Diversity's Losers - Part II - The Universities

A slogan oft seen on this newsgroup is that "no group loses as a result of diversity." Is the slogan truth or advertising?

This series entitled "diversity's losers" is intended to answer that question.

In this second installment of the series on diversity's losers, we are going to ask two questions:

Let's put some numbers around these terms.

Below is a spreadsheet of the top 15 National Universities from the U.S. News rankings, in order of their ranking.

The Ole Ygg attended one of these universities about 30 years ago, and learned, among other things, that when someone asks for the number of "whites" attending such a university, you must ask "which whites?" The term "white" conjures images of rich wasps who attend exclusive prep schools.

So let's examine the numbers!

How many white gentiles actually attend these elite universities? Are they over-represented or under-represented?

As gatekeepers for access to the most desirable graduate schools and jobs, what definition of "diversity" is being applied? What concept of "Justice" underlies their actions?

When used by these elite institutions, does the term "diversity" mean that all groups are represented in rough proportion to their share in the general population?

Or does "diversity" mean excluding as many white gentiles as is politically possible?

The answer to this question varies by institution.

Courtesy of the Princeton Review, and its publication "Hillel Guide To Jewish Life on Campus," I have listed the enrollments at each university, including undergraduate and graduate schools.

In the next column, you will find the percent of "white" students from The Princeton Review's 1997 "The Best 310 Colleges." These percents were checked against those published in Barron's 1997 "Profiles of American Colleges."

Again, courtesy of the Hillel Guide, we have the number of Jews attending each institution. Through the miracle of simple subtraction, we then get the number and percentage of white gentiles attending each of these institutions.


YALE 10000 67 6700 3000 30 3700 37
PRINCETON 5700 70 3990 800 14 3190 56
HARVARD 16700 45 7515 4500 27 3015 18
DUKE 9500 72 6840 1500 16 5340 56
MIT 9800 48 4704 875 09 3829 39
STANFORD 14000 50 7000 2000 14 5000 36
DARTMOUTH 5270 57 3004 500 09 2504 47
BROWN 7100 67 4757 1600 23 3157 44
CALTECH 2050 56 1148 100 05 1048 51
NORTHWESTERN 10000 68 6800 2000 20 4800 48
COLUMBIA 19000 58 11020 6000 32 5020 26
CHICAGO 8500 60 5100 1350 16 3750 44
PENN 22800 60 13680 7000 31 6680 29
CORNELL 18500 67 12395 3000 16 9395 51
HOPKINS 4400 65 2860 800 18 2060 47
TOTALS 163320 97513 35025 21 62488 38

Nationally, blacks constitute 12% of our population, hispanics 9% and asians 3%. Whites are 75% of the population. Jews comprise 2.4% of the population, so non-hispanic white gentiles make up 73% of the total.

If we are really going to have "quotas" and "affirmative action" to correct for statistical imbalances in our institutions, you would expect that black and brown minorities would be preferred until the number of "whites" has fallen to 75%. At that point, we have a "diverse" student body.

But setting aside the question of "which whites" for the time being, not one of the above institutions match the percentage of whites in the population, and only 7 out of 15 on the above list (Yale, Princeton, Duke, Brown, Northwestern, Cornell and Hopkins) have enrollments that are within 10% of the population total of 75% white.

Whites are clearly under-represented at Harvard, MIT, Stanford Dartmouth, CalTech, Columbia, Chicago and Penn, but the numbers do not appear alarming on the surface, given a reasonable margin for group differences in IQ (Jews) and educational effort (Asians).

But are the student bodies at these universities really diverse?

White gentiles, comprising 73% of the general population get only 18% of the seats at Harvard. They are under-represented by a _factor_ of 4 times. If blacks were similarly under-represented at Harvard, they would have only 3% of the seats. In fact, they have 8%.

At Harvard, white gentiles are 3 times more under-represented, relative to their share of the population, than blacks.

When you look at the totals for all 15 schools, you see that white gentiles comprise only 38% of the student population, approximately half their share in the general population.

Jews have an average IQ that is .84 standard deviations above that of white gentiles. The average for white gentiles is 100. For Jews it is 112. Based on this higher average, we would expect them to be represented at a rate of 4 to 5 times their share of the population at the IQ range of 140, which populates Harvard. That means 10 to 12% of the seats, not 27%.

Indeed, CalTech, the school with the highest SAT scores (both verbal and math) and the smartest students, has only 5% Jews.

Thus, it becomes clear that the dramatic differences in percents of white gentiles between CalTech and Princeton at one end of the scale, and Harvard and Columbia, at the other, are based on policy preferences of the institution, and not on the size of the talent pool.

The variation in the numbers of white gentiles between schools demonstrates that these variances are the result of deliberate policy choices made by the particular university.

Below is a spreadsheet setting forth the undergraduate enrollment of each of the above institutions, along with the combined SAT cutoff for the bottom 25%, the average or 50th percentile, and the SAT cutoff for the top 25%.

