USNWR 2009: Looking at the Data XIV (Student Diversity)

College Search & Selection
1

<p>The publication of the 2009 USNWR College Rankings provides an opportunity to compare schools based on a wide variety of data points. In this and in other threads, I urge the reader to think less about the absolute rankings and more about the nature and value-added of the data point being discussed.</p>

<p>Black , Asian , Hispanic , White , Non-US , National University</p>

<p>8% , 16% , 7% , 59% , 10% , Harvard
9% , 14% , 8% , 60% , 9% , Princeton
9% , 14% , 8% , 60% , 8% , Yale
7% , 26% , 12% , 46% , 8% , MIT
9% , 24% , 12% , 46% , 6% , Stanford
1% , 38% , 5% , 46% , 9% , Caltech
8% , 17% , 6% , 59% , 10% , U Penn
8% , 16% , 9% , 57% , 9% , Columbia
10% , 19% , 6% , 58% , 6% , Duke
5% , 13% , 8% , 65% , 8% , U Chicago
7% , 14% , 6% , 63% , 6% , Dartmouth
6% , 17% , 7% , 65% , 5% , Northwestern
10% , 13% , 3% , 71% , 4% , Wash U
5% , 16% , 6% , 65% , 8% , Cornell
6% , 25% , 7% , 56% , 5% , Johns Hopkins
7% , 15% , 8% , 62% , 7% , Brown
7% , 19% , 12% , 56% , 5% , Rice
10% , 18% , 3% , 62% , 6% , Emory
9% , 7% , 6% , 76% , 3% , Vanderbilt
4% , 7% , 9% , 76% , 3% , Notre Dame
3% , 42% , 12% , 40% , 3% , UC Berkeley
5% , 24% , 5% , 2% , 14% , Carnegie Mellon
9% , 11% , 4% , 71% , 5% , U Virginia
7% , 9% , 7% , 72% , 5% , Georgetown
3% , 38% , 15% , 39% , 4% , UCLA
6% , 12% , 5% , 71% , 5% , U Michigan
6% , 22% , 13% , 50% , 9% , USC
7% , 12% , 6% , 69% , 6% , Tufts
7% , 5% , 2% , 84% , 1% , Wake Forest
11% , 7% , 4% , 76% , 1% , U North Carolina
3% , 9% , 4% , 76% , 7% , Brandeis
7% , 7% , 6% , 77% , 2% , W&M
4% , 19% , 8% , 64% , 6% , NYU
6% , 10% , 8% , 74% , 2% , Boston Coll
7% , 16% , 5% , 68% , 5% , Georgia Tech
3% , 6% , 4% , 84% , 2% , Lehigh
1% , 43% , 12% , 40% , 3% , UCSD
4% , 10% , 4% , 76% , 6% , U Rochester
3% , 6% , 3% , 83% , 4% , U Wisconsin
7% , 13% , 7% , 68% , 5% , U Illinois
5% , 16% , 2% , 73% , 3% , Case Western
4% , 10% , 6% , 77% , 2% , Rensselaer
3% , 28% , 5% , 59% , 4% , U Washington
3% , 41% , 12% , 42% , 2% , UC Davis
2% , 51% , 12% , 31% , 3% , UC Irvine
3% , 16% , 19% , 60% , 1% , UC Santa Barbara
4% , 5% , 4% , 84% , 2% , Penn State
5% , 17% , 18% , 55% , 4% , U Texas
10% , 8% , 14% , 67% , 1% , U Florida
0% , 0% , 0% , 100% , 0% , Yeshiva
9% , 5% , 4% , 77% , 2% , Tulane</p>

