<p>Oh, nothing much. We decided we liked McCain the most, so we will add a subtle bias to the media so that we tilt the November election to McCain's favor. We gotta be careful and subtle this time though; we almost got called on the Obama-bias last time!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Atheism is not a religion. It's the lack of religion.</p>
<p>Hollywood was founded by Jews (Louis B. Mayer, Sam Goldwyn, David O. Selznick - of the major filmmakers of the 40's and 50's, only the Warner Brothers were not Jewish) for the same reason as Brandeis was: Jews weren't allowed in the fledgling "film" industry in the East. So they went West and created their own. Similarly, Jews became bankers in Europe because Christians were not permitted to lend money for interest.</p>
<p>Muhlenberg is also a school with about 30% Jews; University of Rochester has a large Jewish population. So does Boston University. The former dean of Boston College Law School was Jewish.</p>
<p>Jews are overrepresented in academia and other "intellectual" areas in large part because of a strong cultural bias towards education and the life of the mind. Part of that was self-defense. For centuries, they were thrown out of many countries, and subject to pogroms and slaughters. As my father (a Holocaust survivor) taught me, "The only thing they can't take away from you is what you know." In small communities in Eastern Europe, the most important thing a man could do was study, both the Jewish holy books and secular books. The entire community would work to support these scholars so that they could study. "My son, the doctor" didn't become a mantra because doctors made a lot of money (in Eastern Europe, they didn't) but because they were learned. Illiteracy, at least among Jewish men, was virtually unheard of in Eastern Europe, and in Spanish and Latin countries with Jewish populations.</p>
<p>There's an old joke: What's a Jewish dropout? A kid without a Ph.D. Like many jokes, there's a bit of truth in it.</p>
<p>Awewsome post, if more people felt like you and your kid, the world would be
so much better for everyone!</p>
<p>Jews get screwed.</p>
<p>As much as I respect Jews for what they are and what they've made of themselves after many hardships, I still don't respect labelling everything as Anti-semitism. I think the word anti-semitic is abused to follow certain agendas. I don't see asians filing lawsuits (well it happens) or opening other schools because there's a certain quota on asians at top schools.</p>
<p>Schools want diversity, and that's why schools lacking a jewish community recruit Jews, and schools that are overdosed on Jews try to cut some out.</p>
<p>It's logical, really.</p>
<p>NYU was founded by the a group of prominent New York City merchants, bankers, and traders. From these occupations one can probably infer that there were a large representation of Jews in the group,(but it was not founded as a "Jewish College"). These New Yorkers believed the city needed a university designed for young men who would be admitted based on merit, not birthright or social class (eg.Columbia, Yale) NYU was created non-denominational, unlike many American colonial colleges at the time.</p>
<p>OldPerson: Thank you for your excellent post regarding NYU</p>
<p>"Secondly, you don't know much about NYU if you think that it doesn't have a huge Jewish population. It has in fact the largest gross number of Jews in the country, and more than 30% of its graduates and over 20% of its undergrad are Jewish."</p>
<p>According to Hillel, UF has the largest Jewish undergrad population in the country, followed by UCF. I don't think that this is true for their grad schools, though. </p>
<p>Florida has a lot of Jews and the vast majority of high school graduates here stay in state for undergrad (because it's free, UF, in particular, has a very good academic reputation within Florida, most of us grew up bleeding orange and blue, and/or our Gator parents bribed us) and then go out of state for grad school...because Bright Futures doesn't pay for it (and we complain about this a lot) lol</p>
<p>University of Florida:
Jewish Undergraduate Enrollment: 6,500...hence the nickname, "JewF"</p>
<p>University of Central Florida:
Jewish Undergraduate Enrollment: 6,000</p>
<p>New York University:
Jewish Undergraduate Enrollment: 4,000</p>
<p>UW-Madison--4,000 Jewish undergrads and 1,000 graduate students. We were accepting Jewish students back in the bad old days when they were being subjected to quotas else where.</p>
<p>Oldperson - There's a huge difference between the official statement and reality; you have to consider the context. In an environment when plenty of schools were actively anti-semitic (openly or not), a school that is "non-denominational" is founded primarily to skirt the discrimination. This deduction isn't rocket science. If all the schools had a quota, capping admissions of brunettes at 5%, and a school is opened proclaiming no discrimination based on hair color, you can bet that that university will have a huge population of brunettes.</p>
