Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 at 16:29 Subject: American Pravda: Racial Discrimination at Harvard, by Ron Unz See the Graph at: https://www.unzcloud.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/eliteenrollment-large.jpg Text at http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-racial-discrimination-at-harvard/ 22 Oct 2018 [...] Although Jewish names are not nearly as distinctive as Asian ones, they may usually be determined with reasonable accuracy, and applying Weyl analysis to a subset of the most absolutely characteristic ones—such as Goldstein, Silverberg, Cohen, and Kaplan—allows us to statistically validate the results so obtained. As I thus analyzed the many dozens of statewide NMS lists, I soon discovered that Jews were far less heavily represented among America’s highest-performing students than I had expected, probably constituting no more than 6% of the national NMS total. The lists of the winners of the top scholastic competitions I had previously examined for Asians produced reasonably similar results.
Hispanic names are quite distinct and blacks are fewer in number and somewhat less successful academically, so the NMS totals for those two groups are also not difficult to determine. Once we subtract the totals of Asians, Jews, Hispanics, and blacks, what remains is the NMS total of The evidence of the recent NMS semifinalist lists seems the most conclusive of all, given the huge statistical sample sizes involved. As discussed earlier, these students constitute roughly the highest 0.5 percent in academic ability, the top 16,000 high school seniors who should be enrolling at the Ivy League and America’s other most elite academic universities. In California, Needless to say, these proportions are considerably different from what we actually find among the admitted students at Harvard and its elite peers, which today serve as a direct funnel to the commanding heights of American academics, law, business, and finance. Based on reported statistics, Jews approximately match or even outnumber When examining statistical evidence, the proper aggregation of data is critical. Consider the ratio of the recent 2007–2011 enrollment of Asian students at Harvard relative to their estimated share of America’s recent NMS semifinalists, a reasonable proxy for the high-ability college-age population, and compare this result to the corresponding figure for whites. The Asian ratio is 63 percent, slightly above the white ratio of 61 percent, with both these figures being considerably below parity due to the substantial presence of under-represented racial minorities such as blacks and Hispanics, foreign students, and students of unreported race. Thus, there appears to be no evidence for racial bias against Asians, even excluding the race-neutral impact of athletic recruitment, legacy admissions, and geographical diversity. However, if we separate out the Jewish students, their ratio turns out to be 435 percent, while the residual ratio for Just as striking as these wildly disproportionate current numbers have been the longer enrollment trends. In the three decades since I graduated Several graphs from my article effectively illustrated these remarkable findings. Based on these figures, J Furthermore, I noted the possibility that this discrepancy might be related to the overwhelming Jewish dominance of the top administration of those institutions: It would be unreasonable to ignore the salient fact that this massive apparent bias in favor of far less-qualified Jewish applicants coincides with an e At most universities, a provost is the second-ranking official, being responsible for day-to-day academic operations. Although Princeton’s current president is not Jewish, all seven of the most recent Princeton provosts stretching back to 1977 have had such ancestry, with several of the other Ivies not being far behind. A similar degree of massive overrepresentation is found throughout the other top administrative ranks of the rest of the Ivy League, and across American leading educational institutions in general, and these are the institutions which select our future national elites. Since the publication of my 2012 article, The exact mechanism by which this seemingly enormous bias in favor of Jewish applicants to our most elite colleges manifests itself is not entirely clear, and I very doubt that it takes the crude form of top administrators directing admissions officers to enroll under-qualified Jewish applicants. Instead, I strongly suggested that a leading factor was the Meanwhile, any hint of “anti-Semitism” in admissions is regarded as an absolutely mortal sin, and any significant reduction in Jewish enrollment may often be denounced as such by the hair-trigger media. For example, in 1999 Princeton discovered that its Jewish enrollment had declined to just 500 percent of parity, down from more than 700 percent in the mid-1980s, and far below the comparable figures for Harvard or Yale. This quickly resulted in four front-page stories in the Daily Princetonian, a major article in the New York Observer, and extensive national coverage in both the New York Times and the Chronicle of Higher Education. These articles included denunciations of Princeton’s long historical legacy of anti-Semitism and quickly led to official apologies, followed by an immediate 30 percent rebound in Jewish numbers. During these same years, I suspect that the combined effect of these separate pressures, rather than any planned or intentional bias, is the primary cause of the striking enrollment statistics that we have examined above. In effect, somewhat dim and over-worked admissions officers, generally possessing weak quantitative skills, have been tasked by their academic superiors and media monitors with the twin ideological goals of enrolling Jews and enrolling non-whites, with any major failures risking harsh charges of either “anti-Semitism” or “racism.” But by inescapable logic maximizing the number of Jews and non-whites implies minimizing the number of I further noted that this 1999 firestorm of media controversy attacking Princeton for its alleged “anti-Semitism” took place at a time when university’s president and provost were both Jewish, and the campus had recently opened a $4.5 million Center for Jewish Life. [...]
