The people that just love to catch everyone else have been caught themselves. Read about one of the things that is off about America.
DECEMBE R 2 0 1 2
Just before the Labor Day weekend, a front page New York Times
story broke the news of the largest
cheating scandal in Harvard University history,
in which nearly half the students taking a
Government course on the role of Congress had plagiarized
or otherwise illegally collaborated on their
final exam.
1 Each year, Harvard admits just 1600
freshmen while almost 125 Harvard students now
face possible suspension over this single incident. A
Harvard dean described the situation as “unprecedented.”
But should we really be so surprised at this behavior
among the students at America’s most prestigious academic
institution? In the last generation or two, the
funnel of opportunity in American society has drastically
narrowed, with a greater and greater proportion
of our financial, media, business, and political elites
being drawn from a relatively small number of our
leading universities, together with their professional
schools. The rise of a Henry Ford, from farm boy
mechanic to world business tycoon, seems virtually
impossible today, as even America’s most successful
college dropouts such as Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg
often turn out to be extremely well-connected
former Harvard students. Indeed, the early success of
Facebook was largely due to the powerful imprimatur
it enjoyed from its exclusive availability first only at
Harvard and later restricted to just the Ivy League.
During this period, we have witnessed a huge national
decline in well-paid middle class jobs in the
manufacturing sector and other sources of employment
for those lacking college degrees, with median
American wages having been stagnant or declining
for the last forty years. Meanwhile, there has been an
astonishing concentration of wealth at the top, with
America’s richest 1 percent now possessing nearly
as much net wealth as the bottom 95 percent.
2 This
situation, sometimes described as a “winner take all
society,” leaves families desperate to maximize the
chances that their children will reach the winners’ circle,
rather than risk failure and poverty or even merely
a spot in the rapidly deteriorating middle class. And
the best single means of becoming such an economic
winner is to gain admission to a top university, which
provides an easy ticket to the wealth of Wall Street or
similar venues, whose leading firms increasingly restrict
their hiring to graduates of the Ivy League or a
tiny handful of other top colleges.
3 On the other side,
finance remains the favored employment choice for
Harvard, Yale or Princeton students after the diplomas
are handed out.
4
The Battle for Elite College Admissions
As a direct consequence, the war over college admissions
has become astonishingly fierce, with many
middle- or upper-middle class families investing
quantities of time and money that would have seemed
unimaginable a generation or more ago, leading to an
all-against-all arms race that immiserates the student
and exhausts the parents. The absurd parental efforts
of an Amy Chua, as recounted in her 2010 bestseller
Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother
, were simply a
much more extreme version of widespread behavior
among her peer-group, which is why her story resonated
so deeply among our educated elites. Over the
last thirty years, America’s test-prep companies have
Education
Ron Unz is publisher of
The American Conservative.
The Myth of
American Meritocracy
How corrupt are Ivy League admissions?
by
ron unz
D E C EMB E R 2 0 1 2
T H E AME R I C A N C O N S E RVAT I V E 1 5
grown from almost nothing into a $5 billion annual
industry, allowing the affluent to provide an admissions
edge to their less able children. Similarly, the
enormous annual tuition of $35,000 charged by elite
private schools such as Dalton or Exeter is less for a
superior high school education than for the hope of
a greatly increased chance to enter the Ivy League.
5
Many New York City parents even go to enormous
efforts to enroll their children in the best possible pre-
Kindergarten program, seeking early placement on
the educational conveyer belt which eventually leads
to Harvard.
6 Others cut corners in a more direct fashion,
as revealed in the huge SAT cheating rings recently
uncovered in affluent New York suburbs, in which
students were paid thousands of dollars to take SAT
exams for their wealthier but dimmer classmates.
7
But given such massive social and economic value
now concentrated in a Harvard or Yale degree, the
tiny handful of elite admissions gatekeepers enjoy
enormous, almost unprecedented power to shape the
leadership of our society by allocating their supply
of thick envelopes. Even billionaires, media barons,
and U.S. Senators may weigh their words and actions
more carefully as their children approach college age.
And if such power is used to select our future elites in
a corrupt manner, perhaps the inevitable result is the
selection of corrupt elites, with terrible consequences
for America. Thus, the huge Harvard cheating scandal,
and perhaps also the endless series of financial,
business, and political scandals which have rocked
our country over the last decade or more, even while
our national economy has stagnated.
Just a few years ago Pulitzer Prize-winning former
Wall Street Journal
reporter Daniel Golden published
The Price of Admission
, a devastating account of the
corrupt admissions practices at so many of our leading
universities, in which every sort of non-academic
or financial factor plays a role in privileging the privileged
and thereby squeezing out those high-ability,
hard-working students who lack any special hook. In
one particularly egregious case, a wealthy New Jersey
real estate developer, later sent to Federal prison
on political corruption charges, paid Harvard $2.5
million to help ensure admission of his completely
under-qualified son.
8 When we consider that Harvard’s
existing endowment was then at $15 billion
and earning almost $7 million each day in investment
earnings, we see that a culture of financial corruption
has developed an absurd illogic of its own, in which
senior Harvard administrators sell their university’s
honor for just a few hours worth of its regular annual
income, the equivalent of a Harvard instructor raising
a grade for a hundred dollars in cash.
An admissions system based on non-academic
factors often amounting to institutionalized venality
would seem strange or even unthinkable among the
top universities of most other advanced nations in
Europe or Asia, though such practices are widespread
in much of the corrupt Third World. The notion of a
wealthy family buying their son his entrance into the
Grandes Ecoles of France or the top Japanese universities
would be an absurdity, and the academic rectitude
of Europe’s Nordic or Germanic nations is even
more severe, with those far more egalitarian societies
anyway tending to deemphasize university rankings.
Or consider the case of China. There, legions of angry
microbloggers endlessly denounce the official corruption
and abuse which permeate so much of the economic
system. But we almost never hear accusations
of favoritism in university admissions, and this impression
of strict meritocracy determined by the results
of the national
Gaokao college entrance examination
has been confirmed to me by individuals familiar with
that country. Since all the world’s written exams may
ultimately derive from China’s old imperial examination
system, which was kept remarkably clean for 1300
years, such practices are hardly surprising.
9 Attending a
prestigious college is regarded by ordinary Chinese as
their children’s greatest hope of rapid upward mobility
and is therefore often a focus of enormous family effort;
China’s ruling elites may rightly fear that a policy
of admitting their own dim and lazy heirs to leading
schools ahead of the higher-scoring children of the
masses might ignite a widespread popular uprising.
This perhaps explains why so many sons and daughters
of top Chinese leaders attend college in the West:
American
Household
Net Wealth,
2010
Top 1%
35.4%
Next 4%
27.7%
Bottom
95%
36.9%
1 6 T H E A M E R IC A N CON SE RVAT I V E
DECEMBE R 2 0 1 2
Education
enrolling them at a third-rate Chinese university would
be a tremendous humiliation, while our own corrupt
admissions practices get them an easy spot at Harvard
or Stanford, sitting side by side with the children of Bill
Clinton, Al Gore, and George W. Bush.
Although the evidence of college admissions corruption
presented in Golden’s book is quite telling,
the focus is almost entirely on current practices, and
largely anecdotal rather than statistical. For a broader
historical perspective, we should consider
The Chosen
by Berkeley sociologist Jerome Karabel, an exhaustive
and award-winning 2005 narrative history of the last
century of admissions policy at Harvard, Yale, and
Princeton (I will henceforth sometimes abbreviate
these “top three” most elite schools as “HYP”).
Karabel’s massive documentation—over 700 pages
and 3000 endnotes—establishes the remarkable fact
that America’s uniquely complex and subjective system
of academic admissions actually arose as a means
of covert ethnic tribal warfare. During the 1920s, the
established Northeastern Anglo-Saxon elites who
then dominated the Ivy League wished to sharply curtail
the rapidly growing numbers of Jewish students,
but their initial attempts to impose simple numerical
quotas provoked enormous controversy and faculty
opposition.
10 Therefore, the approach subsequently
taken by Harvard President A. Lawrence Lowell and
his peers was to transform the admissions process
from a simple objective test of academic merit into
a complex and holistic consideration of all aspects of
each individual applicant; the resulting opacity permitted
the admission or rejection of any given applicant,
allowing the ethnicity of the student body to be
shaped as desired. As a consequence, university leaders
could honestly deny the existence of any racial or
religious quotas, while still managing to reduce Jewish
enrollment to a much lower level, and thereafter
hold it almost constant during the decades which followed.
11
For example, the Jewish portion of Harvard’s
entering class dropped from nearly 30 percent in 1925
to 15 percent the following year and remained roughly
static until the period of the Second World War.
12
As Karabel repeatedly demonstrates, the major
changes in admissions policy which later followed were
usually determined by factors of raw political power
and the balance of contending forces rather than any
idealistic considerations. For example, in the aftermath
of World War II, Jewish organizations and their allies
mobilized their political and media resources to pressure
the universities into increasing their ethnic enrollment
by modifying the weight assigned to various
academic and non-academic factors, raising the importance
of the former over the latter. Then a decade or two
later, this exact process was repeated in the opposite direction,
as the early 1960s saw black activists and their
liberal political allies pressure universities to bring their
racial minority enrollments into closer alignment with
America’s national population by partially
shifting away from their recently enshrined
focus on purely academic considerations.
Indeed, Karabel notes that the most sudden
and extreme increase in minority enrollment
took place at Yale in the years 1968–69, and
was largely due to fears of race riots in heavily
black New Haven, which surrounded the
campus.
13
Philosophical consistency appears notably absent
in many of the prominent figures involved in these admissions
battles, with both liberals and conservatives
sometimes favoring academic merit and sometimes
non-academic factors, whichever would produce the
particular ethnic student mix they desired for personal
or ideological reasons. Different political blocs
waged long battles for control of particular universities,
and sudden large shifts in admissions rates occurred
as these groups gained or lost influence within
the university apparatus: Yale replaced its admissions
staff in 1965 and the following year Jewish numbers
nearly doubled.
14
At times, external judicial or political forces would
be summoned to override university admissions policy,
often succeeding in this aim. Karabel’s own ideological
leanings are hardly invisible, as he hails efforts by state
legislatures to force Ivy League schools to lift their
de
facto
Jewish quotas, but seems to regard later legislative
attacks on “affirmative action” as unreasonable assaults
on academic freedom.
15 The massively footnoted text
of
The Chosen might lead one to paraphrase Clausewitz
and conclude that our elite college admissions policy
often consists of ethnic warfare waged by other means,
or even that it could be summarized as a simple Leninesque
question of “Who, Whom?”
Although nearly all of Karabel’s study is focused on
the earlier history of admissions policy at Harvard,
Yale, and Princeton, with the developments of the last
three decades being covered in just a few dozen pages,
he finds complete continuity down to the present day,
with the notorious opacity of the admissions pro-
America’s uniquely complex and subjective
system of academic admissions actually arose
as a means of covert ethnic tribal warfare.
D E C EMB E R 2 0 1 2
T H E AME R I C A N C O N S E RVAT I V E 1 7
cess still allowing most private universities to admit
whomever they want for whatever reasons they want,
even if the reasons and the admissions decisions may
eventually change over the years. Despite these plain
facts, Harvard and the other top Ivy League schools
today publicly deny any hint of discrimination along
racial or ethnic lines, except insofar as they acknowledge
providing an admissions boost to under-represented
racial minorities, such as blacks or Hispanics.
But given the enormous control these institutions exert
on our larger society, we should test these claims
against the evidence of the actual enrollment statistics.
