Many of the nation’s most prestigious colleges and universities report a significant increase in students applying to early action or early decision programs.
Harvard Univerity reports that 10,086 students applied to its non-binding early action admissions program. This is up from 6,424 a year ago.
Harvard accepted 747 students who applied early. Thus, 7.4 percent of early applicants were accepted. Those students who were admitted are not obligated to attend Harvard and have until May 1 to make their final decision.
William R. Fitzsimmons, dean of admissions and financial aid. “Given the high number of remarkable applicants to date, Harvard has taken a conservative approach to admitting students in the early admissions process to ensure proper review is given to applicants in the regular admissions cycle.”
African Americans constitute 16.6 percent of those admitted early, compared to 12.7 percent last year. But only 14.5 percent of all early admits are estimated to be eligible for federal Pell Grants, which are reserved for students from low-income families.
No needed to be celebrating Harvard. In fact, if you disaggregated the data for “African Americans” you will clearly see the majority of these students are from the continent of Africa or the Caribbean and not “native born Black Americans. It appears somebody is deploying how to use statistics to lie.
Michael,
Very true.
With respect, Michael, your comment is incorrect. For reporting purposes, all Ivy League institutions report international students in a separate category. Harvard is reporting U.S. citizens who self-report as black or African African. This includes students whose parents or grandparents are from the Caribbean or the continent of Africa, but are themselves U.S. born.
Hey Jason,
I would suggest that you reread my initial comment along with reading “How to use statistics to lie”. More important, you need to understanding what “native born Black American” encompasses. Case in point, if your granparents Migrated to the US then you are unquivocally Not a “native born Black American” on numerous levels.
Hi Jason, this is my first time ever commenting on an article. Unfortunately, based upon my lived experience and statistics I’ve reviewed, Michael is correct. Until I moved full time from NYC to south Florida, I had not had a crystal clear view of how the American apartheid system works in that regard. Certainly, this is a touchy issue; especially when you consider that “where” an individual is from in the Americas or Caribbean, in large part depended upon whether their forebearers came thru Sullivan island, SC or were shipped someplace else; totally outside of their control. However, in the USA, as a rule, it’s far easier for descendents of West Indians (sic), African (recent immigrants)
My comments were cut off! Point is that the American apartheid system distinguishes between native born Black folks whose families were enslaved for generations on American soil, verses Black folks who are descendents from Black folks outside the USA, e. g. Immigrant descendents; not native born-to use Michael’s definition. In a series of articles in the Sun Sentinel newspaper which lamented the lack of “local” hiring in Florida country clubs and by caterers, it was made plain that these employers would hire a Black or Hispanic person if they were an immigrant; but would not hire a native born Black or Hispanic individual for those same jobs. Moreover, as I spoke to workers at various Florida country clubs, I found the same pattern: the Black workers and Hispanic workers were all immigrants with temporary visa status. I’m just using this an an example. Finally, if you use Michael’s definition of native born and apply it to doctoral degrees awarded annually, if you parse out the native born doctoral recipients, the numbers are frightening low. Actually more likely to make the NBA or Olympics.