<p>The founders knew better than to found a school with "Jewish" in the charter. But just because something isn't in the charter doesn't mean it's not true. Learn to read between the lines. I'll back off my previous statement that it was founded as a "Jewish College" if you want, but I can assure you that it had a huge jewish percentage, and still does. </p>
<p>In case you haven't noticed: Tisch Hall, Tisch School of the Arts, Tisch (a building), Schimmel Auditorium, Stern School of Business, Kaufman Center of Management, Steinhardt, Kimmel, Skirball, etc etc. Almost every major building except for the Silver Center. Hm... I wonder why so many wealthy Jews decided to donate their money to NYU instead of Brandeis?</p>
<p>Edit: Didn't see Amanda's post. And yes, I was referring to UG + G, not UG alone.</p>
<p>So here's a question that I hope does not trigger a lot of attacks: </p>
<p>Is the Jewish experience being replicated today for Asians?</p>
<p>Hillel has a searchable database that includes information about the percentage of students who are Jewish:</p>
<p>Vicarious - No I do not believe that to be the case. There may be affirmative action working against asians, but it's not a hard cap or quota. So it's just harder to get in, not impossible to get in once a certain number have been admitted. You can argue whether or not this is fair, and imho it's not, but it's not nearly as bad as the anti-semitism quotas.</p>
<p>'The Chosen' by Jerome Karabel is an interesting history of how our current college application process, with emphasis on ECs, etc, arose. Here's the Washington Post review:</p>
<p>Proof of extracurricular activities, leadership qualities, letters of recommendation -- we take all these as natural, necessary and even enlightened elements of the college application process, though they cause us endless anxiety. Actually, they don't resemble in the least the way people in Europe or Japan get into college. They're a result of a particular American challenge at the turn of the 20th century, which President A. Lawrence Lowell of Harvard then characterized as follows: how to "prevent a dangerous increase in the proportion of Jews."</p>
<p>Prior to the 1920s, Harvard, Princeton and Yale accepted all applicants who met their academic requirements. Adjusting the size of each university's incoming class was not a problem since there were very few such qualified candidates, mostly because only a handful of elite northeastern private schools -- such as Groton and Andover and St. Paul's -- provided the kind of classical education (including Latin and some Greek) that the universities required. Since admissions were not "selective" in any substantial sense, none of the Big Three needed an admissions department.</p>
<p>The Chosen is an exhaustive account of how we got from that efficient and cozy arrangement to where we are today. It's particularly fascinating because there is such a growing stake -- and so many stakeholders -- in the process of selecting who gets access to higher education in general and elite education in particular.</p>
<p>But beware and rejoice. Beware because this story, alas, is not one about a group of presidents and deans steadily becoming enlightened to the virtues of equal opportunity. And rejoice in the details that Berkeley sociologist Jerome Karabel reveals and the patient analysis that he deploys; he shows how, in spite of an applicant's proven academic performance, the Big Three favored in overwhelming numbers the sons of the Protestant moneyed class because the institutions determined that it was in their self-interest to do so. The way these universities have sometimes answered but mostly resisted societal demands to open their doors turns out to be a juicy story indeed. And "juicy" is not the kind of adjective one customarily uses to describe a book with 557 pages of text and almost 3,000 footnotes.</p>
<p>By the end of the 19th century, Harvard, Yale and Princeton were committed not primarily to refining the intellect but to welcoming the well-bred, athletic, public-spirited and sociable scions of the privileged -- young men who may not have performed well academically but were destined to be the leaders of the next generation. "By the 1890s, 74 percent of Boston's upper class and 65 percent of New York's sent their sons to either Harvard, Yale, or Princeton," Karabel notes. Things took a new turn when Harvard president Charles W. Eliot, concerned that his school was educating just the wealthy, and his successor, A. Lawrence Lowell, took measures to attract more boys from good public schools. Though hardly egalitarians, Eliot and Lowell modified the university's entrance requirements -- including dropping Latin and Greek requirements -- to encourage more schools to prepare their students to compete for Harvard slots.</p>