Asian-Americans as the “New Jews”
The overwhelming focus of Karabel’s book is on
changes in Jewish undergraduate percentages at each
university, and this is probably less due to his own
ethnic heritage than because the data provides an extremely
simple means of charting the ebb and flow of
admissions policy: Jews were a high-performing group,
whose numbers could only be restricted by major deviations
from an objective meritocratic standard.
Obviously, anti-Jewish discrimination in admissions
no longer exists at any of these institutions, but
a roughly analogous situation may be found with
a group whom Golden and others have sometimes
labeled “The New Jews,” namely Asian-Americans.
Since their strong academic performance is coupled
with relatively little political power, they would be obvious
candidates for discrimination in the harsh realpolitik
of university admissions as documented by
Karabel, and indeed he briefly raises the possibility of
an anti-Asian admissions bias, before concluding that
the elite universities are apparently correct in denying
that it exists.
16
There certainly does seem considerable anecdotal
evidence that many Asians perceive their chances of
elite admission as being drastically reduced by their
racial origins.
17 For example, our national newspapers
have revealed that students of part-Asian background
have regularly attempted to conceal the non-white
side of their ancestry when applying to Harvard and
other elite universities out of concern it would greatly
reduce their chances of admission.
18 Indeed, widespread
perceptions of racial discrimination are almost
certainly the primary factor behind the huge growth
in the number of students refusing to reveal their racial
background at top universities, with the percentage
of Harvard students classified as “race unknown”
having risen from almost nothing to a regular 5–15
percent of all undergraduates over the last twenty
years, with similar levels reached at other elite schools.
Such fears that checking the “Asian” box on an admissions
application may lead to rejection are hardly
unreasonable, given that studies have documented
a large gap between the average test scores of whites
and Asians successfully admitted to elite universities.
Princeton sociologist Thomas J. Espenshade and his
colleagues have demonstrated that among undergraduates
at highly selective schools such as the Ivy
League, white students have mean scores 310 points
higher on the 1600 SAT scale than their black classmates,
but Asian students average 140 points above
whites.
19 The former gap is an automatic consequence
of officially acknowledged affirmative action policies,
while the latter appears somewhat mysterious.
T
hese broad statistical differences in the admission
requirements for Asians are given a human
face in Golden’s discussions of this subject, in which
he recounts numerous examples of Asian-American
students who overcame dire family poverty, immigrant
adversity, and other enormous personal hardships
to achieve stellar academic performance and
extracurricular triumphs, only to be rejected by all
their top university choices. His chapter is actually
entitled “The New Jews,” and he notes the considerable
irony that a university such as Vanderbilt will
announce a public goal of greatly increasing its Jewish
enrollment and nearly triple those numbers in
just four years, while showing very little interest in
admitting high-performing Asian students.
20
All these elite universities strongly deny the existence
of any sort of racial discrimination against
Asians in the admissions process, let alone an “Asian
quota,” with senior administrators instead claiming
that the potential of each student is individually
evaluated via a holistic process far superior to any
mechanical reliance on grades or test scores; but such
public postures are identical to those taken by their
academic predecessors in the 1920s and 1930s as documented
by Karabel. Fortunately, we can investigate
the plausibility of these claims by examining the decades
of officially reported enrollment data available
from the website of the National Center for Educational
Statistics (NCES).
The ethnic composition of Harvard undergraduates
certainly follows a highly intriguing pattern. Harvard
had always had a significant Asian-American enrollment,
generally running around 5 percent when I had
attended in the early 1980s. But during the following
decade, the size of America’s Asian middle class
grew rapidly, leading to a sharp rise in applications
and admissions, with Asians exceeding 10 percent of
1 8 T H E A M E R IC A N CON SE RVAT I V E
DECEMBE R 2 0 1 2
Education
undergraduates by the late 1980s and crossing the 20
percent threshold by 1993. However, from that year
forward, the Asian numbers went into reverse, generally
stagnating or declining during the two decades
which followed, with the official 2011 figure being
17.2 percent.
21
Even more surprising has been the sheer constancy
of these percentages, with almost every year from
1995–2011 showing an Asian enrollment within a
single point of the 16.5 percent average, despite huge
fluctuations in the number of applications and the inevitable
uncertainty surrounding which students will
accept admission. By contrast, prior to 1993 Asian enrollment
had often changed quite substantially from
year to year. It is interesting to note that this exactly
replicates the historical pattern observed by Karabel,
in which Jewish enrollment rose very rapidly, leading
to imposition of an informal quota system, after
which the number of Jews fell substantially, and thereafter
remained roughly constant for decades. On the
face of it, ethnic enrollment levels which widely diverge
from academic performance data or application
rates and which remain remarkably static over time
provide obvious circumstantial evidence for at least a
de facto
ethnic quota system.
I
n another strong historical parallel, all the other
Ivy League universities seem to have gone through
similar shifts in Asian enrollment at similar times and
reached a similar plateau over the last couple of decades.
As mentioned, the share of Asians at Harvard
peaked at over 20 percent in 1993, then immediately
declined and thereafter remained roughly constant at a
level 3–5 points lower. Asians at Yale reached a 16.8 percent
maximum in that same year, and soon dropped
by about 3 points to a roughly constant level. The Columbia
peak also came in 1993 and the Cornell peak
in 1995, in both cases followed by the same substantial
drop, and the same is true for most of their East Coast
peers. During the mid- to late-1980s, there had been
some public controversy in the media regarding allegations
of anti-Asian discrimination in the Ivy League,
and the Federal Government eventually even opened
an investigation into the matter.
22 But once that investigation
was closed in 1991, Asian enrollments across all
those universities rapidly converged to the same level of
approximately 16 percent, and remained roughly static
thereafter (See chart below). In fact, the yearly fluctuations
in Asian enrollments are often smaller than were
the changes in Jewish numbers during the “quota era”
of the past,
23 and are roughly the same relative size as
the fluctuations in black enrollments, even though the
latter are heavily influenced by the publicly declared
“ethnic diversity goals” of those same institutions.
The largely constant Asian numbers at these elite
colleges are particularly strange when we consider
that the underlying population of Asians in America
has been anything but static, instead growing at the
fastest pace of any American racial group, having increased
by almost 50 percent during the last decade,
and more than doubling since 1993. Obviously, the
relevant ratio would be to the 18–21 age cohort, but
0
10
20
30
40%
0
200
400
600
800
Asians,
Age 18-21
1990 1995 2000 2005 2011
Asians
Age 18-21 and Elite College Enrollment Trends, 1990-2011
Trends of Asian enrollment at Caltech and the Ivy League universities, compared with gr
owth of Asian college-age population; Asian age cohort population figures are
based on Census CPS, and given the small sample size, ar
e subject to considerable yearly statistical fluctuations. Source: Appendices B and C.
Asian En
rollment Percentage
Asians Age 18-21 (In Thousands)
Caltech
Harvard Yale Princeton Brown Columbia Cornell Dartmouth Penn
D E C EMB E R 2 0 1 2
T H E AME R I C A N C O N S E RVAT I V E 1 9
adjusting for this factor changes little: based on Census
data, the college-age ratio of Asians to whites increased
by 94 percent between 1994 and 2011, even
while the ratio of Asians to whites at Harvard and Columbia
fell over these same years.
24
Put another way, the percentage of college-age
Asian-Americans attending Harvard peaked around
1993, and has since dropped by over 50 percent, a decline
somewhat larger than the fall in Jewish enrollment
which followed the imposition of secret quotas
in 1925.
25 And we have noted the parallel trends in the
other Ivy League schools, which also replicates the
historical pattern.
Furthermore, during this exact same period a large
portion of the Asian-American population moved
from first-generation immigrant poverty into the
ranks of the middle class, greatly raising their educational
aspirations for their children. Although elite
universities generally refuse to release their applicant
totals for different racial groups, some data occasionally
becomes available. Princeton’s records show that
between 1980 and 1989, Asian-American applications
increased by over 400 percent compared to just 8 percent
for other groups, with an even more rapid increase
for Brown during 1980-1987, while Harvard’s
Asian applicants increased over 250 percent between
1976 and 1985.
26 It seems likely that the statistics
for other Ivy League schools would have followed a
similar pattern and these trends would have at least
partially continued over the decades which followed,
just as the Asian presence has skyrocketed at selective
public feeder schools such as Stuyvesant and Bronx
Science in New York City and also at the top East
Coast prep schools. Yet none of these huge changes
in the underlying pool of Asian applicants seemed to
have had noticeable impact on the number admitted
to Harvard or most of the Ivy League.
Estimating Asian Merit
One obvious possible explanation for these trends
might be a decline in average Asian scholastic performance,
which would certainly be possible if more
and more Asian students from the lower levels of the
ability pool were pursuing an elite education.
27 The
mean SAT scores for Asian students show no such
large decline, but since we would expect elite universities
to draw their students from near the absolute top
of the performance curve, average scores by race are
potentially less significant than the Asian fraction of
America’s highest performing students.
To the extent that the hundred thousand or so undergraduates
at Ivy League schools and their approximate
peers are selected by academic merit, they would
mostly be drawn from the top one-half to one percent
of their American age-cohort, and this is the appropriate
pool to consider. It is perfectly possible that a
particular ethnic population might have a relatively
high mean SAT score, while still being somewhat less
well represented in that top percent or so of measured
ability; racial performance does not necessarily follow
an exact “bell curve” distribution. For one thing,
a Census category such as “Asian” is hardly homogenous
or monolithic, with South Asians and East
Asians such as Chinese and Koreans generally having
much higher performance compared to other groups
such as Filipinos, Vietnamese, or Cambodians, just
as the various types of “Hispanics” such as Cubans,
Mexicans, and Puerto Ricans differ widely in their
socio-economic and academic profiles. Furthermore,
the percentage of a given group taking the SAT may
change over time, and the larger the percentage taking
that test, the more that total will include weaker
students, thereby depressing the average score.
Fortunately, allegations of anti-Asian admissions
bias have become a topic of widespread and heated
debate on the Internet, and disgruntled Asian-American
activists have diligently located various types of
data to support their accusations, with the recent ethnic
distribution of National Merit Scholarship (NMS)
semifinalists being among the most persuasive. Students
receiving this official designation represent approximately
the top one-half of one percent of a state’s
high school students as determined by their scores
on the PSAT, twin brother to the SAT. Each year, the
NMS Corporation distributes the names and schools
of these semifinalists for each state, and dozens of
these listings have been tracked down and linked on
the Internet by determined activists, who have then
sometimes estimated the ethnic distribution of the
semifinalists by examining their family names.
28 Obviously,
such a name analysis provides merely an approximate
result, but the figures are striking enough
to warrant the exercise. (All these NMS semifinalist
estimates are discussed in Appendix E.)
29
For example, California has a population comparable
to that of the next two largest states combined, and
its 2010 total of 2,003 NMS semifinalists included well
over 1,100 East Asian or South Asian family names.
California may be one of the most heavily Asian
states, but even so Asians of high school age are still
outnumbered by whites roughly 3-to-1, while there
were far more high scoring Asians. Put another way,
although Asians represented only about 11 percent of
California high school students, they constituted al
2
0 T H E A M E R IC A N CON SE RVAT I V E
DECEMBE R 2 0 1 2
Education
most 60 percent of the top scoring ones. California’s
list of NMS semifinalists from 2012 also followed a
very similar ethnic pattern. Obviously, such an analysis
based on last names is hardly precise, but it is probably
correct to within a few percent, which is sufficient
for our crude analytical purposes.
In addition, the number of test-takers is sufficiently
large that an examination of especially distinctive last
names allows us to pinpoint and roughly quantify the
academic performance of different Asian groups. For
example, the name “Nguyen” is uniquely Vietnamese
and carried by about 1 in 3.6 of all Americans of that
ethnicity, while “Kim” is just as uniquely Korean, with
one in 5.5 Korean-Americans bearing that name.