U-G SAT Scores

YALE 5236 1350 1410 1550
PRINCETON 5609 1340 1370 1550
HARVARD 7098 1370 1460 1560
DUKE 6380 1290 1390 1470
MIT 4495 1380 1440 1540
STANFORD 6577 1330 1370 1530
DARTMOUTH 4286 1330 1370 1520
BROWN 5730 1290 1350 1470
CALTECH 923 1400 1470 1580
NORTHWESTERN 7570 1260 1310 1440
COLUMBIA 3573 1341 1330 1438
CHICAGO 3431 1270 1340 1470
PENN 9454 1270 1285 1440
CORNELL 13262 1250 1340 1440
HOPKINS 3427 1280 1310 1460
TOTAL 86051

Indeed, each one of the above institutions has at least a 200 point spread between the 25th percentile and the 75th percentile. In every case except Duke, the average is closer to the cut-off for the bottom 25% than to the top 25%.

This means that, other than Duke, none of the schools maintains a statistically "normal" shaped distribution curve based on talent. Rather, at most of the institutions, you get a group of super-bright kids in the top 25%, with a 100 to 150 point "air pocket" between them and the group that is willing to pay full tuition for prestige. It is a group that tends to cluster around the cutoff for the bottom 25%.

Indeed, this is precisely what an economist would predict. Only those at the bottom of the class accrue benefits from the name on the diploma that equal the value of the tuition payment.

Those in the top 25% at these schools can get full scholarships, if not with the institution they attend, at least with a competing institution or at a leading state institution with a top honors program. There is no reason for any of them to pay tuition.

Every one of these institutions has ample room within their odd distributions of talent to attain their own mix of financial and social objectives. With two exceptions, enrolling a representative number of white gentiles is obviously no longer one of those objectives.

The above numbers give you clear evidence that the clamor for "diversity" is really, in the minds of more than half of our elite institutions, a call for exclusion of as many white gentiles as is politically possible.

Now you might reasonably assume that the elite schools are small, and it does not really matter what they do as long as talented white gentiles are free to attend state schools.

A reasonable position.

However, I have bad news.

"Affirmative Action" is a very important tool in the government's arsenal of force and fraud. The average white thinks that government reserves only 20% of the slots for blacks and browns and that their kids are free to compete for the remainder.

But here is a typical story, from the September 2, 1996 edition of National Review Magazine, page 24:

It is a story you hear over and over in Newport Beach and other predominantly white gentile suburbs. "My kid had grades and scores well above average for Berkeley/UCLA but was rejected."


Below is a listing of the U.C. System Universities in order of their U.S. News ranking, starting with Berkeley, number 26, and extending through U.C. Santa Barbara, number 46, and then including the two "second tier" Universities, U.C. Riverside and U.C. Santa Cruz.


BERKELEY 30000 32 9600 4000 13 5600 19
UCLA 32000 42 13440 6000 19 7440 23
SAN DIEGO 18000 47 8460 2000 11 6460 36
IRVINE 15000 32 4800 1500 10 3300 22
DAVIS 22000 47 10340 2200 10 8140 37
SANTA BARBARA 18000 66 11880 2000 11 9880 55
RIVERSIDE 8500 36 3060 750 09 2310 27
SANTA CRUZ 10000 58 5800 2000 20 3800 38
TOTAL 153500 67380 20450 13 46930 31

Non-hispanic whites make up approximately 57% of the population of California. Approximately 53% are non-hispanic white gentiles. Asians are 9.6% of the California population; hispanics, 26% and blacks 7.4%

By statute, the top 12% of all high school students in the state are eligible for admission. The administration in Berkeley reports that 20% of all whites qualify, and 40% of all Asians. Thus, we would expect that whites would be _over-represented_, on all campuses. But instead we find that they are under-represented throughout the U.C. system, but most conspicuously at Berkeley and UCLA.

The question then becomes: where did these whites go? And why aren't there more at Berkeley and UCLA?

To follow the social engineering that is going on, you will need another spreadsheet.


SCHOOL U.G.ENROLLMENT 75% 50% 25% #>25%
BERKELEY 21138 1180 1290 1430 5285
UCLA 23619 1100 1200 1340 5905
UCSD 11248 1110 1190 1330 2812
UCI 13541 980 1110 1230 3385
DAVIS 17596 1039 1150 1281 4399
UCSB 15525 1010 1090 1220 3881
RIVERSIDE 7103 910 1090 1194 1776
UCSC 8876 1010 1130 1250 2219
TOTAL 118646 29662

The table above is the same as for the top 15 rated "national" universities, except that I have added a column to indicate the number of students in the top 25%, all of whom would be above the 75th percentile at most of the top 15 national universities. The point of the final column is that the state universities have tens of thousands of students who are academically indistinguishable from the top 75% of students at the top 15 national universities.

You will notice that there is a 250 point spread between the 25th percentile and the 75th percentile at Berkeley. The spread is comparable at each of the other campuses.

