Self-endowment raises $40 million

[BostonCard]

I completed my undergraduate education at a big public school in the southwest (University of Maine)

Is that like Miami of Ohio?

BC

[baymeadows3408]

Where do you live? Greenland? :)

Whoops, I meant to say the University of Arizona. I have corrected my original post. Maine isn't Greenland, but it sure feels that way times!

[cardcrimson]

[Stanford has done such an amazing job already diversifying its student base beyond privilege with a high percentage of first generation college students, it doesn't seem like they are lacking in diminishing privilege.  There is only one ethnic group at Stanford massively underrepresented relative to is population base in this country.   https://facts.stanford.edu/academics/und...e-profile/

Curious as to your comment, so I looked it up. Interesting. Regardless of ethnicity, if the athletes can self fund, Let Them Play.

Ethnic Diversity Stanford %; US % (from the link and wikipedia)
American Indian or Alaska Native  1%; .7%
Asian  25%; 5%
Black or African American  7%; 12%
Hispanic or Latino  17%; 17.6%
International  11%
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander  <1%; .7%
White  29%; 61.5%
Two or more races  10%; 2%
Unknown  <1%; <1%

[BostonCard]

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

[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.

[Farm93]

IMHO - The diversity concern with Varsity Blues is not racial diversity, to me the PR issue was primarily about economic diversity.

A place like Stanford is loaded with children of 1 percenters.   Loads of reasons that happens academically.   However, the academic admissions game also favor those with resources for test prep, essay consultants, and the like.

Varsity Blues revealed that 1 percenters also have lot of advantages getting those precious non-scholarship athletic slots too.  The 1 percenters have access to resources that can help them "look" like they excel in rowing, sailing, fencing, golf and other similar sports.  The scandal centered on cheap, unethical, 1 percenters using bribes to coaches, but is also revealed how those with wealth can use that wealth to secure those athletic slots too.

Any school that has a lot of 1 percenters AND has a bounty of slots allocated to athletic spots that also favor 1 percenters then has a potential PR problem. 

The Varsity Blues lessons for those not familiar with highly selective schools 
1 - The 1 percenters get access to the best schools, teachers, tutors and admission services giving them amazingly good odds to win the academic admissions game.
2 - Should that advantage not be enough 1 percenters can always throw their child into a boat or get expensive lessons at your country club to secure slots in sports played primarily by 1 percenters (golf, sailing, fencing, rowing, etc.) 
3-  And should 1 & 2 not be enough the 1 percenters can give a program struggling for funds a bag of money and get their child to be a benchwarmer/program funder.

To some degree #3 is the problem for any school with sports that need donations to remain viable.   If a program is on the bubble it might be tempted to access money that only makes the school's PR problem worse over time.  Quite possible the money they find will ultimately be linked to even more 1 percenters sitting at the end of the bench.

If the PR/legal/congressional concerns are the hidden concern, a safe solution is to cut the sport(s).  FWIW - Fundraising could very well make the PR situation worse.  

The precious balance between athletics and academics is a concern at many schools.  Varsity Blues likely impacted the precarious balance.

[BostonCard]

Agree with you farm, but it doesn’t explain why wrestling was cut.  Definitely not a 1%er sport.

BC

[2006alum]

Agree with you farm, but it doesn’t explain why wrestling was cut.  Definitely not a 1%er sport.

BC

Do we know what the gender balance was of everything else cut? Field hockey, squash, women's sailing, and synchronized swimming all have no male equivalents. So I wonder if it was to balance that out? I agree that wrestling is among the least compelling from the standpoint of reducing a privileged path of access to Stanford.

[martyup]

Agree with you farm, but it doesn’t explain why wrestling was cut.  Definitely not a 1%er sport.

BC

Do we know what the gender balance was of everything else cut? Field hockey, squash, women's sailing, and synchronized swimming all have no male equivalents. So I wonder if it was to balance that out? I agree that wrestling is among the least compelling from the standpoint of reducing a privileged path of access to Stanford.

Yeah, not a lot of trust funders hitting the mats.

[donkey687]

Agree with you farm, but it doesn’t explain why wrestling was cut.  Definitely not a 1%er sport.

BC

Do we know what the gender balance was of everything else cut? Field hockey, squash, women's sailing, and synchronized swimming all have no male equivalents. So I wonder if it was to balance that out? I agree that wrestling is among the least compelling from the standpoint of reducing a privileged path of access to Stanford.

Yes, if you cut women's sports spots, you need to reciprocate with a men's spots to keep the numbers equal under Title IX which is why wrestling is pushing for the addition of a women's wrestling team as they need a women's sport to be reinstated for them to be reinstated.  If these cuts were made to get rid of athletes coming from privilege, golf and tennis would have been cut.  That wasn't the case.  Bernard cut the minor sports that don't contribute much to Directors Cup standings. These sports are a nuisance to him and take resources and attention away from the bigger sports.

[martyup]

I seem to recall that wrestling did contribute points to the Director's Cup, at least until they were bumped off the board by another sport winning the National Championship.