<p>The result of such measures, at Harvard and elsewhere, was a horrific surprise: too many Jews! Jewish enrollment jumped to then historic highs of 4 percent at Princeton (1918), 9 percent at Yale (1917) and a distressing 20 percent of the freshman class at Harvard (1918). Though most of these students were more than academically competent, they didn't fit the usual definition of "gentlemen." And their numbers were continuing to increase. A meeting of New England deans in 1918 put the question squarely: How could they limit the growing Jewish presence?</p>
<p>Lowell worried that living on campus with a significant number of Jews would poison the social experience of the members of the Protestant elite and cause it to send its sons elsewhere, just as the New York City social set turned away from Columbia in the century's first decade. In 1923, Lowell finally came up with a politically palatable solution: He limited the size of the incoming class to 1,000 (an innovation), which meant incorporating an evaluation of each candidate's nonacademic qualities into the admissions decision. How "manly" was the candidate, for instance? How congenial and "clubbable"? What promise, what potential for future leadership? "The key code word here was 'character' " -- a quality, notes Karabel, "thought to be frequently lacking among Jews but present almost congenitally among high-status Protestants."</p>
<p>Such subjective judgments allowed Harvard to discreetly reject "undesirables," and Princeton and Yale followed suit. Yale's admissions chairman, Robert Corwin, had grumbled in 1929 that the list of names of recently admitted students "reads like some of the 'begat' portions of the Old Testament and might easily be mistaken for a recent roll call at the Wailing Wall." The next year, he limited Jewish enrollment to just 8.2 percent -- a result he hailed as having been attained "without hue and cry and without any attempt on the part of those chiefly affected to prove that Yale had organized a pogrom." The Chosen contains dozens of such staggeringly candid remarks.</p>
<p>Newly established admissions departments gathered increasingly large amounts of "background" data on each applicant. In 1922, applications to Harvard posed a new set of questions. Race? Color? Religious preference? Birthplace of father? Previous surnames used by the family? One question that still pops up everywhere today had its flowering in this period: "Mother's maiden name?"</p>
<p>The need for letters of recommendation was born; so was the interest in extracurricular involvement. Photographs were required, and personal interviews were encouraged, particularly with local alumni who would be most eager to perpetuate the muscular and sociable undergraduate image dear to them. The mechanism was similar to that of self-perpetuating private social and country clubs where new candidates were admitted only if members vouched for them. Interviewers for Yale had to fill out a checklist of each candidate's physical characteristics, a practice that was eliminated only in the 1960s. The new opacity and flexibility easily allowed the continued admission of enough "legacies" to mollify crusty alums. As late as 1951, Harvard admitted an astonishing 94 percent of its legacies.</p>
<p>Since the number of admission slots was being limited while more and more applicants were meeting the Big Three's academic criteria, the various nonacademic criteria and "intangible qualities" became decisive. One logical alternative -- raising academic standards even higher to get a more brilliant, intellectual class -- was hardly a consideration. The 1920s was the period that first saw, as Karabel puts it, "the denigration of applicants whose sole strength is academic brilliance." To raise scholarly standards for admission, the old guard warned, would just produce a preponderance of "neurotics," "effeminates," "sophisticates," "esthetes" and "introverts." By contrast, it was the well-bred students of average intelligence who university elders insisted were more likely to end up as leaders in business and politics -- and to become loyal, generous alumni. Most university leaders made no bones about limiting the "super-bright" to only 10 percent of each class.</p>
<p>Astonishingly, this subjective college admissions system -- designed in the 1920s to discreetly exclude as many "social undesirables" as possible -- is the system we continue to use today. And the central irony of The Chosen is that the very flexibility that was designed to exclude nontraditional students and placate the alumni up to the middle of the 20th century was subsequently available to administrators to accomplish essentially opposite goals.</p>
<p>As the century unfolds, Karabel reviews successive demands for more sophisticated scientific research and for more international competitiveness, both of which compelled the Big Three to value brilliant students more highly. In particular, he looks at the open political and social conflicts stemming from demands for civil rights and equal opportunity in the 1960s and '70s. Facing those crises, universities saw themselves as the country's most visible demonstration of the reality of upward mobility.</p>