<p>Black , Asian , Hispanic , White , Non-US , LAC</p>

<p>9% , 12% , 9% , 62% , 7% , Amherst
10% , 11% , 9% , 64% , 7% , Williams
8% , 17% , 10% , 56% , 7% , Swarthmore
6% , 28% , 7% , 51% , 8% , Wellesley
3% , 8% , 6% , 73% , 10% , Middlebury
6% , 13% , 7% , 70% , 3% , Bowdoin
8% , 14% , 11% , 63% , 3% , Pomona
5% , 10% , 5% , 73% , 6% , Carleton
7% , 3% , 4% , 82% , 3% , Davidson
8% , 11% , 8% , 68% , 4% , Haverford
4% , 13% , 13% , 64% , 5% , Claremont McK
5% , 10% , 7% , 72% , 6% , Vassar
7% , 11% , 8% , 68% , 6% , Wesleyan
5% , 7% , 5% , 72% , 11% , Grinnell
1% , 21% , 8% , 66% , 4% , Harvey Mudd
6% , 7% , 7% , 77% , 2% , US Military Acad
4% , 4% , 2% , 87% , 4% , W&L
5% , 6% , 5% , 78% , 5% , Colgate
7% , 12% , 6% , 67% , 7% , Smith
4% , 7% , 5% , 78% , 5% , Hamilton
6% , 8% , 5% , 75% , 6% , Oberlin
4% , 4% , 10% , 80% , 1% , US Naval Acad
6% , 12% , 3% , 72% , 7% , Bryn Mawr
2% , 8% , 3% , 80% , 6% , Colby
3% , 6% , 2% , 83% , 5% , Bates
5% , 9% , 4% , 69% , 12% , Macalester</p>

2

<p>These numbers will (probably) underestimate certain groups, like Whites and Asians, who, I’m guessing, are more likely to classify themselves as ‘Race Unknown.’</p>

<p>Hawkette, I’m not sure if you’ve done this yet, but I’d be more interested if you could somehow create a list combing racial and socioeconomic diversity, which might give us a better idea as to how truly diverse the student bodies are.</p>

3

<p>

</p>

<p>Aside from a few surnames like Lee, I think people can figure out whether someone is Asian based on names (or parent’s name/place of birth).</p>

4

<p>If I read USNWR correctly, it classifies all “race unknown” students as “white,” and does not count international students.</p>

5

<p>“5% , 24% , 5% , 2% , 14% , Carnegie Mellon”</p>

<p>How is it possible for CMU to have just 2% white students? Typo?</p>

6

<p>Thanks for pointing out the typo. According to USNWR, Carnegie Mellon should be 52% white.</p>

7

<p>crs
I’m not entirely sure how you’d suggest combining the race and income data. USNWR does provide a lot of financial aid statistics, but it is not broken down by race.</p>

8

<p>I want to try to say this very carefully so as not to be misconstrued, but what’s remarkable to me is how much consistency there is across these schools if you divide these racial/ethnic categories into two broad groups: one group is white and Asian, the other black and Hispanic. The rationale for looking at it this way is as follows: while certainly there has historically been severe discrimination against Asians, by and large Asians can no longer be said to be an “underrepresented” minority in the nation’s elite colleges and universities, at least not relative to their numbers in the overall population. Blacks and Hispanics, in contrast, are not only historically underrepresented, but continue to be underrepresented relative to their numbers in the overall population. We can debate the reasons for that, but I think that basic fact is indisputable. And I think it’s also reflected in colleges’ admissions policies: to the extent they are legally permitted to do so (which varies by state for the publics), most colleges make affirmative efforts to recruit black and Hispanic students. Very few any longer make affirmative efforts to recruit Asian students because Asians are no longer underrepresented; indeed, the concern in some parts of the Asian community is to safeguard against the re-emergence of discrimination against Asians because they are coming to be perceived to be overrepresented in some places, especially California. I don’t see evidence that this is actually happening. Indeed, I suspect most schools see whites and Asians as more or less fungible; they’ll just take the candidates from either of these groups they deem most qualified, without particularly caring which group they fall into. For blacks and Hispanics, however, it’s a bit more complicated. Both are still underrepresented, and schools that are able to engage in affirmative action make diligent efforts to increase the representation from both groups. But there’s also a sense in which blacks and Hispanics are somewhat fungible; the composition of the applicant pool and the student body may vary somewhat from school to school, but most school will evaluate their own progress toward meeting diversity goals by how many black AND Hispanic students they have. (That’s not to say, of course, that these distinctions aren’t important to members of these groups, with some Asian preferring to be at a school with a critical mass of Asians, Hispanics wanting a critical mass of Hispanics, and so on).</p>