30 By
comparing the prevalence of these particular names
on the California NMS semifinalist lists with the total
size of the corresponding California ethnicities, we
can estimate that California Vietnamese are significantly
more likely than whites to score very highly on
such tests, while Koreans seem to do eight times better
than whites and California’s Chinese even better still.
(All these results rely upon the simplifying assumption
that these different Asian groups are roughly proportional
in their numbers of high school seniors.)
Interestingly enough, these Asian performance
ratios are remarkably similar to those worked out
by Nathaniel Weyl in his 1989 book
The Geography
of American Achievement
, in which he estimated that
Korean and Chinese names were over-represented by
1000 percent or more on the complete 1987 lists of
national NMS semifinalists, while Vietnamese names
were only somewhat more likely to appear than the
white average.
31 This consistency is quite impressive
when we consider that America’s Asian population
has tripled since the late 1980s, with major changes as
well in socio-economic distribution and other characteristics.
The results for states other than California reflect
this same huge abundance of high performing Asian
students. In Texas, Asians are just 3.8 percent of the
population but were over a quarter of the NMS semifinalists
in 2010, while the 2.4 percent of Florida Asians
provided between 10 percent and 16 percent of the top
students in the six years from 2008 to 2013 for which
I have been able to obtain the NMS lists. Even in New
York, which contains one of our nation’s most affluent
and highly educated white populations and also remains
by far the most heavily Jewish state, Asian overrepresentation
was enormous: the Asian 7.3 percent of
the population—many of them impoverished immigrant
families—accounted for almost one-third of all
top scoring New York students.
America’s eight largest states contain nearly half our
total population as well as over 60 percent of all Asian-
Americans, and each has at least one NMS semifinalist
list available for the years 2010–2012. Asians account
for just 6 percent of the population in these states, but
contribute almost one-third of all the names on these
rosters of high performing students. Even this result
may be a substantial underestimate, since over half
these Asians are found in gigantic California, where
extremely stiff academic competition has driven the
qualifying NMS semifinalist threshold score to nearly
the highest in the country; if students were selected
based on a single nationwide standard, Asian numbers
would surely be much higher. This pattern extends to
the aggregate of the twenty-five states whose lists are
available, with Asians constituting 5 percent of the total
population but almost 28 percent of semifinalists.
Extrapolating these state results to the national total,
we would expect 25–30 percent of America’s highest
scoring high school seniors to be of Asian origin.
32
This figure is far above the current Asian enrollment
at Harvard or the rest of the Ivy League.
Ironically enough, the methodology used to select
these NMS semifinalists may considerably understate
the actual number of very high-ability Asian students.
According to testing experts, the three main subcomponents
of intellectual ability are verbal, mathematical,
and visuospatial, with the last of these representing
the mental manipulation of objects. Yet the qualifying
NMS scores are based on math, reading, and writing
tests, with the last two both corresponding to verbal
ability, and without any test of visuospatial skills. Even
leaving aside the language difficulties which students
from an immigrant background might face, East
Asians tend to be weakest in the verbal category and
strongest in the visuospatial, so NMS semifinalists are
being selected by a process which excludes the strongest
Asian component and doubles the weight of the
weakest.
33
T
his evidence of a massively disproportionate Asian
presence among top-performing students only increases
if we examine the winners of national academic
competitions, especially those in mathematics and
science, where judging is the most objective. Each year,
America picks its five strongest students to represent
our country in the International Math Olympiad, and
during the three decades since 1980, some 34 percent
of these team members have been Asian-American,
with the corresponding figure for the International
Computing Olympiad being 27 percent. The Intel Science
Talent Search, begun in 1942 under the auspices
of the Westinghouse Corporation, is America’s most
prestigious high school science competition, and since
D E C EMB E R 2 0 1 2
T H E AME R I C A N C O N S E RVAT I V E 2 1
1980 some 32 percent of the 1320 finalists have been of
Asian ancestry (see Appendix F).
Given that Asians accounted for just 1.5 percent
of the population in 1980 and often lived in relatively
impoverished immigrant families, the longer-term historical
trends are even more striking. Asians were less
than 10 percent of U.S. Math Olympiad winners during
the 1980s, but rose to a striking 58 percent of the
total during the last thirteen years 2000–2012. For the
Computing Olympiad, Asian winners averaged about
20 percent of the total during most of the 1990s and
2000s, but grew to 50 percent during 2009–2010 and a
remarkable 75 percent during 2011–2012.
The statistical trend for the Science Talent Search
finalists, numbering many thousands of top science
students, has been the clearest: Asians constituted
22 percent of the total in the 1980s, 29 percent in
the 1990s, 36 percent in the 2000s, and 64 percent in
the 2010s. In particular science subjects, the Physics
Olympiad winners follow a similar trajectory, with
Asians accounting for 23 percent of the winners during
the 1980s, 25 percent during the 1990s, 46 percent
during the 2000s, and a remarkable 81 percent since
2010. The 2003–2012 Biology Olympiad winners
were 68 percent Asian and Asians took an astonishing
90 percent of the top spots in the recent Chemistry
Olympiads. Some 61 percent of the Siemens AP
Awards from 2002–2011 went to Asians, including
thirteen of the fourteen top national prizes.
Yet even while all these specific Asian-American academic
achievement trends were rising at such an impressive
pace, the relative enrollment of Asians at Harvard
was plummeting, dropping by over half during the
last twenty years, with a range of similar declines also
occurring at Yale, Cornell, and most other Ivy League
universities. Columbia, in the heart of heavily Asian
New York City, showed the steepest decline of all.
There may even be a logical connection between
these two contradictory trends. On the one hand,
America over the last two decades has produced a
rapidly increasing population of college-age Asians,
whose families are increasingly affluent, well-educated,
and eager to secure an elite education for their
children. But on the other hand, it appears that these
leading academic institutions have placed a rather
strict upper limit on actual Asian enrollments, forcing
these Asian students to compete more and more
fiercely for a very restricted number of openings. This
has sparked a massive Asian-American arms-race in
academic performance at high schools throughout
the country, as seen above in the skyrocketing math
and science competition results. When a far greater
volume of applicants is squeezed into a pipeline of
fixed size, the pressure can grow enormously.
The implications of such massive pressure may be
seen in a widely-discussed front page 2005
Wall Street
Journal
story entitled “The New White Flight.” 34 The
article described the extreme academic intensity at several
predominantly Asian high schools in Cupertino
and other towns in Silicon Valley, and the resulting
exodus of white students, who preferred to avoid such
an exceptionally focused and competitive academic
environment, which included such severe educational
tension. But should the families of those Asian students
be blamed if according to Espensade and his colleagues
their children require far higher academic performance
than their white classmates to have a similar chance of
gaining admission to selective colleges?
Although the “Asian Tiger Mom” behavior described
by author Amy Chua provoked widespread
hostility and ridicule, consider the situation from
her perspective. Being herself a Harvard graduate,
she would like her daughters to follow in her own Ivy
League footsteps, but is probably aware that the vast
growth in Asian applicants with no corresponding increase
in allocated Asian slots requires heroic efforts
to shape the perfect application package. Since Chua’s
husband is not Asian, she could obviously encourage
her children to improve their admissions chances by
concealing their ethnic identity during the application
process; but this would surely represent an enormous
personal humiliation for a proud and highly successful
Illinois-born American of Chinese ancestry.
The claim that most elite American universities
employ a
de facto Asian quota system is certainly an
inflammatory charge in our society. Indeed, our media
and cultural elites view any accusations of “racial
discrimination” as being among the most horrific of
all possible charges, sometimes even regarded as more
serious than mass murder.
35 So before concluding that
these accusations are probably true and considering
possible social remedies, we should carefully reconsider
their plausibility, given that they are largely
based upon a mixture of circumstantial statistical evidence
and the individual anecdotal cases presented by
Golden and a small handful of other critical journalists.
One obvious approach is to examine enrollment
figures at those universities which for one reason or
another may follow a different policy.
According to incoming student test scores and recent
percentages of National Merit Scholars, four
American universities stand at the absolute summit of
average student quality—Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and
Caltech, the California Institute of Technology; and
of these Caltech probably ranks first among equals.
36
Those three top Ivies continue to employ the same ad
2
2 T H E A M E R IC A N CON SE RVAT I V E
DECEMBE R 2 0 1 2
Education
missions system which Karabel describes as “opaque,”
“flexible,” and allowing enormous “discretion,”
37 a system
originally established to restrict the admission of
high-performing Jews. But Caltech selects its students
by strict academic standards, with Golden praising it
for being America’s shining example of a purely meritocratic
university, almost untouched by the financial
or political corruption so widespread in our other elite
institutions. And since the beginning of the 1990s,
Caltech’s Asian-American enrollment has risen almost
exactly in line with the growth of America’s underlying
Asian population, with Asians now constituting nearly
40 percent of each class (See chart on p. 18).
Obviously, the Caltech curriculum is narrowly focused
on mathematics, science, and engineering, and
since Asians tend to be especially strong in those subjects,
the enrollment statistics might be somewhat
distorted compared to a more academically balanced
university. Therefore, we should also consider the enrollment
figures for the highly-regarded University of
California system, particularly its five most prestigious
and selective campuses: Berkeley, UCLA, San Diego,
Davis, and Irvine. The 1996 passage of Proposition
209 had outlawed the use of race or ethnicity in admissions
decisions, and while administrative compliance
has certainly not been absolute—Golden noted
the evidence of some continued anti-Asian discrimination—
the practices do seem to have moved in the
general direction of race-blind meritocracy.
38 And the
2011 Asian-American enrollment at those five elite
campuses ranged from 34 percent to 49 percent, with a
weighted average of almost exactly 40 percent, identical
to that of Caltech.
39
In considering these statistics, we must take into account
that California is one of our most heavily Asian
states, containing over one-quarter of the total national
population, but also that a substantial fraction of UC
students are drawn from other parts of the country. The
recent percentage of Asian NMS semifinalists in California
has ranged between 55 percent and 60 percent,
while for the rest of America the figure is probably closer
to 20 percent, so an overall elite-campus UC Asian-
American enrollment of around 40 percent seems reasonably
close to what a fully meritocratic admissions
system might be expected to produce.
By contrast, consider the anomalous admissions
statistics for Columbia. New York City contains
America’s largest urban Asian population, and Asians
are one-third or more of the entire state’s top scoring
high school students. Over the last couple of decades,
the local Asian population has doubled in size and
Asians now constitute over two-thirds of the students
attending the most selective local high schools such as
Stuyvesant and Bronx Science, perhaps triple the levels
during the mid-1980s.
40 Yet whereas in 1993 Asians
made up 22.7 percent of Columbia’s undergraduates,
the total had dropped to 15.6 percent by 2011. These
figures seem extremely difficult to explain except as
evidence of sharp racial bias.
Asian-Americans and Jews
A natural question to consider is the surprising lack
of attention this issue seems to have attracted, despite
such remarkably telling statistics and several articles
over the years in major newspapers by Golden and
other prominent journalists. One would think that
a widespread practice of racial discrimination by
America’s most elite private universities—themselves
leading bastions of “Political Correctness” and strident
anti-racist ideology—would attract much more
public scrutiny, especially given their long prior history
of very similar exclusionary policies with regard
to Jewish enrollment.
41 Without such scrutiny and
the political mobilization it generates, the
status quo
seems unlikely to change.