<p>Karabel analyzes how each of his three schools had to process these demands in terms of its own internal constituencies: faculty pressuring for "more brains," students and the press demanding diversity, and alumni in open revolt against any such changes.</p>
<p>Having decided to change the make-up of their student body in this new direction, each school was successful in doing so because from the 1920s on, admissions officers had at their disposal a variety of nonacademic criteria by which to evaluate applicants. And as Karabel notes, moves to include previously excluded groups were not terribly radical since the Big Three, in fact, "had never been pure academic meritocracies."</p>
<p>Dramatic as these developments appear, they hardly constitute a sea change in how universities make such decisions. University administrations still view a move to completely meritocratic selection as neither in their self-interest nor realistic. Instead, Karabel convincingly shows this new institutional behavior to be the result of constant administrative shifts in order to maintain an uneasy balance among competing demands.</p>
<p>For Karabel, as a good sociologist, class matters. And his book draws on sociological theory, such as Pierre Bourdieu's notion of cultural capital and a quote from Max Weber that illuminates much of the Big Three's behavior: "The fortunate is seldom satisfied with the fact of being fortunate. Beyond this, he needs to know that he has a right to his good fortune." And as idealized as the push toward meritocracy is seen throughout the book, the author does not let us forget that meritocracy functions to confirm the existing social order. Inspired by the work of Michael Young, Karabel argues that meritocracy merely deflects "attention from the real issues of poverty and inequality of condition onto a chimerical quest for unlimited social mobility."</p>
<p>But the author deploys his academic expertise with a light hand -- which he can afford to do, having amassed so many telling details and vivid anecdotes. The special value of The Chosen lies not in the way it formulates sociological insights but in its stories, its prolific and always apt statistics, and its analysis of backroom university politics. Finally, there are memorable biographical sketches of pivotal figures, such as Princeton's President Woodrow Wilson, who painfully learned that, in his own words, "university policy had become the victim of entrenched wealth"; Harvard's James Bryant Conant, whose rhetoric was highly meritocratic but whose admissions policies continued old patterns of discrimination; Yale's Kingman Brewster and particularly his dean of admissions, R. Inslee Clark Jr., "who presided over the most radical transformation ever witnessed in an Ivy League institution"; and Supreme Court Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr., the swing vote in the Supreme Court'!</p>
<p>s 1978 Bakke decision. (In this ruling, the court sided with a white University of California medical school applicant who had sued over what he considered "reverse discrimination" favoring minorities in the admissions process. The court also defended a university's autonomy by allowing it to take race and other nonacademic factors into account when making admissions decisions.)</p>
<p>Much has changed in who now constitutes "the chosen" -- the elite prep schools, for example, can no longer count on a high proportion of their graduates getting into the Big Three. "As a consequence, deep apprehension about college admissions now extends to the highest reaches of the upper class," Karabel writes. But much remains the same. "At the same time, the children of the working class and the poor are about as unlikely to attend the Big Three today as they were in 1954. It is no exaggeration to say that the current regime in elite college admissions has been far more successful in democratizing anxiety than opportunity."</p>
<p>Reviewed by Jeffrey Kittay
Copyright 2005, The Washington Post. All Rights Reserved.</p>
<p>It's illegal for colleges to judge based on religion. But Jews are historically good at the admissions game (it's more of a hard-working cultural thing). That about sums it up.</p>
<p>Thank you MD_Mom.</p>
<p>One sentence of that review stood out to me:</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <blockquote> <p>Yale's admissions chairman, Robert Corwin, had grumbled in 1929 that the list of names of recently admitted students "reads like some of the 'begat' portions of the Old Testament and might easily be mistaken for a recent roll call at the Wailing Wall.>>></p> </blockquote> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>I sincerely hope people keep this in mind when they encounter an increasing number of students with names like "Chen, Wong, Park, Kim,...".</p>
<p>The Reform Judaism Magazine published these tables one and two years ago. The first link also has the schools with the highest (percentage) Jewish population.
