Colleges 2017

Colleges 2017

Statistics from the 2017 America’s Best Colleges by U.S. News & World Report for 2015-16 freshman class.

School % accepted total applicants number accepted % Asian-Am. in student body
Stanford 5.04 42,497 2,140 20
Harvard 5.58 37,307 2,080 20
Columbia 6.12 36,250 2,220 22
Juilliard School 6.43 2,551 164 15

Dropped from 30% in 1993 to 15% in 2016.  Stop donating.

Yale 6.72 30,236 2,031 17
Princeton 7.14 27,290 1,948 22
MIT 8.30 18,306 1,519 25
U. of Chicago 8.44 30,069 2,521 17
U.S. Naval Academy 8.53 16,101 1,373 7
CalTech 8.81 6,506 573 45
Brown 9.46 30,396 2,875 13
U.S. Military Academy 10.15 14,635 1,486 6
U. of Pennsylvania 10.16 37,268 3,787 20
Pomona 10.29 8,099 833 14
Claremont McKenna 10.96 7,156 784 10
Dartmouth 10.97 20,507 2,250 15
Vanderbilt 11.68 31,464 3,674 12
Duke 11.84 30,112 3,566 22
Swarthmore 12.48 7,818 976 17
Harvey Mudd 12.96 4,119 534 20*
Cooper Union 13.08 3,258 426 17*
Johns Hopkins 13.16 24,718 3,252 22
Northwestern 13.23 32,122 4,248 18
Pitzer 13.47 4,149 559 9
Amherst 14.12 8,568 1,210 14
Average 17.6%

*decrease from prior year

5/19/17 BuzzFeed News: “Asians With “Very Familiar Profiles”: How Princeton’s Admissions Officers Talk About Race”
by Molly Hensley-Clancy
A trove of documents created during a federal investigation into Princeton University offers an unprecedented glimpse at how elite college admissions officers talk about race.
But documents obtained by BuzzFeed News show Princeton’s admissions officers repeatedly wrote of Asian-American applicants as being difficult to differentiate, referring to them dismissively as having “very familiar profiles,” calling them “standard premeds,” or “difficult to pluck out.” The comments were noted by civil rights investigators at the Education Department as they probed allegations of racial bias in the school’s admissions system.

5/19/17 Front Page Mag: “Princeton Chose Minority Students Based on Amount of “Cultural Flavor””
by Daniel Greenfield
Princeton’s admissions officers repeatedly wrote of Asian applicants as being difficult to differentiate, referring to them dismissively as having “very familiar profiles,” calling them “standard premeds,” or “difficult to pluck out.” The comments were noted by civil rights investigators at the Education Department as they probed allegations of racial bias in the school’s admissions system.
An investigator questioned an admissions officer after an Asian student was described eagerly by a counterpart as a “first-generation Chinese student whose own life has not been easy, trying to make the lives of others better through service. One of the best we’ll ever see from [high school].”
The second officer was less enthusiastic. “Perfectly able and appealing,” the officer wrote. “Very familiar profile.”
“Bright premed, but like many others,” another

5/11/17 ESPN: “Jeremy Lin says racist remarks he heard from opponents were worse in NCAA than NBA”
by Ohm Youngmisuk
Jeremy Lin has dealt with racist remarks as an Asian American in the NBA, but he said nothing compares to what he repeatedly experienced while playing in college.

4/28/17 NextShark: “Meet the First Asian American to Become the Dean of Yale University”
By Ryan General
Psychology and neuroscience professor Marvin Chun will take on the role as the next dean of Yale College, according to an email announcement by University President Peter Salovey on Thursday.

4/20/17 The Daily Princetonian: “Behind the veil: The racism of Princeton’s affirmative action”
By Hayley Siegel
The University is suing the United States Department of Education in an attempt to keep seven years of admissions records hidden from the public. The cover-up is hardly unexpected — Princeton engages in discriminatory admissions policies under the pretext of “affirmative action” despite having lost sight of the very goals that the concept was originally intended to promote.  There is no denying that Princeton, like many of its peers, uses race-based affirmative action in its admissions decisions, a process that has engendered an apparent quota on students of Asian descent.

4/5/17 The Daily Pennsylvanian: “Princeton sues Department of Education to keep admissions data private in midst of racial discrimination claims”
By Rebecca Lieberman
Princeton University attempts to block its admissions data from being released in the midst of questions about possible racial discrimination against Asian applicants.
Princeton sued the Department of Education to prevent it from releasing the sensitive admissions data, Buzzfeed News reported.
The admission documents include student files and information on how the university chooses its incoming freshman class. These documents could potentially expose the admissions practices of elite universities and, some argue, could hinder efforts towards affirmative action.