42
Indeed, Karabel convincingly demonstrates that
the collapse of the long-standing Jewish quotas in the
Ivy League during the decade following World War II
only occurred as a result of massive media and political
pressure, pressure surely facilitated by very heavy
Jewish ownership of America’s major media organs,
including all three television networks, eight of nine
major Hollywood studios, and many of the leading
newspapers, including both the
New York Times and
the
Washington Post. By contrast, Asian-Americans
today neither own nor control even a single significant
media outlet, and they constitute an almost invisible
minority in films, television, radio, and print.
For most Americans, what the media does not report
simply does not exist, and there is virtually no major
media coverage of what appear to be
de facto Asian
quotas at our top academic institutions.
But before we conclude that our elite media organs
are engaging in an enormous “conspiracy of silence”
regarding this egregious pattern of racial discrimination
at our most prestigious universities, we should
explore alternate explanations for these striking results.
Perhaps we are considering the evidence from
entirely the wrong perspective, and ignoring the most
obvious—and relatively innocuous—explanation.
In recent decades, the notion of basing admissions
on “colorblind” meritocratic standards such as
standardized academic test scores has hardly been an
uncontroversial position, with advocates for a fully
D E C EMB E R 2 0 1 2
T H E AME R I C A N C O N S E RVAT I V E 2 3
“diversified” student body being far more prominent
within the academic community. Indeed, one of the
main attacks against California’s 1996 Proposition 209
was that its requirement of race-neutrality in admissions
would destroy the ethnic diversity of California’s
higher education system, and the measure was vigorously
opposed by the vast majority of vocal university
academics, both within that state and throughout the
nation. Most leading progressives have long argued
that the students selected by our elite institutions
should at least roughly approximate the distribution
of America’s national population, requiring that special
consideration be given to underrepresented or
underprivileged groups of all types.
We must remember that at all the universities discussed
above, Asian students are already enrolled in
numbers far above their 5 percent share of the national
population, and the Iron Law of Arithmetic is
that percentages must always total to one hundred. So
if additional slots were allocated to Asian applicants,
these must necessarily come from some other group,
perhaps blacks raised in the ghettos of Detroit or desperately
poor Appalachian whites, who might be the
first in their families to attend college. These days in
America, most Asians are a heavily urbanized, highly
affluent population,
43 overwhelmingly part of the middle-
or upper-middle class, and boosting their Harvard
numbers from three times their share of the population
up to five or six might not be regarded as the best policy
when other groups are far needier. To be sure, the
broad racial category “Asian” hides enormous internal
complexity—with Chinese, Koreans, and South Asians
being far more successful than Filipinos, Vietnamese,
or Cambodians—but that is just as true of the equally
broad “white” or “Hispanic” labels, which also conceal
much more than they reveal.
Furthermore, elite universities
explicitly claim to consider a wide
range of other admissions factors
besides academic performance.
Geographical diversity would certainly
hurt Asian chances since
nearly half their population lives
in just the three states of California,
New York, and Texas.
44 Top
athletes gain a strong admissions
edge, and few Asians are found
in the upper ranks of basketball,
football, baseball, and other leading
sports, an occasional Jeremy
Lin notwithstanding. Since most
Asians come from a recent immigrant
background, they would
rarely receive the “legacy boost” going to students
whose families have been attending the Ivy League for
generations. And it is perfectly possible that ideological
considerations of diversity and equity might make
administrators reluctant to allow any particular group
to become too heavily over-represented relative to its
share of the general population. So perhaps highlyqualified
Asians are not being rejected as Asians, but
simply due to these pre-existing ideological and structural
policies of our top universities, whether or not we
happen to agree with them.
45 In fact, when an Asian
student rejected by Harvard filed a complaint of racial
discrimination with the U.S. Department of Education
earlier this year, the Harvard
Crimson denounced his
charges as “ludicrous,” arguing that student diversity
was a crucial educational goal and that affirmative action
impacted Asians no more than any other applicant
group.
46
The best means of testing this hypothesis would be
to compare Asian admissions with those of a somewhat
similar control group. One obvious candidate
would be the population of elite East Coast WASPs
which once dominated the Ivy League. Members
of this group should also be negatively impacted by
admissions preferences directed towards applicants
from rural or impoverished backgrounds, but there
seems considerable anecdotal evidence that they are
still heavily over-represented in the Ivy League relative
to their academic performance or athletic prowess,
strengthening the suspicion that Asian applicants
are receiving unfair treatment. However, solid statistical
data regarding this elite WASP subpopulation is
almost non-existent, and anyway the boundaries of
the category are quite imprecise and fluid across generations.
For example, the two wealthy Winklevoss
twins of Greenwich, Conn. and Harvard Facebook
Racial Trends for Americans
Age 18-21, 1972-2011
1972 1980 1990 2000 2011
Whites
Blacks
Hispanics
Asians
Other
2 4 T H E A M E R IC A N CON SE RVAT I V E
DECEMBE R 2 0 1 2
Education
fame might appear to be perfect examples of this social
class, but their grandfather actually had an eighthgrade
education and came from a long line of impoverished
coalminers in rural Pennsylvania.
47
Fortunately, an alternate comparison population
is readily available, namely that of American Jews,
48
a group which is both reasonably well-defined and
one which possesses excellent statistical information,
gathered by various Jewish organizations and academic
scholars. In particular, Hillel, the nationwide
Jewish student organization with chapters on most
major university campuses, has for decades been
providing extensive data on Jewish enrollment levels.
Since Karabel’s own historical analysis focuses so very
heavily on Jewish admissions, his book also serves as a
compendium of useful quantitative data drawn from
these and similar sources.
49
Once we begin separating out the Jewish portion
of Ivy League enrollment, our picture of the overall
demographics of the student bodies is completely
transformed. Indeed, Karabel opens the final chapter
of his book by performing exactly this calculation and
noting the extreme irony that the WASP demographic
group which had once so completely dominated
America’s elite universities and “virtually all the major
institutions of American life” had by 2000 become
“a small and beleaguered minority at Harvard,” being
actually fewer in number than the Jews whose presence
they had once sought to restrict.
50 Very similar
results seem to apply all across the Ivy League, with
the disproportion often being even greater than the
particular example emphasized by Karabel.
In fact, Harvard reported that 45.0 percent of its
undergraduates in 2011 were white Americans, but
since Jews were 25 percent of the student body, the
enrollment of non-Jewish whites might have been as
low as 20 percent, though the true figure was probably
somewhat higher.
51 The Jewish levels for Yale and Columbia
were also around 25 percent, while white Gentiles
were 22 percent at the former and just 15 percent
at the latter. The remainder of the Ivy League followed
this same general pattern.
This overrepresentation of Jews is really quite extraordinary,
since the group currently constitutes just
2.1 percent of the general population and about 1.8
percent of college-age Americans.
52 Thus, although
Asian-American high school graduates each year outnumber
their Jewish classmates nearly three-to-one,
American Jews are far more numerous at Harvard and
throughout the Ivy League. Both groups are highly
urbanized, generally affluent, and geographically concentrated
within a few states, so the “diversity” factors
considered above would hardly seem to apply; yet Jews
seem to fare much better at the admissions office.
Even more remarkable are the historical trajectories.
As noted earlier, America’s Asian population
has been growing rapidly over the last couple of
decades, so the substantial decline in reported Ivy
League Asian enrollment has actually constituted a
huge drop relative to their fraction of the population.
Meanwhile, the population of American Jews has
been approximately constant in numbers, and aging
along with the rest of the white population, leading to
a sharp decline in the national proportion of collegeage
Jews, falling from 2.6 percent in 1972 and 2.2 percent
in 1992 to just 1.8 percent in 2012. Nevertheless,
total Jewish enrollment at elite universities has held
constant or actually increased, indicating a large rise
in relative Jewish admissions. In fact, if we aggregate
the reported enrollment figures, we discover that 4
percent of all college-age American Jews are currently
enrolled in the Ivy League, compared to just 1 percent
of Asians and about 0.1 percent of whites of Christian
background.
53
One reasonable explanation for these remarkable
statistics might be that although Asian-Americans
are a high-performing academic group, American
Jews may be far higher-performing, perhaps not unlikely
for an ethnicity that gave the world Einstein,
Freud, and so many other prominent intellectual figures.
Thus, if we assume that our elite universities
reserve a portion of their slots for “diversity” while
allocating the remainder based on “academic merit,”
Jews might be handily beating Asians (and everyone
else) in the latter competition. Indeed, the average
Jewish IQ has been widely reported in the range of
110–115, implying a huge abundance of individuals
at the upper reaches of the distribution of intellect. So
perhaps what had seemed like a clear pattern of anti-
Asian discrimination is actually just the workings of
academic meritocracy, at least when combined with
a fixed allocation of “diversity admissions.”
The easiest means of exploring this hypothesis is to
repeat much of our earlier examination of Asian academic
performance, but now to include Jews as part
of our analysis. Although Jewish names are not quite
as absolutely distinctive as East or South Asian ones,
they can be determined with reasonably good accuracy,
so long as we are careful to note ambiguous cases
and recognize that our estimates may easily be off by
a small amount; furthermore, we can utilize especially
distinctive names as a validation check. But strangely
enough, when we perform this sort of analysis, it becomes
somewhat difficult to locate major current evidence
of the celebrated Jewish intellect and academic
achievement discussed at such considerable length by
D E C EMB E R 2 0 1 2
T H E AME R I C A N C O N S E RVAT I V E 2 5
Karabel and many other authors.
For example, consider California, second only to
New York in the total number of its Jews, and with
its Jewish percentage far above the national average.
Over the last couple of years, blogger Steve Sailer and
some of his commenters have examined the complete
2010 and 2012 NMS semifinalist lists of the 2000 or so
top-scoring California high school seniors for ethnicity,
and discovered that as few as 4–5 percent of the
names seem to be Jewish, a figure not so dramatically
different than the state’s 3.3 percent Jewish population,
and an estimate which I have personally confirmed.
54
Meanwhile, the state’s 13 percent Asians account for
over 57 percent of the top performing students. Thus,
it appears that California Asians are perhaps three
times as likely as Jews to do extremely well on academic
tests, and this result remains unchanged if we
adjust for the age distributions of the two populations.
One means of corroborating these surprising results
is to consider the ratios of particularly distinctive
ethnic names, and Sailer reported such exact findings
made by one of his Jewish readers. For example,
across the 2000-odd top scoring California students
in 2010, there was just a single NMS semifinalist
named Cohen, and also one each for Levy, Kaplan,
and a last name beginning with “Gold.” Meanwhile,
there were 49 Wangs and 36 Kims, plus a vast number
of other highly distinctive Asian names. But according
to Census data, the combined number of
American Cohens and Levys together outnumber the
Wangs almost two-to-one, and the same is true for
the four most common names beginning with “Gold.”
Put another way, California contains nearly one-fifth
of all American Jews, hence almost 60,000 Cohens,
Kaplans, Levys, Goldens, Goldsteins, Goldbergs,
Goldmans, and Golds, and this population produced
only 4 NMS semifinalists, a ratio almost identical to
that produced by our general last name estimates. The
2012 California NMS semifinalist lists yield approximately
the same ratios.
When we consider the apparent number of Jewish
students across the NMS semifinalist lists of other major
states, we get roughly similar results. New York has
always been the center of the American Jewish community,
and at 8.4 percent is half again as heavily Jewish
as any other state, while probably containing a large
fraction of America’s Jewish financial and intellectual
elite. Just as we might expect, the 2011 roster of New
York NMS semifinalists is disproportionately filled
with Jewish names, constituting about 21 percent of the
total, a ratio twice as high as for any other state whose
figures are available. But even here, New York’s smaller
and much less affluent Asian population is far better
represented, providing around 34 percent of the top
scoring students. Jews and Asians are today about equal
in number within New York City but whereas a generation
ago, elite local public schools such as Stuyvesant
were very heavily Jewish, today Jews are outnumbered
at least several times over by Asians.