<p>With that in mind, consider how the schools stack up, dividing their student bodies into two broad groups: black plus Hispanic (BH) and Asian plus white (AW):</p>

<p>BH, AW, non-US, research universities</p>

<p>15%, 75%, 10%, Harvard
17%, 74%, 9%, Princeton
17%, 74%, 8%, Yale
19%, 72%, 8%, MIT
21%, 70%, 6%, Stanford
6%, 84%, 9%, Caltech
14%, 76%, 10%, Penn
17%, 73%, 9%, Columbia
16%, 77%, 6%, Duke
13%, 78%, 8%, U Chicago
13%, 79%, 6%, Dartmouth
13%, 82%, 5%, Northwestern
13%, 84%, 4%, Wash U
11% , 81%, 8%, Cornell
13%, 81%, 5%, Johns Hopkins
15%, 77%, 7%, Brown
19%, 75%, 5%, Rice
13%, 80%, 6%, Emory
15%, 83%, 3%, Vanderbilt
13%, 83%, 3%, Notre Dame
15% , 82%, 3%, UC Berkeley
10%, 76%, 14%, Carnegie Mellon
13%, 82%, 5%, U Virginia
14%, 81%, 5%, Georgetown
18%, 77%, 4%, UCLA
11%, 83%, 5%, U Michigan
19%, 72%, 9%, USC
13%, 81%, 6%, Tufts
9%, 89%, 1%, Wake Forest
15%, 83%, 1%, U North Carolina
7%, 85%, 7%, Brandeis
13%, 84%, 2%, W&M
12%, 83%, 6%, NYU
14%, 84%, 2%, Boston Coll
12%, 84%, 5%, Georgia Tech
7% , 90%, 2%, Lehigh
13%, 83%, 3%, UCSD
8%, 86%, 6%, U Rochester
6%, 89%, 4%, U Wisconsin
14%, 81%, 5%, U Illinois
7% , 89%, 3%, Case Western
10%, 87%, 2%, Rensselaer
8% , 87%, 4%, U Washington
15%, 83%, 2%, UC Davis
14%, 82%, 3%, UC Irvine
22%, 76%, 1%, UC Santa Barbara
8%, 89%, 2%, Penn State
23%, 72%, 4%, U Texas
24%, 75%, 1%, U Florida
0%, 100%, 0%, Yeshiva
13%, 82%, 2%, Tulane</p>

<p>BH , AW, Non-US , LAC</p>

<p>18%, 74%, 7%, Amherst
19%, 75%, 7%, Williams
18%, 73%, 7%, Swarthmore
13%, 79%, 8%, Wellesley
9%, 81%, 10%, Middlebury
13%, 83%, 3%, Bowdoin
19%, 77%, 3%, Pomona
10%, 83%, 6%, Carleton
11%, 85%, 3%, Davidson
16%, 79%, 4%, Haverford
17%, 77%, 5%, Claremont McKenna
12%, 82%, 6%, Vassar
15%, 79%, 6%, Wesleyan
10%, 79%, 11%, Grinnell
9%, 87%, 4%, Harvey Mudd
13%, 84%, 2%, US Military Acad
6%, 91%, 4%, W&L
10%, 84%, 5%, Colgate
13%, 79%, 7%, Smith
9%, 85%, 5%, Hamilton
11%, 83%, 6%, Oberlin
14%, 84%, 1%, US Naval Acad
9%, 84%, 7%, Bryn Mawr
5%, 88%, 6%, Colby
5%, 89%, 5%, Bates
9%, 78%, 12%, Macalester</p>

<p>Some obvious outliers here, but apart from those, generally the breakdowns are pretty similar.</p>

9

<p>Grad students should be added as well. They are part of the campus community and add to its diversity.</p>

10

<p>bclintonick - I was mentally making the same adjustments as I read the first list. It’s interesting how Asians and Asian Americans have moved from the diversity marker to a marker for something else over the years. You seem to have put your finger on it.</p>