<a href="http://reformjudaismmag.org/_kd/Items/actions.cfm?action=Show&item_id=1278&destination=ShowItem%5B/url%5D">http://reformjudaismmag.org/_kd/Items/actions.cfm?action=Show&item_id=1278&destination=ShowItem</a>
<a href="http://reformjudaismmag.org/_kd/Items/actions.cfm?action=Show&item_id=1192&destination=ShowItem%5B/url%5D">http://reformjudaismmag.org/_kd/Items/actions.cfm?action=Show&item_id=1192&destination=ShowItem</a></p>
<p>Also, someone on CC a year or 2 ago took the time to list, by US News ranking, the percent of Jewish students in Universities and LAC's, by referencing the college and the Hillel websites. I apologize that I cannot identify the author of this CC post. These numbers are rough estimates, as Hillel's numbers are not always reliable, but it is a good approximation.
This graphs the percentage of Jewish students (estimated by hillel.org) at the top two tiers of national universities and liberal arts colleges, graphing them against rank of the institution.</p>
<p>Here are the schools by name/rank/approximate percent of Jewish students</p>
<p>Name Rank % Jewish
Princeton 1 14
Harvard 2 30
Yale 3 23
Cal Tech 4 6
Stanford 4 10
MIT 4 9
U Penn 7 31
Duke 8 11</p>
<p>Dartmouth 9 11
Columbia 9 25
U Chicago 9 14
Cornell 12 22
Wash U 12 27
Northwestern 14 23
Brown 15 25
Johns Hopkins 16 14
Rice 17 12
Vanderbilt 18 11
Emory 18 33
Notre Dame 20 <0.5**
Carnegie Mellon 21 11
UC Berkeley 21 10
Georgetown 23 11
U Virginia 24 10
U Michigan 24 16
UCLA 26 12
U North Carolina - Chapel Hill 27 5
U Southern California 27 10
Tufts 27 32
Wake Forest 30 2
William and Mary 31 7
Brandeis 31 62
Lehigh 33 14
U Wisconsin - Madison 34 14
Boston College 34 3
NYU 34 34
U Rochester 34 20
Case Western 38 11
UC San Diego 38 7
Georgia Tech 38 3
U Illinois: Urbana-Champaign 41 9
U Washington 42 6
Rensselaer Polytech 42 12
UC Irvine 44 5
Tulane 44 25
Yeshiva 44 >99****
Penn State - University Park 47 11
U Texas - Austin 47 10
UC Davis 47 10
UC Santa Barbara 47 <0.5***
U Florida 47 16
George Washington 52 32
Syracuse 52 20
Pepperdine 54 <0.5**
U Miami 54 15
U Maryland - College Park 54 18
Ohio State - Columbus 57 7
U Pittsburgh 57 10
Boston U 57 15
Miami U - Oxford 60 7
Texas A&M - College Station 60 3
U Georgia 60 7
Rutgers - New Brunswick 60 16
Purdue - West Lafayette 64 2
U Iowa 64 3
Worcester Polytech 64 2
U Connecticut 67 10
U Delaware 67 9
U Minnesota - Twin Cities 67 4
Clemson 70 1
Southern Methodist 70 3
Brigham Young - Provo 70 <0.5**
Indiana U - Bloomington 70 10
Michigan State 70 7
Fordham 70 2
UC Santa Cruz 76 22
Virginia Tech 77 5
U Colorado - Boulder 77 8
St. Louis 77 <0.5***
Stevens Tech 77 9
North Carolina State - Raleigh 81 1
Baylor 81 <0.5***
Marquette 81 2
Iowa State 81 1
Clark 81 18
American 86 16
SUNY Binghamton 86 30
U Tulsa 88 1
U Tennessee 88 1
U Vermont 88 12
U Alabama 88 2
Auburn 88 <0.5*
