicago: 48 + 15 = 63</p>
<p>UCB: 29 + 7 = 36
Michigan: N/A
UVa: 64 + 7 = 71
Wisconsin: 79 + 3 = 82</p>
<p>i love how every single thread on CC has or will become about affirmative action eventually. people are so bitter these days...</p>
<p>
[quote]
I would assume the great majority to be white and Western European.
[/quote]
I doubt it. Europe has some of the top universities and the tuition is cheap for EU citizens.</p>
<p>Yeah, I know very, very few international white students, mostly East or South Asian</p>
<p>Also, here's a list for the top 50 LACs according to USNWR and collegeboard. Several of these colleges had a percentage of students whose ethnicity was unreported so that probably changes things (those with over 10% unreported are marked with a *)</p>
<ol>
<li>Williams College 64%</li>
<li>Amherst College 47%</li>
<li>Swarthmore College 45%</li>
<li>Wellesley College 47%</li>
<li>Middlebury College 62%</li>
<li>Carleton College 75%</li>
<li>Bowdoin College 71%</li>
<li>Pomona College 48%</li>
<li>Haverford College 68%</li>
<li>Davidson College 73%</li>
<li>Wesleyan University 63%</li>
<li>Vassar College 74%</li>
<li>Claremont McKenna College 54%</li>
<li>Grinnell College 67%</li>
<li>Harvey Mudd College 43%</li>
<li>Colgate University 73%</li>
<li>Hamilton College 69%</li>
<li>Washington & Lee University 84%</li>
<li>Smith College 42%</li>
<li>Colby College 75%</li>
<li>Bryn Mawr College 52%</li>
<li>Oberlin College 77%</li>
<li>Bates College 80%</li>
<li>Macalester College 70%</li>
<li>Mount Holyoke College 54%</li>
<li>Barnard College 66%</li>
<li>Colorado College 80%</li>
<li>Scripps College 50%</li>
<li>Bucknell University 80%</li>
<li>Trinity College 65%</li>
<li>Lafayette College 81%</li>
<li>Kenyon College 81%</li>
<li>College of the Holy Cross 73%</li>
<li>University of Richmond 70%</li>
<li>Sewanee University of the South 87%</li>
<li>Bard College 68%</li>
<li>Occidental College n/a</li>
<li>Whitman College 66%</li>
<li>Connecticut College 78%</li>
<li>Union College 84%</li>
<li>Dickinson College 77%</li>
<li>Furman University 85%</li>
<li>Franklin & Marshall College 61%</li>
<li>Centre College 91%</li>
<li>Sarah Lawrence College 68%</li>
<li>Rhodes College 76%</li>
<li>Gettysburg College 82%</li>
<li>Skidmore College 64%</li>
<li>DePauw University 79%</li>
<li>Denison University 84%</li>
</ol>
<p>Again.</p>
<p>You have to add the "White" and "Unreported" categories to get a consistent comparison. Some colleges include their "unreporteds" in white. Some don't. </p>
<p>For example, Swarthmore explicitly noted on their Common Data Sets that "unreported" were "included in white" through the 2001-02 Common Data Set. See page 4 of the following:</p>
<p>Since then, they've reported the number separately, but USNEWS combines the two cateories. Williams still leaves the "unreported" row blank and includes them in "white".</p>
<p>As a result of this inconsistency, lists such as the above are comparing apples to oranges. For example, the comparison between Williams and Amherst/Swarthmore in the above list is totally misleading. I assure you that Swarthmore is more than 45% white. Amherst is more than 47% white. Pomona is more than 48% white.</p>
<p>The percentages given in the USNEWS premium on-line edition under "student body" for each school are consistent: they add the "white" and "unreported" for each school.</p>
<p>The comparable apples to apples numbers for the first three (2006-07) are:</p>
<p>Williams 64.4%
Amherst 63.3%
Swarthmore 58.2%</p>
<p>It is true that there is some small error in assuming that the "unreporteds" are all "white". But, the colleges (such as Williams and many others) that already lump the two categories together in their Common Data Sets are subject to this slight imprecision, too. It's all about consistency.</p>
<p>Using the "percentage white" figures to compare one college to another is useful.</p>
<p>But using them to compare with anything else may not be. </p>
<p>My daughter, who is white, attends a high school that is 44% white. The college she will attend in the fall is, according to the data presented in this thread, 46% white. </p>
<p>Someone who is not familiar with the way that the college racial data are generated might therefore think that the ethnic composition of her prospective college is rather similar to that of her high school. Boy, would they be wrong.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Using the "percentage white" figures to compare one college to another is useful.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Only if you manually add the "unreported" for the schools that list it separately. Otherwise, you are comparing white only for those schools (Swarthmore, Amherst, etc.) to white plus unreported for the schools (Williams, etc.) that add them together and report them all as white.</p>
<p>Reporting Williams as 64% white and Amherst as 47% white is a totally misleading presentation of two schools that have very similar ethnic compositions.</p>
<p>If you want to get technical, the most consistent way to report the number is 100% minus the percentage of self-reported Asian Ams, minus the percentage of self-reported Af Ams, minus the percentage of self reported Latino/a, minus the percentage of self reported Nat. Ams, minus the percentage of Intls. This gives you the percentage of non-self-reported minority US citizens. This happens to be the same number as "whites" plus "unreported".</p>
