- American Indian or Alaska Native 0.3%
- Asian 14.7%
- Black or African-American 5.8%
- Hispanic of any race 9.8%
- Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 0.1%
- White 42.7%
- Race/ethnicity unknown 1.0
SOURCE:
Also are Jewish people considered White in this case? I simultaneously see that they are referred to as minorities but also don't see them represented in statistics such as these when comparing ethnicity in X with ethnic population in the US.
But if you want to judge it by looks, I look like an Arab. Like hundreds of thousands of other Jews.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23914667
שָׁלוֹם עֲלֵיכֶם ٱلسَّلَامُ عَلَيْكُمْ :-)
PS. do you have any opinion on סרוגים (the show)?
Why don't you think they should match up?
One particular cultural value is caring a whole lot about education and prestigious degrees (see the test prep industry in most of asia).
I have no problem with people who value education getting an edge in admissions. So even in a race-blind world, I am okay with outcomes not matching population statistics. Because in a world where you're solely judged based on your values that's exactly what you'd see.
But what's happening is that two different people can both adopt this same "education" value and have different outcome because of their race. The opportunities are not equal, not for blacks, not for asians.
Citation?
Is there an a priori reason they must?
Note that it's not strictly zero sum either. Huge grants by previous may have opened the university to more people than are admitted by legacy admissions -- yielding greater participation by non-legacy than previously possible.
People are choosing one small slice of what goes on with a university -- admissions right now. They are glossing over the fact that it is other people who made the university great over the years to the point that it is desirable at all. Those people made it great by donating money and going on to bring prestige to the university. Ignore them and lose the prestige and money.
Nobody is glossing over that fact. I am simply saying that if anything outside of a student's merit is "discrimination", then taking into account the alumni status or past contributions of [not that student] is also "discrimination".
They are not the student's merits to weigh, they are the relative's merits.
- Black or African American alone, percent(a) 13.4%
- American Indian and Alaska Native alone, percent(a) 1.3%
- Asian alone, percent(a)5.9%
- Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone, percent(a) 0.2%
- Two or More Races, percent 2.8%
- Hispanic or Latino, percent(b) 18.5%
SOURCE:
It's apples vs oranges when we compare to the US population.
- White alone, percent 76.3%
And I'm sure there are many world-class universities in India, China, Japan, Egypt, Turkey... Are they pretty close to proportional if you look at global numbers? For example, Kyoto University or Peking University, both world class institutions, does their student body reflect the global population, or the Japanese/Chinese population?
Or...
I expect the demographics of hn users to be more similar to global demographics rather than us demographics.
The percentages at the link above are labeled as "University-wide Enrollments," which seems to mean that they account for graduate students as well as undergraduates. But the DOJ finding is only about undergraduate admissions.
what does that even mean, exactly? I fail to see how can it be defined to be non-intersecting with the other categories.