UC Riverside 88 5
U Denver 88 20
Howard 88 <0.5**
U Kansas 88 8
U Missouri - Columbia 88 3
U Arizona 98 11
U Pacific 98 <0.5***
Northeastern 98 8
U Mass - Amherst 98 13
U Nebraska - Lincoln 98 <0.5*
SUNY Environmental Science / Forestry 98 <0.5**
SUNY Stony Brook 98 15
U New Hampshire 105 3
Texas Christian 105 <0.5***
U Dayton 105 1
U San Diego 105 3
Illinois Tech 105 8
Ohio U 110 5
Florida State 110 10
U Missouri - Rolla 112 <0.5**
U Kentucky 112 1
Loyola Chicago 112 3
Washington State 112 1
U San Francisco 112 4
U South Carolina - Columbia 112 2
Drexel 112 <0.5***
U Oklahoma 112 1
U Utah 120 1
U Oregon 120 7
Catholic U 120 <0.5***
SUNY Buffalo 120 9
Colorado State 124 3
Kansas State 124 <0.5*
New Jersey Tech 124 2</p>
<p>Tier 3 of National Universities (In Alphabetical Order)<br>
Name % Jewish
Adelphi 1
Andrews <0.5**
Arizona State 6
Ball State <0.5*
Bowling Green State 1
Clarkson <0.5***
DePaul <0.5***
Duquesne <0.5***
East Carolina <0.5*
Florida Tech <0.5***
George Mason 7
Hofstra 12
Illinois State 2
Louisiana State 1
Michigan Tech <0.5**
Mississippi State <0.5**
New Mexico Institute of Mining and Tech <0.5**
New School <0.5**
North Dakota State <0.5*
Oklahoma State <0.5*
Oregon State 1
Pace <0.5***
Polytechnic <0.5**
Rutgers - Newark <0.5***
SUNY Albany 29
Seton Hall <0.5**
South Dakota State <0.5**
Southern Illinois - Carbondale 1
St. John's (NY) <0.5***
Temple 4
Texas Tech 1
U Colorado - Denver <0.5***
U Maryland - Baltimore County 11
U North Carolina - Greensboro 2
U Mass - Lowell <0.5***
U Missouri - Kansas City <0.5**
U Alabama - Birmingham <0.5**
U Alabama - Huntsville <0.5**
U Arkansas <0.5*
U Cincinnati 8
U Hawaii - Manoa <0.5**
U Idaho <0.5*
U Illinois - Chicago 5
U La Verne <0.5**
U Louisville <0.5*
U Maine <0.5***
U Mississippi <0.5**
U Montana <0.5*
U Nevada - Reno 1
U New Mexico 1
U North Dakota <0.5***
U Rhode Island 10
U South Dakota <0.5**
U South Florida 10
U St. Thomas <0.5***
U Texas - Dallas 1
U Wyoming 2
Utah State <0.5**
Virginia Commonwealth <0.5***
West Virginia 4
Western Michigan 4
Widener 3</p>
<p>Tier 4 of National Universities (In Alphabetical Order)<br>
Alabama A&M <0.5**
Alliant International <0.5**
Biola <0.5**
Central Michigan 1
Clark Atlanta <0.5**
Cleveland State 2
East Tennessee State 1
Florida Atlantic 8
Florida International 13
Georgia State 2
Idaho State <0.5**
Indiana State <0.5**
Indiana U - Purdue U - Indianapolis <0.5***
Indiana U of Pennsylvania 1
Jackson State <0.5**
Kent State 5
Louisiana Tech 2
Middle Tennessee State <0.5*
Montana State - Bozeman <0.5**
National-Louis 3
New Mexico State 1
Northern Arizona 2
Northern Illinois 2
Nova Southeastern 2
Oakland 2
Old Dominion 1
Portland State 2
San Diego State 9
South Carolina State <0.5**
Tennessee State <0.5**
Texas A&M - Kingsville <0.5**
Texas A&M - Commerce <0.5***
Texas Southern <0.5***
Texas Woman's <0.5***
Union Institute and University <0.5**
U Arkansas - Little Rock <0.5**
U Mass - Boston <0.5***
U Missouri - St. Louis <0.5***
U Southern Mississippi <0.5***
U Wisconsin - Milwaukee 3
U Akron <0.5***
U Alaska - Fairbanks <0.5**
U Bridgeport <0.5**
U Central Florida 13
U Hartford 32
U Houston 3
U Louisiana - Lafayette <0.5**
U Memphis 1
U Nevada - Las Vegas 4
U New Orleans 1
U North Texas 1
U Northern Colorado <0.5***
U South Alabama <0.5**
U Texas - Arlington 1
U Texas - El Paso <0.5*
U Toledo 1
Wayne State 2
Wichita State <0.5***
Wilmington <0.5**
Wright State <0.5***</p>
<p><em>Actual Jewish Population is listed as having a proportion of below 0.5%.<br>
For graphing purposes, this number is rounded down to zero.<br>
*</em>University is not listed on hillel.org; therefore, proportion is estimated as below 0.5%, although Jewish population could be higher in actuality.<br>
For graphing purposes, this number is rounded down to zero.<br>
<strong><em>University is listed, but Jewish population is blank; therefore, proportion is estimated as below 0.5%, although Jewish population could be higher in actuality.<br>
For graphing purposes, this number is rounded down to zero.<br>
*</em></strong>University is directly connected to the Jewish faith; thus, Jewish population is estimated as above 99%<br>
For graphing purposes, this number is rounded up to one hundred. </p>
<p>Name Rank % Jewish
Williams 1 10
Amherst 2 16
Swarthmore 3 19
Wellesley 4 9
Middlebury 5 12
Carleton 6 11
Bowdoin 7 10
Pomona 7 15
Haverford 9 22
Davidson 10 5
Wesleyan 10 27
Claremont McKenna 12 10
Vassar 12 21
Grinnell 14 6
Harvey Mudd 14 10
Colgate 16 15
Hamilton 17 9
Washington and Lee 17 4
Smith 19 10
Colby 20 10
Bryn Mawr 20 17
Oberlin 22 27
Bates 23 9
Macalester 24 6
Mount Holyoke 24 4
Barnard 26 43
Colorado 26 6
Scripps 26 18
Bucknell 29 9
Trinity 30 11
Lafayette 30 11
Kenyon 32 10
Holy Cross 32 <0.5***
Richmond 34 9
U of the South 34 <0.5**
Bard 36 12
Occidental 36 7
Whitman 36 7
Connecticut 39 10
Union 39 15
Dickinson 41 9
Furman 41 <0.5**
Franklin and Marshall 41 10
Centre 44 <0.5***
Sarah Lawrence 45 29
Rhodes 45 1
Gettysburg 45 2
Skidmore 48 18
DePauw 48 1
Denison 48 4
Wabash 51 <0.5**
Pitzer 51 14
Lawrence 53 <0.5**
Reed 53 30
St. Olaf 55 <0.5**
Wheaton (MA) 55 1
Kalamazoo 57 6
Southwestern 57 <0.5***
Wofford 57 <0.5**
St. Lawrence 57 2
Beloit 61 7
Wheaton (IL) 61 <0.5**
Illinois Wesleyan 61 2
Agnes Scott 61 2
Earlham 65 11
Willamette 65 <0.5***
Wooster 67 6
Hobart and William Smith 67 10
St. John's (MN) 69 <0.5
Hendrix 69 2
Ursinus 69 7
Drew 69 9
Thomas Aquinas 73 <0.5**
Muhlenberg 74 31
Austin 74 <0.5***
Spelman 74 <0.5**
Birmingham-Southern 74 <0.5**
Sweet Briar 74 <0.5**
Gustavus Adolphus 79 <0.5**
Knox 79 8
Lewis and Clark 79 5
Millsaps 82 2
Mills 82 7
U Puget Sound 82 <0.5***
Allegheny 82 3
Randolph-Macon Woman's 86 1
VMI 86 <0.5**
