That’s because most of them are stuck in the '60s. They still think of the Ivies as the peak of education. But it hasn’t been true for some time, and @johnwalker 's listing just proves it. This isn’t going to go well for the Ivies unless they radically change - and they can’t because they have way too many “tenured” asshats on the faculty.
My take is the tenured individuals you refer to sincerely believe the marketing claptrap embodied by their stated preference in favor of diversity and inclusion. And are willing to more than put their thumb on the scale in order to signal their virtue to their slightly less enlightened brethren.
Which, among other things, explains the vast discrepancy in admissions rates Magus shared in an earlier comment.
0.76 percent is a small number…
If that’s what the gods say, so be it
added:
47 + 37 + 5 = 89%
What backgrounds are claimed by the missing 11%? Americans, maybe? Naw! MIT does not want that sort messing up their halls.
The total is > 100% because students can self identify as 2 or more groups like: White + Hispanic
Aha! This explains the category of “Non-Hispanic White” on the
Form 4473, required to be filled out by every gun purchaser from a commercial vendor. Indeed, even if you purchase a firearm from someone via the internet, unless you do the transfer FTF it must be done via a FFL, who is required to have a 4473 on every firearm transaction.
89% is less than 100%.
Again, what backgrounds are claimed by the missing 11%?
Latino
How would “Latino” – or Latina or Latinx – differ from Hispanic?
And why is a once-respected educational institution so focused on the color of a person’s skin instead of the content of his character?
Who cares?
Phrased either way, it’s the omission from:
Asian percentage of class: 47%
White: 37%
Black: 5%
Those Latinos look awfully white. It is not like, say Kamela Harris, who is clearly as black as the Ace of Spades.
OK! OK! That crack belonged in the Private Humour Thread! It’s too funny!