[cardcrimson]

Note that the way Stanford conveys the data is not compatible with the way that the US census displays the data (I'm not suggesting one or the other is wrong, just that they are different).  The US census considers "race" and "ethnicity" to be two different categories.  Thus, one can be white and Hispanic at the same time, insofar as the census is concerned.  Stanford merges them together, and I assume that the category they call white represents non-Hispanic whites in the US census.  Because a cursory look at the data you pulled from wikipedia adds up to 100%, it appears that the same was done with US data, but it is hard to know for sure if the methodologies are consistent.

The other major difference is that "international" is not a racial category.  Those people may or may not self-identify as one of the other categories if asked, but there is also a good chance that racial categories in their home country (if the data is even collected; for example, in France it is illegal for the state to collect racial information) might differ from those in the US (one further aside, under geographic origin, it says 13% of the student body is international; under race/ethnicity, it identifies 11%.

Third, because this is a California school, it over-represents Californians (who make up 35% of underclassmen compared to 8% of the US population).  The demographics of California are different than the US as a whole (59.5% White, of which 36.6% are Non-Hispanic White, 14.7% Asian, 13.8% Some Other Race, 5.8% Black or African American, 0.8% Native American and Alaskan Native, 0.4% Pacific Islander and 5.1% from two or more races per Wikipedia; Hispanics of any race make up 37% of the California population).

Lastly, the US population is more diverse among college aged kids than the US population as a whole.  For example, as you noted, 61% of the US population is non-Hispanic white (assuming that's what you took from wikipedia), that number drops as you get to the cohort of college age kids.



So, amongst Gen Z who make up Stanford's current undergraduates, only 51% are non-Hispanic white, while 25% are Hispanic and 14% are Black.

None of this is to say that the demographics of Stanford should be one thing or another.  I think Donkey's point that broadly speaking Stanford does a pretty good job at not dramatically under-representing traditionally under-represented communities is well-taken.  I don't have the data, but I have a feeling that athletics as a whole probably aids representation of certain minority groups, I'm guessing more so after the sports that were cut.

BC

I'm not so sure I'd agree with that. Looking at just the US based students, Blacks represent around 7.8%; according to your numbers, that number should be around 13.8%. Looks to me like that ethnicity is under-represented by nearly half. Of course, that's if you base admissions by the percentages. Probably not a topic for a sports board, though. . . .

That said, I love what athletes bring to the Stanford experience. Just in my freshman dorm alone, we had two football players, two swimmers (one a future world record holder), a water polo player (and future Olympian), a women's volleyball player, a cross county runner, and I'm sure I'm forgetting a couple (I'm not counting the club sports players, either). At least 8%, and that was over 40 years ago, and all of them enhanced my experience and provided many great memories.

[cardcrimson]

Note that the way Stanford conveys the data is not compatible with the way that the US census displays the data (I'm not suggesting one or the other is wrong, just that they are different).  The US census considers "race" and "ethnicity" to be two different categories.  Thus, one can be white and Hispanic at the same time, insofar as the census is concerned.  Stanford merges them together, and I assume that the category they call white represents non-Hispanic whites in the US census.  Because a cursory look at the data you pulled from wikipedia adds up to 100%, it appears that the same was done with US data, but it is hard to know for sure if the methodologies are consistent.

The other major difference is that "international" is not a racial category.  Those people may or may not self-identify as one of the other categories if asked, but there is also a good chance that racial categories in their home country (if the data is even collected; for example, in France it is illegal for the state to collect racial information) might differ from those in the US (one further aside, under geographic origin, it says 13% of the student body is international; under race/ethnicity, it identifies 11%.

Third, because this is a California school, it over-represents Californians (who make up 35% of underclassmen compared to 8% of the US population).  The demographics of California are different than the US as a whole (59.5% White, of which 36.6% are Non-Hispanic White, 14.7% Asian, 13.8% Some Other Race, 5.8% Black or African American, 0.8% Native American and Alaskan Native, 0.4% Pacific Islander and 5.1% from two or more races per Wikipedia; Hispanics of any race make up 37% of the California population).

Lastly, the US population is more diverse among college aged kids than the US population as a whole.  For example, as you noted, 61% of the US population is non-Hispanic white (assuming that's what you took from wikipedia), that number drops as you get to the cohort of college age kids.



So, amongst Gen Z who make up Stanford's current undergraduates, only 51% are non-Hispanic white, while 25% are Hispanic and 14% are Black.

None of this is to say that the demographics of Stanford should be one thing or another.  I think Donkey's point that broadly speaking Stanford does a pretty good job at not dramatically under-representing traditionally under-represented communities is well-taken.  I don't have the data, but I have a feeling that athletics as a whole probably aids representation of certain minority groups, I'm guessing more so after the sports that were cut.

BC

I'm not so sure I'd agree with that. Looking at just the US based students, Blacks represent around 7.8%; according to your numbers, that number should be around 13.8%. Looks to me like that ethnicity is under-represented by nearly half. Of course, that's if you base admissions by the percentages. Probably not a topic for a sports board, though. . . .

That said, I love what athletes bring to the Stanford experience. Just in my freshman dorm alone, we had two football players, two swimmers (one a future world record holder), a water polo player (and future Olympian), a women's volleyball player, a cross county runner, and I'm sure I'm forgetting a couple (I'm not counting the club sports players, either). At least 8%, and that was over 40 years ago, and all of them enhanced my experience and provided many great memories.