by Hillel News |Mar 15, 2018| Applying to colleges isn't easier, but we're here to help you narrow down your choices. Below are the lists of the 2015 top schools Jews choose, as published in the Hillel College Guide Magazine and on Hillel’s College Guide web page. Top 60 Schools Jews Choose (A breakdown by percentage) The following are the
Yeshiva University: 2,714 Jewish students, 100% Jewish Theological Seminary of America: 158 Jewish students, 100% American Jewish University: 150 Jewish students, 100% Brandeis University: 1,600 Jewish students, 44% Tulane University: 2,815 Jewish students, 41% Barnard College: 850 Jewish students, 33% Goucher College: 450 Jewish students, 31% University of Hartford: 1,500 Jewish students, 29% Boston University: 5,000 Jewish students, 28% Sarah Lawrence College: 400 Jewish students, 28% CUNY, Brooklyn College: 4,000 Jewish students, 28% Binghamton University: 3,700 Jewish students, 27% University at Albany: 3,500 Jewish students, 27% George Washington University: 3,000 Jewish students, 26% Oberlin College: 750 Jewish students, 26% Muhlenberg College: 613 Jewish students, 25% Queens College: 4,000 Jewish students, 25% Columbia University: 1,500 Jewish students, 24% Haverford College: 300 Jewish students, 24% Washington University: 1,750 Jewish students, 23% Hampshire College: 325 Jewish students, 23% Tufts University: 1,200 Jewish students, 22% Vassar College: 500 Jewish students, 21% Cornell University: 3,000 Jewish students, 21% University of Maryland: 5,800 Jewish students, 20% American University: 1,600 Jewish students, 20% Emory University: 1,300 Jewish students, 19% University of Florida: 6,500 Jewish students, 19% Skidmore College: 500 Jewish students, 19% University of Miami: 2,000 Jewish students, 18% University of Vermont: 2,000 Jewish students, 18% Mitchell College: 120 Jewish students, 18% Rutgers University: 6,400 Jewish students, 18% Clark University: 400 Jewish students, 17% University of Pennsylvania: 1,750 Jewish students, 17% Syracuse University: 2,500 Jewish students, 16% Kenyon College: 275 Jewish students, 16% Lehigh University: 800 Jewish students, 16% Northwestern University: 1,300 Jewish students, 16% University of Michigan: 4,500 Jewish students, 16% Vanderbilt University: 1,050 Jewish students, 15% SUNY College at Oswego: 1,050 Jewish students, 15% Yale University: 800 Jewish students, 15% Queen's University: 1,500 Jewish students, 14% Bryn Mawr College: 200 Jewish students, 14% Brown University: 1,000 Jewish students, 14% University of Rochester: 900 Jewish students, 14% University of Chicago: 825 Jewish students, 14% Union College: 300 Jewish students, 14% New York University: 3,500 Jewish students, 13% Nova Southeastern University: 574 Jewish students, 13% Western University: 300 Jewish students, 13% Franklin & Marshall College: 300 Jewish students, 13% University of Wisconsin: 4,200 Jewish students, 13% University of California, Santa Barbara: 2,850 Jewish students, 13% Queensborough Community College: 2,000 Jewish students, 13% Hofstra University: 850 Jewish students, 12% University of Delaware: 2,250 Jewish students, 12% Case Western Reserve University: 630 Jewish students, 12% Harvard University: 803 Jewish students, 12% -- |

Archives >