The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Comparing Class of 2027 to Class of 2028 Demographic Data is Tricky (UPDATED)
[I have updated and basically rewritten the post in light of new information that allows me to explain matters much more clearly, I think.]
This year's entering class is the first since admissions decisions were constrained by the Supreme Court's ban on racial preferences in the SFFA case, and lots of interesting data have been coming out. Some elite universities like Yale, despite swearing in an amicus brief that there was no way to retain racial diversity without using preferences, have seen their "underrepresented minority" demographics barely change. Others, like MIT and Johns Hopkins, have seen their Asian American populations increase with a concomitant decrease in Hispanic and Black matriculants and little change in the percentage of white students.
For those interested in how SFFA has changed college admissions stats, one pitfall to watch out for is that universities do not always report the data consistently. One way to report the data, preferred/required by the government, is to assign each student only one racial or ethnic (Hispanic) classification, regardless of how many boxes the student checked. My understanding is that if a student checks white and Hispanic (an ethnic classification), he is reported as Hispanic. If he checks two racial classifications, he is reported under a "multiracial" category. The total should add up to 100%, give or take a minor rounding up or down.
The other way to report the data is to count every student by every box they check. Thus, a student who checks both white and black will be reported in both the white and black percentages, instead of in the multiracial classification. In this context, someone with, say, Native American, black, Hispanic, and white ancestry would "count" for all four categories. As a result, the percentages will add up to over 100%.
Some universities that previously reported their data to the public (as in press releases and admissions material) the first way, one classification per student, are now reporting it the second way. So, for example, a school that reported 10% black students last year and reports 10% again, may in fact have, say, only 7% if they had reported the data the same way, along with 3% of students who previously would have been reported as multiracial rather than black.
Johns Hopkins seems to be one of the few institutions that have posted the demographic data in both formats for both 2023 and 2024. As you can see below, how a university reports the data can make a significant difference in the relevant percentages, but the basic story is the same either way: Hispanic and Black matriculants fell sharply, white matriculants were pretty steady, and Asian American matriculants rose sharply. And kudos to Hopkins for transparency.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The other question is what race are the International students?
UMass Amherst used to consider them all "White" regardless of race, citing some Federal directive that may or may not have existed.
Hence when the (Black) leadership cadre of the newly-empowered African National Congress in South Africa came to UMass as graduate students in the early '90s, they were counted as "White" students....
According to existing federal rules, international students don’t have a race for statistical purposes
Yes, and that is why UMass counted them as "White."
I am not making this up.
So, they would fall into the "unknown" category? Or, are they not included in the statistics?
Mr. I-Don't-Make-Things-Up has spoken!
Since we are dealing with university administrators, the presumption is that the motive for any change--indeed any action--is dishonest. What deception are they trying to perpetrate?
This is how dumb being knee jerk anti can make you.
Read the first sentence in the OP.
I know it’s crazy but couldn’t they admit students based on the content of their character? and maybe even academic performance (You know, like the Athletic Teams picking players by Fo-Fo Times, Vertical Leaps, and Bench Press reps) I think some famous Black guy said that, Martin Lawrence? Martin something, think he was a Doctor
Frank
Nope, cannot do that. Not since George Floyd died of a drug overdose.
I suggest checking the "Native American" box, if natively born in America.
That's the correct term actually, as is "American Indian", and "Indian Reservation"
as my late Uncle Rodney Danger-Drackman used to joke,
"I don't get no respect! I couldn't get a Hotel Room in Wounded Knee, I didn't have a Reservation!!!!"
Don't believe me? its the "Bureau of Indian Affairs", not the "Bureau of Native American Affairs"
Frank
Yes, I believe the census uses "American Indian".
“American Indian”
The next to the last group to show up here and run off the ones who were there before them.
"Lies, damned lies, and statistics."
More easily, just ignore race and sex altogether.
(OK. It ain't all that easy; but until 'people' stop writing about racial distributions, there will be focus on racial distribution)
What a triumph for Edward Blum those Hopkins admissions statistics are! Previously, because anti-racism is the real racism, and because Hopkins was so extremely racist, you could barely discern the inherent inferiority of American blacks in the statistics.
But this year’s admissions report turns that around completely. What a sudden and welcome reversal. Now, Hopkins has been forced to cease being racist, and the true inferiority of American blacks leaps off the page.
Blum must be so proud! No doubt empowered, too. Donations for Blum’s next legal attack on blacks are undoubtedly pouring in from MAGA sources everywhere. Kind of gives the lie to Trump’s complaints about the Jews.
My old friend Bloggins in Idaho just got in touch. As usual, he backs what he calls encouraging change in American society, but insists it has to go farther. Bloggins demands Blum-style meritocratic standards for voting, at least.
Bloggins has no malice toward blacks, of course. He remains concerned that as long as blacks can vote in percentages that look like the old Hopkins admissions practices, meritocracy cannot be safe in America.
Bloggins insists it is a potentially fatal oversight to leave blacks at liberty to somehow overturn Blum’s triumph, with nothing more than an election victory. Bloggins worries that that, plus a little leftist tampering with the most meritocratic Supreme Court since Dred Scott could plunge America back into racism.
It's not easy to suggest that admissions changes which result in almost half the class being Asian American are motivated by white supremacy, yet you manage.
What I would like to know, is how people who are “self identifying” for 2024 would have identified in 2023.
I think that would account for some of the changes were are seeing.
For instance, say a prospective student comes from a mixed heritage (and honestly, who doesn’t?) and they could pick from a number of options: White, Hispanic, Native American, or Asian.
You are applying to MIT or Harvard where you believe selecting “Asian” would hurt your chances of admission (which was a valid concern apparently). What do you choose in 2023? You would probably look at Native American and/or Hispanic for your “self identification”
Now, in 2024, it probably doesn’t affect your admission as much. So, you decide to select “White” and/or “Asian”
The student didn’t change, but their behavior/selection changed based on the them “playing the game” of admission.
I wonder if there is going to be a way to quantify that.
Additionally, according to reporting, WHEN the student makes that selection has also changed for some schools. Previously they would have to make the selection before/during application. For some schools, they can now make that distinction AFTER admission. Of course that will also affect the choice.