Hanover 86 <0.5**
Principia 86 <0.5**
New College 86 <0.5***
Goucher 91 30
Bennington 91 <0.5**
Albion 91 <0.5***
Hampshire 91 28
St Mary's of Maryland 95 <0.5***
Hope 95 <0.5**
St. Benedict 95 <0.5**
Ohio Wesleyan 95 4
Transylvania 95 1
Lake Forest 95 <0.5***
Luther 95 <0.5**
Coe 95 <0.5**
Juniata 95 <0.5***
Washington and Jefferson 104 4
Susquehanna 104 2
Hampden-Sydney 104 1
Augustana 104 <0.5**
Randolph-Macon 104 <0.5**
Westmont 104 <0.5**
Hollins 104 <0.5***</p>
<p>Tier 3 of Liberal Arts Colleges (Alphabetical Order)<br>
Name % Jewish
Albright 3
Alma <0.5***
Antioch <0.5**
Chatham 5
College of the Atlantic <0.5**
Concordia (MN) <0.5**
Cornell (IA) 5
Eastern Mennonite <0.5**
Eckerd 4
Emory and Henry <0.5**
Erskine <0.5**
Fisk <0.5**
Georgetown (KY) <0.5**
Gordon <0.5**
Goshen <0.5**
Hartwick <0.5**
Hillsdale <0.5***
Hiram 3
Houghton <0.5**
Lycoming <0.5**
Lyon <0.5**
Marlboro <0.5**
McDaniel <0.5***
Monmouth (IL) <0.5**
Moravian 2
Morehouse <0.5**
Muskingum <0.5**
Nebraska Wesleyan <0.5**
Oglethorpe <0.5***
Presbyterian <0.5**
Richard Stockton 7
Ripon <0.5**
Roanoke 4
Rosemont <0.5***
Salem <0.5***
Siena <0.5**
St. Anselm <0.5**
St. John's (MD) <0.5***
St. John's (NM) <0.5**
St. Vincent <0.5**
Talladega <0.5**
U North Carolina - Asheville 3
U Dallas <0.5**
U Minnesota - Morris <0.5**
Washington (MD) 5
Wells <0.5**
Wesleyan (GA) <0.5**
Westminster (MO) <0.5***
Westminster (PA) <0.5**
Whittier <0.5***
William Jewell <0.5**
Wittenberg 1</p>
<p>Tier 4 of Liberal Arts Colleges (In Alphabetical Order)<br>
Adrian <0.5***
Albertson <0.5***
Arkansas Baptist <0.5**
Bennett <0.5**
Bethany <0.5**
Bethel (TN) <0.5**
Blackburn <0.5**
Bridgewater <0.5**
Cal State - Monterey Bay 8
Christendom <0.5**
Christopher Newport <0.5***
Coastal Carolina <0.5**
Evergreen State 2
Fort Lewis <0.5**
Franklin Pierce <0.5***
Greensboro 1
Guilford 3
Hastings <0.5**
Huntingdon <0.5**
Judson <0.5**
King (TN) <0.5**
Lane <0.5**
Lees-McRae <0.5**
Lindsey Wilson <0.5**
Marymount Manhattan <0.5***
Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts <0.5**
Mesa State <0.5**
National Hispanic <0.5**
Olivet <0.5**
Paine <0.5**
Pine Manor <0.5**
San Diego Christian <0.5**
Schreiner <0.5**
Seton Hill <0.5**
Shawnee State <0.5**
St. Andrew's Presbyterian <0.5**
St. Augustine's <0.5**
Stephens 3
Texas A&M - Galveston 2
Tougaloo <0.5**
U Maine - Presque Isle <0.5**
U Pittsburgh - Bradford <0.5**
U Pittsburgh - Greensburg <0.5**
U Hawaii - Hilo <0.5***
U Judaism >99****
U Virginia - Wise <0.5**
Virginia Union <0.5**
Virginia Wesleyan <0.5**
Warner Pacific <0.5**
West Virginia Wesleyan <0.5**
Western State College of Colorado <0.5**</p>
<p>A friend of mine told me that Brandeis gives middle eastern (decendents) students an advantage. She told me of a case where one such student got a free ride to the school.</p>
<p>hmmm Brandeis anyone?</p>