But you can also see an enormous overlap between institutions. The top 25% at Davis and Santa Barbara are well above the cut off for the bottom 25% at Berkeley.

There are two critical differences between the University of California and the top 15 national universities. First, there is no economic need for the 200 point spread. U.C. Tuition is only $4000 per year, and not $20,000. Thus, there is no need to lower the standards at Berkeley in order to attract paying students. Many more students can afford to pay $4000 than can afford $20,000.

The second difference is that these campuses are not economic competitors. They are all administered and directed by a single bureaucracy in Berkeley.

If that is so, then why the enormous spreads between the top 25% and the large number of relatively stupid kids in the bottom 25% at Berkeley? Why doesn't Berkeley just admit all the smart kids? Why are there so many relatively stupid ones as well?

The answer is that, unlike the Ivy League schools, where some of the spread is attributable to economic objectives, the huge spread in abilities at Berkeley and UCLA is entirely attributable to social engineering in the U.C. system.

And that should raise alarm bells.

White Californians are incredibly naive if they think that social engineering in the U.C. system will end with the demise of "affirmative action." The degree of social engineering that is going on is massively in excess of what the administration could accomplish with a mere 20% of the slots.

All the demise of "affirmative action" has done is to make the UC Administration scramble for a new explanation of why the numbers are so terribly skewed to the disadvantage of whites.

And indeed, the massive under-representation of white gentiles in the system, and particularly at Berkeley and UCLA, indicates that the administration is arbitrarily rejecting thousands of whites with above average scores for Berkeley and UCLA in the hopes that they will attend one of the other institutions.

Every year Asian students of mixed ancestry, who are aware of the under-representation of whites at Berkeley and UCLA, ask me if they would have a better chance of admission if they claimed to be "white." My answer is always in the form of a question - "What makes you think that they aren't deliberately excluding whites by applying higher standards to whites than asians?" After all, that is the numeric result they are achieving! Who is to say it is not intended?

Do all states behave like California?

Compare the California system results with the University of Texas, the University of Michigan, the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana, and Ohio State!


TEXAS 48500 65 31525 4000 08 27525 57
MICHIGAN 35000 72 25200 6000 17 19200 55
ILL-URBANA 36000 72 25920 3000 08 22920 64
OHIO ST 53000 82 43460 3300 06 40160 76
TOTAL 172500 126105 16300 09 109805 64

You will notice that the percent of white gentiles at each of these universities is roughly proportionate to the their number in the general population. Michigan and Texas are virtually indistinguishable from Berkeley academically, and the tens of thousands of students in the top 25% at these schools all meet or exceed the qualifications for the top 75% at the top 15 national universities.

U-G SAT Scores

School U.G.Enrollment 75% 50% 25% #>25%
TEXAS 30100 1100 1290 1330 7525
MICHIGAN 21971 1200 1240 1420 5493
ILLINOIS 25839 1170 1240 1350 6460
OHIO ST 30499 990 1090 1200 7625
TOTALS 108409 27103

The significant difference between these four schools and the California system is that they practice "affirmative action" in the sense that it is understood by white gentiles -- that under-represented groups will be preferred until the percentage of white gentiles is in line with their share of the total population.

But this is not what Jews, Blacks, Mexicans and Asians mean when they use the term "diversity."

Indeed old stereotypes die hard. The Princeton Review's guide to the best 310 colleges has this to say about the student body at Harvard:

"Preppy" is a term applied to rich WASPs. If there are any at Harvard, it is a tiny minority of less than 18%. The above quote is important because it indicates that in a school dominated by Jews, Asians, Blacks and Browns, no matter how few white gentiles attend, it is still too many.

About the student body at Columbia, the Princeton Review Guide had this to say:

Why would students at an institution in which white gentiles are only a third their share of the general population pride themselves on their diversity? If that is true, then the term "diversity" can only be a code word for the absence of white gentiles.

Here is a quote from Princeton Review's discussion of UC Santa Barbara, a school which is 55% white gentile:

At best, one out of 10 UCSB students will be blonde.

But in the eyes of a typical Asian student, a school with 55% white gentiles is "not ethnically diverse at all."

This means that Asian (Jewish, Black, Mexican) students are uniformly uncomfortable on a campus with more than a token number of whites. Any more than 10% whites and the school is not "diverse."

This meaning of the term "diversity" is very important.

Whenever minorities lobby for diversity efforts in college admissions or in employment, whites imagine that they mean "proportionate to their share of the population." But the minorities themselves mean that the proportion of whites must be driven down to something like 10%.

Once the EEO police hired by Harvard, Columbia, Stanford or the University of California understand what it takes to make the Asian, Jewish, Black, and Mecha members of their community "comfortable," white gentiles are on their way out.

That is what we hear if we listen.

That is what we see in the numbers.

The portents for White America once their numbers fall to less than 50% are grim indeed.


Back to Main Page

(c) 1996 Yggdrasil. All rights reserved. Distribute Freely.