55
This same pattern of relative Asian and Jewish performance
on aptitude exams generally appears in the
other major states whose recent NMS semifinalist lists
I have located and examined, though there is considerable
individual variability, presumably due to the
particular local characteristics of the Asian and Jewish
populations. Across six years of Florida results,
Asian students are more than twice as likely to be high
scorers compared to their Jewish classmates, with the
disparity being nearly as great in Pennsylvania. The
relative advantage of Asians is a huge factor of 5.0 in
Michigan and 4.1 in Ohio, while in Illinois Asians still
do 150 percent as well as Jews. Among our largest
states, only in Texas is the Asian performance as low
as 120 percent, although Jews are the group that actually
does much better in several smaller states, usually
those in which the Jewish population is tiny.
As noted earlier, NMS semifinalist lists are available
for a total of twenty-five states, including the
eight largest, which together contain 75 percent of
our national population, as well as 81 percent of
American Jews and 80 percent of Asian-Americans,
and across this total population Asians are almost
twice as likely to be top scoring students as Jews.
Extrapolating these results to the nation as a whole
would produce a similar ratio, especially when we
consider that Asian-rich California has among the
toughest NMS semifinalist qualification thresholds.
Meanwhile, the national number of Jewish semifinalists
comes out at less than 6 percent of the total
based on direct inspection of the individual names,
with estimates based on either the particularly distinctive
names considered by Sailer or the full set of
such highly distinctive names used by Weyl yielding
entirely consistent figures. Weyl had also found
this same relative pattern of high Jewish academic
performance being greatly exceeded by even higher
Asian performance, with Koreans and Chinese being
three or four times as likely as Jews to reach NMS
semifinalist status in the late 1980s, though the overall
Asian numbers were still quite small at the time.
56
Earlier we had noted that the tests used to select
NMS semifinalists actually tilted substantially against
Asian students by double-weighting verbal skills and
excluding visuospatial ability, but in the case of Jews
this same testing-bias has exactly the opposite impact.
Jewish ability tends to be exceptionally strong in its
2 6 T H E A M E R IC A N CON SE RVAT I V E
DECEMBE R 2 0 1 2
Education
verbal component and mediocre at best in the visuospatial,
57
so the NMS semifinalist selection methodology
would seem ideally designed to absolutely maximize
the number of high-scoring Jews compared to
other whites or (especially) East Asians. Thus, the
number of high-ability Jews we are finding should be
regarded as an extreme upper bound to a more neutrally-
derived total.
But suppose these estimates are correct, and Asians
overall are indeed twice as likely as Jews to rank
among America’s highest performing students. We
must also consider that America’s Asian population
is far larger in size, representing roughly 5 percent
of college-age students, compared to just 1.8 percent
for Jews. Therefore, assuming an admissions system
based on strictest objective meritocracy, we would expect
our elite academic institutions to contain nearly
five Asians for every Jew; but instead, the Jews are far
more numerous, in some important cases by almost a
factor of two. This raises obvious suspicions about the
fairness of the Ivy League admissions process.
Once again, we can turn to the enrollment figures
for strictly meritocratic Caltech as a test of our estimates.
The campus is located in the Los Angeles area,
home to one of America’s largest and most successful
Jewish communities, and Jews have traditionally
been strongly drawn to the natural sciences. Indeed,
at least three of Caltech’s last six presidents have been
of Jewish origin, and the same is true for two of its
most renowned faculty members, theoretical physics
Nobel Laureates Richard Feynman and Murray Gell-
Mann. But Caltech’s current undergraduates are just
5.5 percent Jewish, and the figure seems to have been
around this level for some years; meanwhile, Asian
enrollment is 39 percent, or seven times larger. It is intriguing
that the school which admits students based
on the strictest, most objective academic standards
has by a very wide margin the lowest Jewish enrollment
for any elite university.
Let us next turn to the five most selective campuses
of the University of California system, whose admissions
standards shifted substantially toward objective
meritocracy following the 1996 passage of Prop. 209.
The average Jewish enrollment is just over 8 percent,
or roughly one-third that of the 25 percent found at
Harvard and most of the Ivy League, whose admissions
standards are supposedly far tougher. Meanwhile,
some 40 percent of the students on these UC
campuses are Asian, a figure almost five times as high.
Once again, almost no elite university in the country
has a Jewish enrollment as low as the average for these
highly selective UC campuses.
58
Another interesting example is MIT, whose students
probably rank fifth in academic strength, just below the
three HYP schools and Caltech, and whose admissions
standards are far closer to a meritocratic ideal than is
found in most elite schools, though perhaps not quite
as pristine as those of its Caltech rival. Karabel notes
that MIT has always had a far more meritocratic admissions
system than nearby Harvard, tending to draw
those students who were academic stars even if socially
undistinguished. As an example, in the 1930s Feynman
had been rejected by his top choice of Columbia
possibly due to its Jewish quota, and instead enrolled
at MIT.
59 But today, MIT’s enrollment is just 9 percent
Jewish, a figure lower than that anywhere in the Ivy
League, while Asians are nearly three times as numerous,
despite the school being located in one of the most
heavily Jewish parts of the country.
The Strange Collapse of Jewish
Academic Achievement
From my own perspective, I found these statistical results
surprising, even shocking.
I had always been well aware of the very heavy Jewish
presence at elite academic institutions. But the
underwhelming percentage of Jewish students who
today achieve high scores on academic aptitude tests
was totally unexpected, and very different from the
impressions I had formed during my own high school
and college years a generation or so ago. An examination
of other available statistics seems to support my
recollections and provides evidence for a dramatic recent
decline in the academic performance of American
Jews
The U.S. Math Olympiad began in 1974, and all the
names of the top scoring students are easily available
on the Internet. During the 1970s, well over 40 percent
of the total were Jewish, and during the 1980s
and 1990s, the fraction averaged about one-third.
However, during the thirteen years since 2000, just
two names out of 78 or 2.5 percent appear to be Jewish.
The Putnam Exam is the most difficult and prestigious
mathematics competition for American college
students, with five or six Putnam winners having
been selected each year since 1938. Over 40 percent
of the Putnam winners prior to 1950 were Jewish,
and during every decade from the 1950s through the
1990s, between 22 percent and 31 percent of the winners
seem to have come from that same ethnic background.
But since 2000, the percentage has dropped
to under 10 percent, without a single likely Jewish
name in the last seven years.
This consistent picture of stark ethnic decline recurs
D E C EMB E R 2 0 1 2
T H E AME R I C A N C O N S E RVAT I V E 2 7
when we examine the statistics for the Science Talent
Search, which has been selecting 40 students as
national finalists for America’s most prestigious high
school science award since 1942, thus providing a
huge statistical dataset of over 2800 top science students.
During every decade from the 1950s through
the 1980s, Jewish students were consistently 22–23
percent of the recipients, with the percentage then declining
to 17 percent in the 1990s, 15 percent in the
2000s, and just 7 percent since 2010. Indeed, of the
thirty top ranked students over the last three years,
only a single one seems likely to have been Jewish.
Similarly, Jews were over one-quarter of the top students
in the Physics Olympiad from 1986 to 1997,
but have fallen to just 5 percent over the last decade, a
result which must surely send Richard Feynman spinning
in his grave.
Other science competitions provide generally consistent
recent results, though without the long track
record allowing useful historical comparisons. Over
the last dozen years, just 8 percent of the top students
in the Biology Olympiad have been Jewish, with none
in the last three years. Between 1992 and 2012, only
11 percent of the winners of the Computing Olympiad
had Jewish names, as did just 8 percent of the
Siemens AP Award winners. And although I have
only managed to locate the last two years of Chemistry
Olympiad winners, these lists of 40 top students
contained not a single probable Jewish name.
Further evidence is supplied by Weyl, who estimated
that over 8 percent of the 1987 NMS semifinalists
were Jewish,
60 a figure 35 percent higher than found in
today’s results. Moreover, in that period the math and
verbal scores were weighted equally for qualification
purposes, but after 1997 the verbal score was doubleweighted,
61
which should have produced a large rise in
the number of Jewish semifinalists, given the verballoading
of Jewish ability. But instead, today’s Jewish
numbers are far below those of the late 1980s.
Taken in combination, these trends all provide
powerful evidence that over the last decade or more
there has been a dramatic collapse in Jewish academic
achievement, at least at the high end.
Several possible explanations for this empirical result
seem reasonably plausible. Although the innate potential
of a group is unlikely to drop so suddenly, achievement
is a function of both ability and effort, and today’s
overwhelmingly affluent Jewish students may be far
less diligent in their work habits or driven in their studies
than were their parents or grandparents, who lived
much closer to the bracing challenges of the immigrant
experience. In support of this hypothesis, roughly half
of the Jewish Math Olympiad winners from the last two
decades have had the sort of highly distinctive names
which would tend to mark them as recent immigrants
from the Soviet Union or elsewhere, and such names
were also very common among the top Jewish science
students of the same period, even though this group
represents only about 10 percent of current American
Jews. Indeed, it seems quite possible that this large sudden
influx of very high performing immigrant Jews
from the late 1980s onward served to partially mask
the rapid concurrent decline of high academic achievement
among native American Jews, which otherwise
would have become much more clearly evident a decade
or so earlier.
This pattern of third or fourth generation American
students lacking the academic drive or intensity
of their forefathers is hardly surprising, nor unique
to Jews. Consider the case of Japanese-Americans,
who mostly arrived in America during roughly the
same era. America’s Japanese have always been a
high-performing group, with a strong academic
tradition, and Japan’s international PISA academic
scores are today among the highest in the world. But
when we examine the list of California’s NMS semifinalists,
less than 1 percent of the names are Japanese,
roughly in line with their share of the California
population.
62 Meanwhile, Chinese, Koreans, and
South Asians are 6 percent of California but contribute
50 percent of the top scoring students, an eightfold
better result, with a major likely difference being
that they are overwhelmingly of recent immigrant
origin. In fact, although ongoing Japanese immigration
has been trivial in size, a significant fraction of
the top Japanese students have the unassimilated
Japanese first names that would tend to indicate they
are probably drawn from that tiny group.
In his 1966 book
The Creative Elite in America,
Weyl used last name analysis to document a similarly
remarkable collapse in achievement among America’s
Puritan-descended population, which had once
provided a hugely disproportionate fraction of our
intellectual leadership, but for various reasons went
into rapid decline from about 1900 onward. He also
mentions the disappearance of the remarkable Scottish
intellectual contribution to British life after about
1800. Although the evidence for both these historical
parallels seems very strong, the causal factors are not
entirely clear, though Weyl does provide some possible
explanations.
63
In some respects, perhaps it was the enormously
outsize Jewish academic performance of the past
which was highly anomalous, and the more recent
partial convergence toward white European norms
which is somewhat less surprising. Over the years,
2 8 T H E A M E R IC A N CON SE RVAT I V E
DECEMBE R 2 0 1 2
Education
claims have been widely circulated that the mean Jewish
IQ is a full standard deviation—15 points—above
the white average of 100,
64 but this seems to have little
basis in reality. Richard Lynn, one of the world’s
foremost IQ experts, has performed an exhaustive
literature review and located some 32 IQ samples of
American Jews, taken from 1920 to 2008. For the first
14 studies conducted during the years 1920–1937, the
Jewish IQ came out very close to the white American
mean, and it was only in later decades that the average
figure rose to the approximate range of 107–111.
65
In a previous article “Race, IQ & Wealth,” I had suggested
that the IQs of ethnic groups appear to be far
more malleable than many people would acknowledge,
and may be particularly influenced by factors
of urbanization, education, and affluence.
66 Given
that Jews have always been America’s most heavily
urbanized population and became the most affluent
during the decades in question, these factors may account
for a substantial portion of their huge IQ rise
during most of the twentieth century. But with modern
electronic technology recently narrowing the gaps
in social environment and educational opportunities
between America’s rural and urban worlds, we might
expect a portion of this difference to gradually dissipate.
American Jews are certainly a high-ability population,
but the innate advantage they have over other
high-ability white populations is probably far smaller
than is widely believed.
This conclusion is supported by the General Social
Survey (GSS), an online dataset of tens of thousands
of American survey responses from the last forty years
which includes the Wordsum vocabulary test, a very
useful IQ proxy correlating at 0.71. Converted into the
corresponding IQ scores, the Wordsum-IQ of Jews is
indeed quite high at 109. But Americans of English,
Welsh, Scottish, Swedish, and Catholic Irish ancestry
also have fairly high mean IQs of 104 or above, and
their combined populations outnumber Jews by almost
15-to-1, implying that they would totally dominate
the upper reaches of the white American ability
distribution, even if we excluded the remaining twothirds
of all American whites, many of whose IQs are
also fairly high. Furthermore, all these groups are far
less highly urbanized or affluent than Jews,
67 probably
indicating that their scores are still artificially
depressed to some extent. We should also remember
that Jewish intellectual performance tends to be
quite skewed, being exceptionally strong in the verbal
subcomponent, much lower in math, and completely
mediocre in visuospatial ability; thus, a completely
verbal-oriented test such as Wordsum would actually
tend to exaggerate Jewish IQ.
Stratifying the white American population along
religious lines produces similar conclusions. An
analysis of the data from the National Longitudinal
Survey of Youth found that Americans raised in the
Episcopal Church actually exceeded Jews in mean
IQ, while several other religious categories came
quite close, leading to the result that the overwhelming
majority of America’s high-ability white population
had a non-Jewish background.
68
Finally, in the case of Jews, these assimilation- or
environment-related declines in relative academic
performance may have been reinforced by powerful
demographic trends. For the last generation or two,
typical Jewish women from successful or even ordinary
families have married very late and averaged little
more than a single child, while the small fraction of
Jewish women who are ultra-Orthodox often marry in
their teens and then produce seven or eight children.
69
As a consequence, this extremely religious subpopulation
has been doubling in size every twenty years, and
now easily exceeds 10 percent of the total, including a
far higher percentage of younger Jews. But ultra-Orthodox
Jews have generally been academically mediocre,
often with enormously high rates of poverty and
government dependency.
70 Therefore, the combination
of these two radically different trends of Jewish
reproduction has acted to stabilize the total number of
Jewish youngsters, while probably producing a sharp
drop in their average academic achievement.
Meritocracy vs. Jews
Although the relative importance of these individual
factors behind Jewish academic decline is unclear, the
decline itself seems an unmistakable empirical fact,
and the widespread unawareness of this fact has had
important social consequences.
My casual mental image of today’s top American
students is based upon my memories of a generation
or so ago, when Jewish students, sometimes including
myself, regularly took home a quarter or more of
the highest national honors on standardized tests or
in prestigious academic competitions; thus, it seemed
perfectly reasonable that Harvard and most of the
other Ivy League schools might be 25 percent Jewish,
based on meritocracy. But the objective evidence indicates
that in present day America, only about 6 percent
of our top students are Jewish, which now renders such
very high Jewish enrollments at elite universities totally
absurd and ridiculous. I strongly suspect that a similar
time lag effect is responsible for the apparent confusion
in many others who have considered the topic.
D E C EMB E R 2 0 1 2
T H E AME R I C A N C O N S E RVAT I V E 2 9
For example, throughout his very detailed book,
Karabel always seems to automatically identify increasing
Jewish enrollments with academic meritocracy,
and Jewish declines with bias or discrimination,
retaining this assumption even when his discussion
moves into the 1990s and 2000s. He was born in 1950,
graduated Harvard in 1972, and returned there to
earn his Ph.D. in 1977, so this may indeed have been
the reality during his formative years.
71 But he seems
strikingly unaware that the world has changed since
then, and that over the last decade or two, meritocracy
and Jewish numbers have become opposing forces:
the stricter the meritocratic standard, the fewer the
Jews admitted.
Most of my preceding analysis has focused on the
comparison of Asians with Jews, and I have pointed
out that based on factors of objective academic
performance and population size, we would expect
Asians to outnumber Jews by perhaps five to one at
our top national universities; instead, the total Jewish
numbers across the Ivy League are actually 40
percent higher. This implies that Jewish enrollment
is roughly 600 percent greater relative to Asians than
should be expected under a strictly meritocratic admissions
system.
Obviously, all these types of analysis may be applied
just as easily to a comparison of Jews with non-Jewish
whites, and the results turn out to be equally striking.
The key factor is that although Jewish academic
achievement has apparently plummeted in recent decades,
non-Jewish whites seem to have remained relatively
unchanged in their performance, which might
be expected in such a large and diverse population.
As a consequence, the relative proportions of topperforming
students have undergone a dramatic shift.
We must bear in mind that the official U.S. Census
category of “Non-Hispanic white” (which I will
henceforth label “white”) is something of an ethnic
hodgepodge, encompassing all the various white European
ancestry groups, as well as a substantial admixture
of North Africans, Middle Easterners, Iranians,
Turks, Armenians, and Afghans. It amounts
to everyone who is not black, Hispanic, Asian, or
American Indian, and currently includes an estimated
63 percent of all Americans.
Determining the number of whites among NMS
semifinalists or winners of various academic competitions
is relatively easy. Both Asian and Hispanic
names are quite distinctive, and their numbers can
be estimated by the methods already discussed.
Meanwhile, blacks are substantially outnumbered
by Hispanics and they have much weaker academic
performance, so they would produce far fewer very
high scoring students. Therefore, we can approximate
the number of whites by merely subtracting the
number of Asian and Hispanic names as well as an
estimated black total based on the latter figure, and
then determine the number of white Gentiles by also
subtracting the Jewish total.
Once we do this and compare the Jewish and non-
Jewish white totals for various lists of top academic
performers, we notice a striking pattern, with the
historical ratios once ranging from near-equality
to about one-in-four up until the recent collapse
in Jewish performance. For example, among Math
Olympiad winners, white Gentiles scarcely outnumbered
Jews during the 1970s, and held only a threeto-
two edge during the 1980s and 1990s, but since
2000 have become over fifteen times as numerous.
Between 1938 and 1999, Putnam Exam winners had
averaged about two white Gentiles for every Jew,
with the ratios for each decade oscillating between
1.5 and 3.0, then rising to nearly 5-to-1 during 2001–
2005, and without a single Jewish name on the winner
list from 2006 onward.
The elite science competitions follow a broadly
similar pattern. Non-Jewish whites had only outnumbered
Jews 2-to-1 among the Physics Olympiad winners
during 1986–1997, but the ratio rose to at least
7-to-1 during 2002–2012. Meanwhile, white Gentiles
were more numerous by nearly 6-to-1 among 1992–
2012 Computing Olympiad winners, 4-to-1 among
the 2002–2011 Siemens AP Award winners, and over
3-to-1 among 2003–2012 Biology Olympiad champions.
Across the sixty-odd years of America’s Science
Talent Search, Jews had regularly been named finalists
at a relative rate fifteen- or even twenty-times that of
their white Gentile classmates, but over the last decade
or so, this has dropped by half.
The evidence of the recent NMS semifinalist lists
seems the most conclusive of all, given the huge statistical
sample sizes involved. As discussed earlier,
these students constitute roughly the highest 0.5 percent
in academic ability, the top 16,000 high school
seniors who should be enrolling at the Ivy League
and America’s other most elite academic universities.
In California, white Gentile names outnumber
Jewish ones by over 8-to-1; in Texas, over 20-to-1;
in Florida and Illinois, around 9-to-1. Even in New
York, America’s most heavily Jewish state, there are
more than two high-ability white Gentile students
for every Jewish one. Based on the overall distribution
of America’s population, it appears that approximately
65–70 percent of America’s highest ability
students are non-Jewish whites, well over ten times
the Jewish total of under 6 percent.
3 0 T H E A M E R IC A N CON SE RVAT I V E
DECEMBE R 2 0 1 2
Education
Period N/J White Asian Jewish
2002–2011 31% 61% 8%
U.S. Math Olympiad Teams
Competition
N/J White Asian Jewish
Computing, 1992–2012
62% 27% 11%
Biology, 2003–2012
25% 68% 8%
Chemistry, 2011–2012
10% 90% 0%
U.S. Physics Olympiad Winners
College Putnam Math Winners
Science Olympiad Winners
Siemens Science AP Winners
Science Talent Search Finalists
Period N/J White Asian Jewish
1940s 83% 0% 17%
1950s 78% 1% 22%
1960s 76% 1% 23%
1970s 70% 8% 22%
1980s 55% 22% 23%
1990s 54% 29% 17%
2000s 49% 36% 15%
2010s 29% 64% 7%
0
20
40
60
80
100%
0
20
40
60
80
100%
0
20
40
60
80
100%
0
20
40
60
80
100%
0
20
40
60
80
100%
1970
-74 1975-79 1980-84 1985-89 1990-94 1995-99 2000-04 2005-09 2010-12
1938
-42 1950-54 1960-64 1970-74 1980-84 1990-94 2000-04 2010-12
1986
-89 1990-94 1995-99 2000-04 2005-09 2010-12
Computing,
1992-2012
Biology,
2003-2012
Chemistry,
2011-2012
1940
s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s
N/J White
Asians
Jewish
Period N/J White Asian Jewish
1970s 56% 0% 44%
1980s 54% 9% 37%
1990s 45% 27% 28%
2000s 43% 53% 3%
2010s 28% 72% 0%
Period N/J White Asian Jewish
1938–49 59% 0% 41%
1950s 66% 3% 31%
1960s 76% 2% 22%
1970s 69% 0% 31%
1980s 75% 2% 24%
1990s 44% 24% 31%
2000s 52% 37% 12%
2010s 50% 50% 0%
Period N/J White Asian Jewish
1980s 49% 23% 28%
1990s 55% 25% 20%
2000s 46% 46% 9%
2010s 14% 81% 5%
D E C EMB E R 2 0 1 2
T H E AME R I C A N C O N S E RVAT I V E 3 1
State/Years Total
(2011) N/J White Asian Jewish
Alabama/2008, 2010 208 83% 14% 2%
Arizona/2013 342 68% 26% 5%
California/2010, 2012 1,999 37% 58% 4%
Colorado/2012, 2013 256 78% 14% 7%
Florida/2008-13 867 74% 13% 8%
Illinois/2011-2013 693 71% 21% 8%
Indiana/2010, 2012-13 327 75% 18% 5%
Iowa/2011 191 80% 15% 4%
Kansas/2011 159 87% 9% 4%
Louisiana/2013 190 76% 19% 5%
Maryland/2010 327 57% 32% 11%
Michigan/2012, 2013 570 68% 30% 2%
Minnesota/2010, 2011 318 81% 13% 6%
Missouri/2011 344 87% 11% 2%
Nevada/2010, 2011 85 67% 20% 9%
New Mexico/2011 99 76% 11% 6%
New York/2011, 2012 957 45% 34% 21%
Ohio/2012, 2013 642 76% 20% 4%
Oklahoma/2008 187 83% 14% 3%
Pennsylvania/2012 700 72% 20% 9%
Tennessee/2010 279 80% 17% 2%
Texas/2010 1,344 68% 28% 3%
Virginia/2009 411 74% 19% 6%
Washington/2013 344 64% 31% 5%
Wisconsin/2012 324 87% 11% 3%
Eight Largest States 7,772 60% 33% 7%
25 State Aggregate 12,163 65% 28% 6%
National (estimated)
16,317 65-70% 25-30% 6%
Elite University Undergraduate Enrollments, 2007-2011
Recent NMS Semifinalists for Available States
University Non-Jewish
White
Asian Unknown
Race
Jewish
Harvard 18% 16% 12% 26%
Yale 20% 14% 11% 26%
Princeton 37% 16% 5% 13%
Brown 22% 15% 12% 24%
Columbia 15% 16% 10% 25%
Cornell 24% 16% 14% 23%
Dartmouth 42% 14% 6% 11%
Penn 17% 18% 13% 27%
All Ivy League
23% 16% 11% 23%
Caltech 33% 39% 2% 6%
MIT 27% 25% 6% 9%
Stanford 28% 21% 4% 10%
UC Berkeley 21% 40% 7% 10%
UCLA 24% 37% 4% 9%
Non-Jewis
h White
Asian
Jewish
Non-Jewis
h White
Asian
Unknow
n Race
Jewish
National
Average
6%
26.5%
66.5%
Harvar
d Yale Princeton All Ivy Caltech
0
20
40
60
80%
CA FL IL MI NY OH PA TX
E
ight Largest States,
b
y Percentage
Source: Appendices C-F
3 2 T H E A M E R IC A N CON SE RVAT I V E
DECEMBE R 2 0 1 2
Education
Needless to say, these proportions are considerably
different from what we actually find among the admitted
students at Harvard and its elite peers, which
today serve as a direct funnel to the commanding
heights of American academics, law, business, and
finance. Based on reported statistics, Jews approximately
match or even outnumber non-Jewish whites
at Harvard and most of the other Ivy League schools,
which seems wildly disproportionate. Indeed, the official
statistics indicate that non-Jewish whites at Harvard
are America’s most under-represented population
group, enrolled at a much lower fraction of their
national population than blacks or Hispanics, despite
having far higher academic test scores.