11

<p>SC has posted the statistics for the incoming fall 2008 students, which are more current than the numbers shown above.
Newly enrolled freshmen:
African American 7%
Latino 14%
Pacific Islander/Native American 2%
Asian 25%
Caucasian 45%
International 6%</p>

<p>President Sample remarked in a speech 17.7% of enrolled students are Pell Grant eligible. About 20% of admitted students are under-represented minority students. About 60% of enrolled students receive university financial aid.</p>

12

<p>

</p>

<p>That may be the case. However, such students will still officially remain “unknown” because it’s not considered kosher to go in and alter what a student has selected as their preferred racial self-identification (or lack thereof).</p>

<p>The counting by race is going to change next year (new federal guidelines) and it’s going to be hard to interpret some numbers. Hispanic numbers will appear to go up.</p>

13

<p>Another interesting comparison is Asian percentages at research universities vs. LACs. Asians aren’t yet “overrepresented” everywhere; this especially applies to the more rural and locationally disadvantaged (South or Midwest) LACs.</p>

14

<p>^ Good point, Keilexandra. As a group, the research universities certainly seem to have higher percentages of Asians than do LACs—with the exception of Wellesley (28% Asian). Any thought as to why that might be?</p>

15

<p>I noticed Wellesley–an unusual anomaly. Pure speculation now, but maybe it holds more prestige (overseas, perhaps) in the eyes of Asian parents?</p>

<p>My mother mentioned it when I started researching colleges, anyway, although she couldn’t pronounce it so I had no idea what she was referring to for a long time.</p>

16

<p>I would think the presence of engineering schools could be one factor. I’m not just falling back on a stereotype; enrollment figures on our campus show that there is a higher proportion of asians (domestic) in our engineering school.</p>

17

<p>^ That makes sense, and could account for the high Harvey Mudd and Swarthmore numbers as well.</p>

18

<p>Highest Asian enrollment percentage, top RUs and LACs combined</p>

<ol>
<li>UC Irvine 51%</li>
<li>UCSD 43%</li>
<li>UC Berkeley 42%</li>
<li>UC Davis 41%</li>
<li>UCLA 38%</li>
<li>Caltech 38%</li>
<li>Wellesley 28%</li>
<li>U Washington 28%</li>
<li>MIT 26%</li>
<li>Johns Hopkins 25%</li>
<li>Stanford 24%</li>
<li>CMU 24%</li>
<li>USC 22%</li>
<li>Harvey Mudd 21%</li>
<li>Duke 19%</li>
<li>Rice 19%</li>
<li>NYU 19%</li>
<li>Emory 18%</li>
<li>Northwestern 17%</li>
<li>Penn 17%</li>
<li>Swarthmore 17%</li>
<li>Texas 17%</li>
<li>Harvard 16%</li>
<li>Columbia 16%</li>
<li>Cornell 16%</li>
<li>Georgia Tech 16%</li>
<li>Case Western 16%</li>
<li>UCSB 16%</li>
</ol>

<p>Clearly, it’s partly regional. The top 5 are all UCs; the top 6 are all in California; 7 of the top 8 and 10 of the top 14 are on the West Coast (9 of those 10 in California). And the vast majority of the top 25 (well, 28 including ties) are on either the West Coast or the East Coast. </p>

<p>It’s true that a lot of schools with strong engineering programs make this list: UC Berkeley, Caltech, MIT, Stanford, John Hopkins, CMU are all toward the top of the list. But it can’t be just engineering, because some very good engineering schools aren’t anywhere near the top. Cornell and Georgia Tech just barely make the top 25 list. UIUC, Michigan, Purdue, Wisconsin don’t make this list at all.</p>

<p>Maybe Asians just don’t like the Midwest?</p>

19

<p>

Hehe! No wonder its nickname is the University of Chinese Immigrants.</p>

20

<p>

So, UCB should be called Univeristy of Chinese from Beijing, ah? It’s a global village now. Twenty percent (20%) of the world polulation is Chinese and therefore, on average, 20% of the students are Chinese is right on the mark.</p>