<p>"Think about it. You would have to certifiably nuts to not check an ethnicity box on a college app if you are a URM (Af Am, Latino/a, Native Am). The vast majority of "unknowns" are white students who opt not to self-designate."</p>
<p>I would assume many are asians, no?</p>
<p>Don't look up % of white students, this number is completely misleading and absolutely irrelevant. Rather you need to add Asian, African American, Hispanic, and NAtive American students to get a minority percentage. You can assume the rest are caucasian. </p>
<p>This thread/ method is completely off.</p>
<p>I suspect that some of the unreporteds are Asian.</p>
<p>Perhaps the most meaningful number is the one you get by adding African American, Hispanic, and Native American. This is the URM number, and there are probably few or no URMs in the unreported group.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I would assume many are asians, no?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Probably a few. Plus the occasional URM standing on principle (and cutting off their noses to spite themselves from an admissions standpoint!)</p>
<p>Not checking Asian American might not be smart. For example, Swarthmore's acceptance rate for Asian Americans has been running about 50% higher than the overall rate in recent years. At other schools, it might be lower. Does checking the Asian American box help, hurt, or make no difference?</p>
<p>However, even assuming that some Asian Americans are included in "unreported", it has a relatively minor impact on the overall statistics because (at most schools) the percentage of Asian Americans is small compared to the percentage of whites (who have NO conceivable reason to check an ethnicity box).</p>
<p>Checking "Asian" might indeed help at LACs, which are not particularly popular among Asian applicants and where Asians might contribute welcome diversity.</p>
<p>But I doubt it helps at major universities.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Perhaps the most meaningful number is the one you get by adding African American, Hispanic, and Native American.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Meaningful in what sense? The reason I look at these numbers is to get a sense of the campus culture and the diversity that can be expected. Asian Americans and International students are a big part of the diversity equation.</p>
<p>For example, UC-Berkeley and UCLA have nearly zero black students these days. But, if you ignored the Asian American percentages, you would get a very misleading read on the campus culture and diversity.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Checking "Asian" might indeed help at LACs, which are not particularly popular among Asian applicants and where Asians might contribute welcome diversity.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, the Asian American percentages are very high at many of the top LACs...certainly comparable to the most diverse East Coast universities, typically in the 10% to 18% range. Check out Wellesley at 27% Asian American. Of course, many of the California schools are off the charts, reflective of the underlying regional population.</p>
<p>Meaningful in the sense that it gives a picture of how many students from underserved groups are on campus.</p>
<p>Meaningful also in that the number is unlikely to be corrupted by people's decisions about whether or not to report their race/ethnicity. URMs have no motive to avoid reporting it.</p>
<p>In creating the thread, I thought that there was good news as there is greatly increased attendance of minority groups at American universities (and this is true regardless of the unreported issue). This thread was not meant to be controversial. I have no interest in the politicization of the discussion. </p>
<p>While I don't have factual evidence at hand to support my thoughts, I imagine that there is plenty of evidence that, relative to their application numbers/achievements and their % of population, Asians fare poorly in the college admissions process at many top national universities. There have been many examples in the press and even here on CC that show how high achieving Asian candidates face the most difficult odds of acceptance into the most selective national universities. </p>
<p>I prefer no judgment on what groups constitute “unreported.” I just don’t know.</p>
<p>
[quote]
While I don't have factual evidence at hand to support my thoughts, I imagine that there is plenty of evidence that, relative to their application numbers/achievements and their % of population, Asians fare poorly in the college admissions process at many top national universities.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I've seen no evidence of that. The percentages of Asian Americans at many of the most elite colleges and universities far outpaces the percentage of Asian Americans in the population. Harvard 18%, Swarthmore 15%, etc.</p>
<p>Most people who try to make that claim do so exclusively on the basis of SAT scores. Yet, it is abundantly clear that high SAT scores really don't count for much in elite college admissions because....everybody's got 'em.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Meaningful in the sense that it gives a picture of how many students from underserved groups are on campus.{/quote]
So, in your opinion, Asians are not part of the "underserved" groups?</p>