W
hen examining statistical evidence, the proper
aggregation of data is critical. Consider the
ratio of the recent 2007–2011 enrollment of Asian
students at Harvard relative to their estimated share
of America’s recent NMS semifinalists, a reasonable
proxy for the high-ability college-age population, and
compare this result to the corresponding figure for
whites. The Asian ratio is 63 percent, slightly above
the white ratio of 61 percent, with both these figures
being considerably below parity due to the substantial
presence of under-represented racial minorities
such as blacks and Hispanics, foreign students, and
students of unreported race. Thus, there appears to
be no evidence for racial bias against Asians, even
excluding the race-neutral impact of athletic recruitment,
legacy admissions, and geographical diversity.
However, if we separate out the Jewish students, their
ratio turns out to be 435 percent, while the residual ratio
for non-Jewish whites drops to just 28 percent, less
than half of even the Asian figure. As a consequence,
Asians appear under-represented relative to Jews by
a factor of seven, while non-Jewish whites are by far
the most under-represented group of all, despite any
benefits they might receive from athletic, legacy, or
geographical distribution factors. The rest of the Ivy
League tends to follow a similar pattern, with the overall
Jewish ratio being 381 percent, the Asian figure at
62 percent, and the ratio for non-Jewish whites a low
35 percent, all relative to their number of high-ability
college-age students.
Just as striking as these wildly disproportionate
current numbers have been the longer enrollment
trends. In the three decades since I graduated Harvard,
the presence of white Gentiles has dropped by
as much as 70 percent, despite no remotely comparable
decline in the relative size or academic performance
of that population; meanwhile, the percentage
of Jewish students has actually increased. This
period certainly saw a very rapid rise in the number
of Asian, Hispanic, and foreign students, as well as
some increase in blacks. But it seems rather odd that
all of these other gains would have come at the expense
of whites of Christian background, and none
at the expense of Jews.
Furthermore, the Harvard enrollment changes
over the last decade have been even more unusual
when we compare them to changes in the underlying
demographics. Between 2000 and 2011, the relative
percentage of college-age blacks enrolled at Harvard
dropped by 18 percent, along with declines of 13 percent
for Asians and 11 percent for Hispanics, while
only whites increased, expanding their relative enrollment
by 16 percent. However, this is merely an optical
illusion: in fact, the figure for non-Jewish whites
slightly declined, while the relative enrollment of Jews
increased by over 35 percent, probably reaching the
highest level in Harvard’s entire history. Thus, the
relative presence of Jews rose sharply while that of all
other groups declined, and this occurred during exactly
the period when the once-remarkable academic
performance of Jewish high school students seemed
to suddenly collapse.
Most of the other Ivy League schools appear to
follow a fairly similar trajectory. Between 1980 and
2011, the official figures indicate that non-Jewish
white enrollment dropped by 63 percent at Yale, 44
percent at Princeton, 52 percent at Dartmouth, 69
percent at Columbia, 62 percent at Cornell, 66 percent
at Penn, and 64 percent at Brown. If we confine
our attention to the last decade or so, the relative proportion
of college-age non-Jewish whites enrolled at
Yale has dropped 23 percent since 2000, with drops
of 28 percent at Princeton, 18 percent at Dartmouth,
19 percent at Columbia and Penn, 24 percent at Cornell,
and 23 percent at Brown. For most of these universities,
non-white groups have followed a mixed
pattern, mostly increasing but with some substantial
drops. I have only located yearly Jewish enrollment
percentages back to 2006, but during the six years
since then, there is a uniform pattern of often substantial
rises: increases of roughly 25 percent at Yale,
45 percent at Columbia, 10 percent at Cornell, 15
percent at Brown, and no declines anywhere.
Fourteen years ago I published a widely-discussed
column in the
Wall Street Journal highlighting some
of the absurdities of our affirmative action system
in higher education.
72 In particular, I pointed out
that although Jews and Asians then totaled merely 5
percent of the American population, they occupied
nearly 50 percent of the slots at Harvard and most of
the other elite Ivies, while non-Jewish whites were left
D E C EMB E R 2 0 1 2
T H E AME R I C A N C O N S E RVAT I V E 3 3
0
300
600
900
1,200
1,500%
Jewish Enrollment at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, 1900–2012
1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2012
Yale
Harvard
Princeton
Parity
E
lite University Enrollment
Ratios 2
007–2011
Relative to High Ability Students Age 18–21
0%
100% 200% 300% 400%
Harvard
Yale
Princeton
Columbia
Dartmouth
Cornell
Brown
Penn
Stanford
MIT
Caltech
Berkeley
UCLA
Elite
University Enrollment
Rat
ios 2007–11
Relative to
Total Age 18–21 Population
Jewish
Asian
N/J White
NJW+A
Jewish
Asian
N/J White
Hispanic
Black
Note that the ethnic en
rollment ratios for Berkeley and UCLA are based on the national demographics, but their students are primarily drawn from within California, whose racial
distribution is very diffe
rent: the white student population is half the national average, while Asians and Hispanics are more numerous by a factor of two, implying different parity
ratios. The underlying data for these charts is drawn f
rom Appendix H.
0% 300% 600% 900%
1,200%
Per
cent of Parity
3 4 T H E A M E R IC A N CON SE RVAT I V E
DECEMBE R 2 0 1 2
Education
as the most under-represented student population,
with relative numbers below those of blacks or Hispanics.
Since then Jewish academic achievement has
seemingly collapsed but relative Jewish enrollment in
the Ivies has generally risen, while the exact opposite
combination has occurred for both Asians and non-
Jewish whites. I find this a strange and unexpected
development.
I
t is important to recognize that all of these enrollment
statistics are far less precise than we might
ideally desire. As mentioned earlier, over the last
couple of decades widespread perceptions of racial
bias in admissions have led a significant number of
students to refuse to reveal their race, which the official
statistics classify as “race unknown.” This group
almost certainly consists of Asians and whites, but it
is impossible for us to determine the relative proportions,
and without this information our above estimates
can only be approximate.
Similarly, nearly all our figures on Jewish enrollment
were ultimately drawn from the estimates of
Hillel, the national Jewish campus organization, and
these are obviously approximate. However, the Hillel
data is the best we possess for recent decades, and
is regularly used by the
New York Times and other
prominent media outlets, while also serving as the basis
for much of Karabel’s award-winning scholarship.
Furthermore, so long as any latent bias in the data
remained relatively constant, we could still correctly
analyze changes over time.
For these sorts of reasons, any of the individual figures
provided above should be treated with great caution,
but the overall pattern of enrollments—statistics
compiled over years and decades and across numerous
different universities—seems likely to provide an
accurate description of reality.
Elite Colleges Look Neither Like
America Nor Like America’s
Highest-Ability Students
We are therefore faced with the clear conundrum that
Jewish students seem to constitute roughly 6 percent
of America’s highest-ability high school graduates and
non-Jewish whites around 65–70 percent, but these
relative ratios differ by perhaps 1000 percent from
the enrollments we actually find at Harvard and the
other academic institutions which select America’s
future elites. Meanwhile, an ethnic distribution much
closer to this apparent ability-ratio is found at Caltech,
whose admissions are purely meritocratic, unlike the
completely opaque, subjective, and discretionary Ivy
League system so effectively described by Karabel,
Golden, and others.
One obvious explanatory factor is that the Ivy League
is located in the Northeast, a region of the country in
which the Jewish fraction of the population is more
than twice the national average. However, these schools
also constitute America’s leading national universities,
so their geographical intake is quite broad, with
Harvard drawing less than 40 percent of its American
students from its own region, and the others similarly
tending to have a nationally distributed enrollment. So
this factor would probably explain only a small portion
of the discrepancy. Furthermore, MIT utilizes a considerably
more meritocratic and objective admissions
system than Harvard, and although located just a few
miles away has a ratio of Jewish to non-Jewish whites
which differs by nearly a factor of four in favor of the
latter compared to its crosstown rival.
By the late 1960s Jewish students had become a substantial
fraction of most Ivy League schools and today
some of their children may be benefiting from legacies.
But until about twenty-five years ago, white Gentiles
outnumbered their Jewish classmates perhaps as
much as 3-to-1, so if anything we might expect the
admissions impact of legacies to still favor the former
group. Anyway, the research of Espenshade and his
colleagues have shown that being a legacy provides an
admissions advantage in the range of 19–26 percent,
73
while we are attempting to explain enrollment differences
of roughly 1000 percent.
American Jews are certainly more affluent than
most other groups, but all Ivy League universities
admit their American students on a “need-blind” basis,
so perceptions of ability to pay cannot be a factor,
even if any evidence existed that Jewish applicants
were actually wealthier than their non-Jewish counterparts.
Many Jewish alumni are very generous to
their alma maters, but so are non-Jews, and indeed
nine of the ten largest university donations in history
have come from non-Jewish individuals, nearly all in
the last fifteen years;
74 thus, mercenary hopes of large
future bequests would probably not be influencing
these skewed admissions.
Perhaps Jews simply apply to these schools in far
greater relative numbers, with successful, educationally-
ambitious Jewish families being much more likely to
encourage their bright children to aim at the Ivies than
the parents of equally bright non-Jews. However, since
these elite schools release no information regarding
the ethnic or racial skew of their applications, we have
no evidence for this hypothesis. And why would highability
non-Jews be 600 percent or 800 percent more
D E C EMB E R 2 0 1 2
T H E AME R I C A N C O N S E RVAT I V E 3 5
likely to apply to Caltech and MIT than to those other
elite schools, which tend to have a far higher national
profile?
