Posted on 05/04/2013 10:52:17 PM PDT by grundle
Ivy League schools have never been strict meritocracies. Plenty of sub-par students have always been admitted due to oligarchic connections, athletics, etc.
I’d guess Jews had have been over-admitted more recently because they tend to financially support their alma maters, and then their children become ‘legacies’.
I’d also bet that Ivy League schools do in fact now have quotas for Jews, but that indicting data just hasn’t caught up. And, given the rate of intermarriage, ‘Jewishness’ isn’t as easy to determine as it once was.
And all in all they are anti-white (non-jewish whites), but I hardly care since those PC idiots are fouling their Ivy nests.
According to the graph, it looks like that was the approximate share of Harvard enrollment in 1996 as well—not exactly an uncutting of his argument.
I agree, not exactly undercutting the entire argument, but that makes the disinformation part even more puzzling? But again given the the source where the article is published, why would anyone expect the article to contain any real information.
They have concluded that the Ivy League is not cost effective and look to places USC, California University System, Stanford and the technical institutes.
What disinformation part? He simply hasn’t included current-year data.
“He simply hasn’t included current-year data.”
Data that undermines his thesis that there has been a steady decline in Asia-American acceptance at Harvard. He is suggesting there is a quota and that quota is below 20% and Harvard is adjusting their numbers down to whatever the below 20% quota is.
That Harvard enrolled class essentially back to the percentage of Asian-Americans in the year he claimed a decline had started, makes the omission of the latest year disinformation on his part. He had a thesis and since the latest data did not fit his thesis, he ignored it.
Regardless, as I said it is in a disreputable source. So it matters little that it is one more untruthful article from that source.
You are entirely missing the point of the graph and data that he is presenting. The percentage accepted has stayed within a narrow band (of 21% or below), while the pool from which they’ve been considered has doubled.
Here is the author in the article says is his point:
“... Thus, according to official statistics, the percentage of Asian-Americans enrolled at Harvard fell by more than 50 percent over the last two decades, while the percentage of whites changed little. This decline in relative Asian-American enrollment was actually larger than the impact of Harvard’s 1925 Jewish quota, which reduced Jewish freshmen from 27.6 percent to 15 percent.
The percentages of college-age Asian-Americans enrolled at most of the other Ivy League schools also fell during this same period, and over the last few years Asian enrollments across these different universities have converged to a very similar level and remained static over time. This raises suspicions of a joint Ivy League policy to restrict Asian-American numbers to a particular percentage.”
To make his claim he needs the Ivy lines on the graph coming to that nice tight bundle around 15% or 16%. Unfortunately for him it is not true so he omitted the last year of data. Additionally, you can not get that number from any of the numbers in the paper. The decline from 20.6% Asian-American to about 16/5% is a decline of about 20% not 50%. Heck using the wrong base only get one to 25%.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.