4/3/17 Heat Street: “Calls For College President Rita Cheng to Resign Because She Rejects Safe Spaces”
By Kieran Corcoran
The president of a US university is facing calls to resign because she refuses to endorse safe spaces on her institution’s campus.
Rita Cheng, who leads Northern Arizona University, sparked protests and a campus walkout by telling students they had to confront ideas they don’t like rather than hide from them.

3/28/17 Wall Street Journal: “Is the Ivy League’s Admission Bias a ‘Trade Secret’? Princeton sues to block the government’s release of documents that could show discrimination”
By Jason L. Riley
Last year Mr. Blum’s organization filed a public records Freedom of Information Act request with the Education Department to gain access to the same documents that the federal government used to clear Princeton of any wrongdoing. Mr. Blum’s organization represents a group of Asian plaintiffs who are suing Harvard University over its admissions policies. The judge in that case has ordered Harvard to turn over six years of admissions records, and Mr. Blum suspects that the data will show that Harvard is unlawfully capping Asian enrollment.
America’s Asian population has exploded in recent decades, and Asian attendance at highly selective schools with colorblind admissions, such the California Institute of Technology and the University of California, Berkeley, reflects this demographic trend. At Harvard, however, the percentage of Asian undergrads has remained remarkably consistent for an institution that claims race is not a determining factor in who is admitted. Mr. Blum suspects that Princeton engages in similar shenanigans, but the school has been pressuring the Education Department to deny him the information that he requested more than a year ago.
Concerned that the government was finally going to fulfill the FOIA request, Princeton sued the Education Department on March 17 to block the release of the admissions documents. The suit argues that the material being sought is exempt from FOIA, a claim that the government has rejected. The school also maintains that releasing the data would compromise student privacy, and it likened its admissions process to “trade secrets” that, if exposed, would put Princeton at a competitive disadvantage in attracting students.
Don’t believe it. Admissions officers switch schools all the time, presumably taking knowledge of admissions procedures with them, and the criteria used by elite institutions to evaluate applicants is not the equivalent of an iPhone patent. Nor is student privacy an issue since names, addresses and other personal information can be redacted. Mr. Blum’s organization simply wants the number of Asians who have applied to Princeton, their SAT scores and grade-point averages, and other information that the school used to analyze applicants academically.
What really concerns Princeton is a potential discrimination lawsuit. What ought to concern the rest of us is the apparent determination of elite colleges to punish Asians students for their academic success. Asians have long been the forgotten victims of liberal affirmative-action schemes, subject to unwritten “just for Asian” admissions standards that recall the treatment of Jews in the first half of the 20th century. Princeton wants them to shut up about it. Let’s hope they don’t.

1/30/17 New York Times: “White Students’ Unfair Advantage in Admissions”
by Andrew Lam
A 2009 Princeton study showed Asian-Americans had to score 140 points higher on their SATs than whites, 270 points higher than Hispanics and 450 points higher than blacks to have the same chance of admission to leading universities. A lawsuit filed in 2014 accused Harvard of having a cap on the number of Asian students — the percentage of Asians in Harvard’s student body had remained about 16 percent to 19 percent for two decades even though the Asian-American percentage of the population had more than doubled. In 2016, the Asian American Coalition for Education filed a complaint with the Department of Education against Yale, where the Asian percentage had remained 13 percent to 16 percent for 20 years, as well as Brown and Dartmouth, urging investigation of their admissions practices for similar reasons.
There’s ample evidence that Asian-Americans are at a disadvantage in college admissions. This issue has divided Asians and others who debate the relative benefits of diversity versus meritocracy in our society.
But if Asians are being held back, it’s not so much because of affirmative action but because of preference for whites. The 450-point advantage that the Princeton study demonstrated blacks have over Asians draws the most attention. But the number that is most revealing is the 140-point advantage for whites over Asians.
Often-cited examples of race-blind meritocracy are New York City’s elite public schools, such as Stuyvesant High School, for which admission is based solely on a standardized test. Stuyvesant is about 74 percent Asian, 18 percent white, 3 percent Hispanic, 1 percent black, with 4 percent multiracial or other. In California, where race-based affirmative action was eliminated in 1996, admission at the University of California at Berkeley is 42 percent Asian.
Andrew Lam is an assistant professor of ophthalmology at Tufts University School of Medicine, and the author of “Saving Sight” and “Two Sons of China.”

10/20/16 Cornell Sun: “Students Debate Implications of Race-Based Admissions for Asian Americans”
By Emma Newburger
The Cornell Speech and Debate Society and Dyson Inclusion and Diversity Program hosted a debate Thursday, discussing whether Asian Americans should support or oppose race-based admissions policies.

Students Debate Implications of Race-Based Admissions for Asian Americans

Comments are closed.

Recent Comments



%d bloggers like this: