<p>
[quote]
So, UCB should be called Univeristy of Chinese from Beijing, ah?
[/quote]
Just from Beijing? Then that's not very diverse...;)</p>
<p>Deviators from the regional theory: Emory, Northwestern, Texas, Case Western. The coasts, especially West, are still a significant majority, though.</p>
<p>
[quote]
^ 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?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I can take a guess, Chiang Kai Shek's wife (Soong May-Ling) went to Wellesley, and also one of the greatest Chinese writers, Bing Xin, was also an Alum. Asians have always loved Hillary Clinton as well. Most LACs simply don't have a lot of name recognition outside of the elite circles, Asian students and their parents go for the bigger name schools, which are usually the east coast/west coast elite research universities. Berkeley's reputation in Asia is as good as any school in the US.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If I read USNWR correctly, it classifies all "race unknown" students as "white," and does not count international students.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That does appear to be the U.S. News methodology, which is dubious in that regard. </p>
<p>See </p>
<p>for more detail on how colleges count students by ethnicity (HINT: they do NOT use the students' surnames AT ALL) and links to official federal definitions in the second</a> post, and counts of "race/ethnicity unknown" students in the fourth</a> post.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Correct. The link to the relevant federal regulation appears in </p>
<p>(second</a> post).</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not necessarily so - the reason why Stanford's % of Asians is higher than that of its peer schools is that Stanford stopped admissions policies which artificially capped the % of Asians.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I doubt there are too many Asian applicants who put down "unknown" when their full/last name or the rest of their application leaves little question as to their being Asian.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Maybe Asians just don't like the Midwest?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Just LACs in out of the way places where there is a small Asian pop.</p>
<p>Besides, NU, UChicago, etc. - schools like UIUC and UIC have a pretty big Asian %.</p>
<p>You can also say the same thing for black and Jewish applicants, btw.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Deviators from the regional theory: Emory, Northwestern, Texas...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Texas has a fairly large Asian pop.</p>
<p>Same reason why schools like Rutgers, SUNY, CUNY, etc. have high % of Asians as well.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Asian students and their parents go for the bigger name schools, which are usually the east coast/west coast elite research universities...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How does that account for the high Asian percentages at UCI, UCD, Rutgers, SUNY, CUNY, etc. much less community colleges (where more Asian students attend college than research-oriented state universities)?</p>
<p>As for Wellesley, Asian parent/students probably know more about Amherst/Williams/Swarthmore/Pomona more than they do Wellesley.</p>
<p>The reason why Wellesley's no. is more in line w/ Stanford's than its peer LACs probably has to do w/ it admissions policies. And the fact that there generally is less bias against Asian women than men in society probably plays a role.</p>
<p>
[quote]
the reason why Stanford's % of Asians is higher than that of its peer schools is that Stanford stopped admissions policies which artificially capped the % of Asians.
[/quote]
I am not sure that this is true. If Stanford doesn't limit the number of Asians that they admit, their Asian number should approach CalTech and UCB's,the two other top California schools, around 40%,mainly because there are a lot more Asians in California than in other states.</p>
<p>^ While the % of Asians at Stanford (maybe) should be higher if race was totally taken out of the equation, it still wouldn't approach the level of UCB/UCLA or Caltech.</p>
<p>Caltech is pretty much in a category all its own.</p>
<p>W/ regard to UCB/UCLA - the reason why they have a higher % of Asians is b/c they also have large nos. of Asians in their students bodies who wouldn't have been able to get into Stanford.</p>
<p>The Asian student body at UCB/UCLA is more diverse ethnically as well as socio-economically than at Stanford.</p>
<p>W/ regard to Stanford, despite a substantial increase in the no. of Asian applicants over a 4-5 year period (about a decade or 2 ago), the % of Asians in the student body somehow remained the same.</p>
<p>Stanford admitted to admissions policies which kept the % of Asian students artificially low, and since then, the % of Asians increased from the mid-teens to the mid-twenties.</p>
<p>
[quote]
mainly because there are a lot more Asians in California than in other states
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If that were the case, then Columbia should be teeming w/ Asians as well since 10-11% of NYC's pop. is Asian.</p>
<p>As for Wellesley, Asian parent/students probably know more about Amherst/Williams/Swarthmore/Pomona more than they do Wellesley.</p>
<p>I may be another anomaly, but my mother knew about Wellesley and had NO IDEA that AWSP existed.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If that were the case, then Columbia should be teeming w/ Asians as well since 10-11% of NYC's pop. is Asian.
[/quote]
Keep in mind that Asian pop is more than 30% in the SF Bay area.</p>
<p>^ But SF's pop. is 760,000 while NYC's pop. 8,275,000.</p>
<p>So basically 228,000 vs. 827,000 Asians.</p>
<p>As of 2000, in the total Bay Area, there were about 1,279,000 Asians, in the NYC metro area, there were 1,343,000 Asians.</p>
<p>k&s,
Twelve percent of Californians are Asian which is about 4 million people. There are Only two top private schools: Stanford and Caltech. On the east coast within a similar geographical area, you have the whole Ivy League plus MIT. BTW, Columbia is also one of those schools that is heavily holistic.</p>
<p>But the EC doesn't have high-powered public universities like UCB and UCLA.</p>
<p>The UCs have 50k in enrollment, while the Ivies total about 44k in enrollment.</p>
<p>As for the whole "holistic" argument - Stanford, by virtue of it having LOWER standardized test scores than most of the Ivies (while, at the same time, having one of the lowest admit rates), is arguably more holistic than the Ivies (altogether).</p>
<p>Plus, out of all the Ivies, Princeton is the school that is noted for having the most "holistic" admissions standard - and Princeton is the one Ivy where the Asian student pop. outnumbers the Jewish student pop.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But the EC doesn't have high-powered public universities like UCB and UCLA
[/quote]
Are you saying that UCB and UCLA are similar to Stanford? If that's the case, you just proved my point: Stanford should have similar percent of Asians as UCB and UCLA.</p>
<p>^ I thought we had already covered this?</p>
<p>UCLA and UCB are state universities, so they recruit first and foremost from in-state.</p>
<p>Anyway, your line of argument that Stanford should have a similar % of Asians as the UCs should also, then, apply to the Ivies - since the Northeast has a high concentration of Asians as well (and yet, we see schools outside the Northeast - CMU, Northwestern, Duke, Rice, Emory, etc. have a higher % of Asian students than the Ivies).</p>
<p>What a delicious irony that a system designed to combat discriminatory college admissions policies (affirmative action) now in fact stimulates them. Being Asian (Indian subcontinent) myself, I'm not sure what to make of the situation. On the one hand, student bodies at top colleges are generally disproportionately comprised of Asian students relative to the percentage of the U.S. population that identifies itself as Asian. However, subjective information regarding top college admissions indicates that many of them set quotas limiting the number of students of Asian descent that may be admitted. Assuming this to be true (and said colleges are extremely adept at concealing any objective information that would support such a claim), these policies are nothing short of discriminatory.</p>
<p>does Yeshiva not accept minorities or what?</p>
<p>My guess would be that Yeshiva doesn't get loads of applications from minorities. Its emphasis on combing Jewish religious studies with secular education makes it particularly attractive to people of Jewish faith. Here in the U.S. its adherents tend to be white/caucasian. Naturally that's going to have the effect of limiting the racial diversity of the applicant pool--and student body.</p>