Anyway, the numbers alone render this explanation
implausible. Each year, the Ivy League colleges enroll
almost 10,000 American whites and Asians, of whom
over 3000 are Jewish. Meanwhile, each year the NMS
Corporation selects and publicly names America’s
highest-ability 16,000 graduating seniors; of these,
fewer than 1000 are Jewish, while almost 15,000 are
non-Jewish whites and Asians. Even if every single one
of these high-ability Jewish students applied to and enrolled
at the Ivy League—with none going to any of
America’s other 3000 colleges—Ivy League admissions
officers are obviously still dipping rather deep into
the lower reaches of the Jewish ability-pool, instead
of easily drawing from some 15,000 other publicly
identified candidates of far greater ability but different
ethnicity. Why would these universities not simply
send out inexpensive mailings to these 15,000 top
students, encouraging them to apply, especially since
their geographical, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds
might help to considerably “diversify” undergraduate
enrollments, while greatly raising the average student
test scores by which these universities supposedly live
or die in the competitive college-rankings.
The situation becomes even stranger when we focus
on Harvard, which this year accepted fewer than
6 percent of over 34,000 applicants and whose offers
of admission are seldom refused. Each Harvard class
includes roughly 400 Jews and 800 Asians and non-
Jewish whites; this total represents over 40 percent of
America’s highest-ability Jewish students, but merely
5 percent of their equally high-ability non-Jewish
peers. It is quite possible that a larger percentage of
these top Jewish students apply and decide to attend
than similar members from these other groups, but it
seems wildly implausible that such causes could account
for roughly an eight-fold difference in apparent
admissions outcome. Harvard’s stated “holistic”
admissions policy explicitly takes into account numerous
personal characteristics other than straight
academic ability, including sports and musical talent.
But it seems very unlikely that any remotely neutral
application of these principles could produce admissions
results whose ethnic skew differs so widely from
the underlying meritocratic ratios.
One datapoint strengthening this suspicion of admissions
bias has been the plunge in the number of
Harvard’s entering National Merit Scholars, a particularly
select ability group, which dropped by almost
40 percent between 2002 and 2011, falling from 396
to 248. This exact period saw a collapse in Jewish
academic achievement combined with a sharp rise
in Jewish Harvard admissions, which together might
easily help to explain Harvard’s strange decline in this
important measure of highest student quality.
Harvard could obviously fill its entire class with
high-scoring valedictorians or National Merit Scholars
but chooses not to do so. In 2003, Harvard rejected
well over half of all applicants with perfect
SAT scores, up from rejecting a quarter a few years
earlier, and in 2010 Princeton acknowledged it also
admitted only about half.
75 According to Harvard’s
dean of admissions, “With the SAT, small differences
of 50 or 100 points or more have no significant effect
on admissions decisions.”
76 In fact, a former Senior
Admissions Officer at Harvard has claimed that by
the mid-2000s as few as 5 percent of the students at
highly selective universities such as his own were admitted
purely based on academic merit.
77
It is important to note that these current rejection
rates of top scoring applicants are vastly higher than
during the 1950s or 1960s, when Harvard admitted
six of every seven such students and Princeton adopted
a 1959 policy in which no high scoring applicant
could be refused admission without a detailed
review by a faculty committee.
78 An obvious indication
of Karabel’s obtuseness is that he describes and
condemns the anti-meritocratic policies of the past
without apparently noticing that they have actually
become far worse today. An admissions framework
in which academic merit is not the prime consideration
may be directly related to the mystery of why
Harvard’s ethnic skew differs in such extreme fashion
from that of America’s brightest graduating seniors.
In fact, Harvard’s apparent preference for academically
weak Jewish applicants seems to be reflected in
their performance once they arrive on campus.
79
H
aving considered and largely eliminated these
several possible explanatory factors, we can
only speculate as to the true causes of such seemingly
anomalous enrollment statistics at our Ivy League
universities. However, we cannot completely exclude
the possible explanation that these other top students
are simply not wanted at such elite institutions, perhaps
because their entrance in large numbers might
drastically transform the current ethnic and cultural
mix. After all, Karabel devoted hundreds of pages of
his text to documenting exactly this pattern of Ivy
League admissions behavior during the 1920s and
1930s, so why should we be surprised if it continues
today, at least at an unconscious level, but simply with
the polarities reversed?
It would be unreasonable to ignore the salient fact
3 6 T H E A M E R IC A N CON SE RVAT I V E
DECEMBE R 2 0 1 2
that this massive apparent bias in favor of far lessqualified
Jewish applicants coincides with an equally
massive ethnic skew at the topmost administrative
ranks of the universities in question, a situation which
once again exactly parallels Karabel’s account from the
1920s. Indeed, Karabel points out that by 1993 Harvard,
Yale, and Princeton all had presidents of Jewish
ancestry,
80 and the same is true for the current presidents
of Yale, Penn, Cornell, and possibly Columbia,
as well as Princeton’s president throughout during the
1990s and Yale’s new incoming president, while all
three of Harvard’s most recent presidents have either
had Jewish origins or a Jewish spouse.
81
At most universities, a provost is the second-ranking
official, being responsible for day-to-day academic
operations. Although Princeton’s current president is
not Jewish, all seven of the most recent Princeton provosts
stretching back to 1977 have had such ancestry,
with several of the other Ivies not being far behind.
82 A
similar degree of massive overrepresentation is found
throughout the other top administrative ranks of the
rest of the Ivy League, and across American leading
educational institutions in general, and these are the
institutions which select our future national elites.
I have not the slightest reason to doubt that the overwhelming
majority of these individuals are honest and
sincere, and attempt to do their best for their institutions
and their students. But as our liberal intellectual elites
regularly emphasize, unconscious biases or shared assumptions
can become a huge but unnoticed problem
when decision-making occurs within a very narrow
circle, whose extreme “non-diversity” may lead to lack
of introspection, and what else can be said when for the
last two decades almost all of the leaders of our most elite
universities have been drawn from an ethnic community
constituting just 2 percent of America’s population?
As a perfect example of such a situation, consider
an amusing incident from the mid-1980s, when Asian
groups first noticed a sharp decline in Asian admissions
rates to Harvard and accused the university of
having begun a quiet effort to restrict Asian numbers,
criticism which was vigorously resisted by senior Harvard
officials. During this period, Henry Rosovsky,
Harvard’s Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences
(and later Acting President), referred to Asian American
students as “no doubt the most over-represented
group in the university.”
83 At that point, Harvard’s
Asian students were enrolled at 300 percent of parity,
while those of Rosovsky’s own ethnicity were probably
at 900 percent or more of parity.
84
Unconscious biases may become especially serious
when combined with an admissions system based on
the extreme flexibility and subjectivity that exists at
these colleges. As mentioned, three of Caltech’s last six
presidents have been of Jewish origins, but the objective
admissions system has produced no sign of ethnic
favoritism, and largely meritocratic MIT also seems
unaffected by having had two Jewish presidents of
the last five.
85 But when machinery already exists for
admitting or rejecting whomever a university wishes,
on any grounds whatsoever, that machinery may be
unconsciously steered in a particular direction by the
shared group biases of the individuals controlling it.
The Disturbing Reality of the
Elite College Admission System
Perhaps the most detailed statistical research into the
actual admissions practices of American universities
has been conducted by Princeton sociology professor
Thomas J. Espenshade and his colleagues, whose results
were summarized in his 2009 book
No Longer
Separate, Not Yet Equal
, co-authored with Alexandria
Walton Radford. Their findings provide an empirical
look at the individual factors that dramatically raise
or lower the likelihood of acceptance into the leading
American universities which select the next generation
of our national elites.
The research certainly supports the widespread
perception that non-academic factors play a major
role in the process, including athletic ability and
“legacy” status. But as we saw earlier, even more significant
are racial factors, with black ancestry being
worth the equivalent of 310 points, Hispanics gaining
130 points, and Asian students being penalized by
140 points, all relative to white applicants on the 1600
point Math and Reading SAT scale.
86
Universities always emphasize the importance of
non-academic (and subjective) “leadership traits” as a
central reason why they do not rely upon grades and
academic test scores to select at least their white students,
arguing that evidence of such personal initiative
and leadership should often outweigh somewhat
lower academic performance in predicting future success
and value to our society. And on the face of it,
these claims may seem plausible.
But the difficulty comes from the fact that such
subjective factors must necessarily be assessed subjectively,
by the particular individuals sitting in the Yale
or Columbia admissions offices, and their cultural or
ideological background may heavily taint their decision-
making. One of Espenshade’s most striking findings
was that excelling in certain types of completely
mainstream high school activities actually
reduced a
student’s admission chances by 60–65 percent, appar
D
E C EMB E R 2 0 1 2
T H E AME R I C A N C O N S E RVAT I V E 3 7
ently because teenagers with such interests were regarded
with considerable disfavor by the sort of people
employed in admissions; these were ROTC, 4-H Clubs,
Future Farmers of America, and various similar organizations.
87
Consider that these reported activities were
totally mainstream, innocuous, and non-ideological,
yet might easily get an applicant rejected, presumably
for being cultural markers. When we recognize the
overwhelmingly liberal orientation of nearly all our
elite universities and the large communities of academics
and administrators they employ, we can easily imagine
what might become of any applicants who proudly
proclaimed their successful leadership roles in an activity
associated with conservative Christianity or rightwing
politics as their extracurricular claim to fame.
Our imagination is given substance by
The Gatekeepers,
a fascinating and very disturbing inside look
at the admissions system of Wesleyan, an elite liberal
arts college in Middleton, Conn. The author was
Jacques Steinberg, a veteran National Education Correspondent
at the
New York Times, and now its editor
focusing on college admissions issues. Although
Wesleyan definitely ranks a notch or so below
the Ivies in selectivity, Steinberg strongly
suggests that the admissions decision-making
process is very similar, and while his
2002 book described the selection of the Fall
2000 entering class, his afterword to the 2012
edition states that the overall process has remained
largely unchanged down to the present
day. Whether or not Steinberg himself
recognizes it, the most striking fact—which
would surely shock students almost anywhere else in
the Developed World—is the enormous focus on ideology
and ethnic background compared to academic
achievement or evidence of intellectual ability, as well
as the powerful role of “connections” and clout.
Consider the case of Tiffany Wang, a Chinese immigrant
student raised in the Silicon Valley area, where
her father worked as an engineer. Although English
was not her first language, her SAT scores were
over 100 points above the Wesleyan average, and she
ranked as a National Merit Scholarship semifinalist,
putting her in the top 0.5 percent of high school students
(not the top 2 percent as Steinberg mistakenly
claims). Nevertheless, the admissions officer rated her
just so-so in academics, and seemed far more positively
impressed by her ethnic activism in the local
school’s Asian-American club. Ultimately, he stamped
her with a “Reject,” but later admitted to Steinberg that
she might have been admitted if he had been aware
of the enormous time and effort she had spent campaigning
against the death penalty, a political cause
near and dear to his own heart. Somehow I suspect
that a student who boasted of leadership in pro-death
penalty activism among his extracurriculars might
have fared rather worse in this process. And presumably
for similar reasons, Tiffany was also rejected by all
her other prestigious college choices, including Yale,
Penn, Duke, and Wellsley, an outcome which greatly
surprised and disappointed her immigrant father.
88
There was also the case of half-Brazilian Julianna
Bentes, with slight black ancestry, who came from a
middle-class family and attended on a partial scholarship
one of America’s most elite prep schools, whose
annual tuition now tops $30,000; her SAT scores were
somewhat higher than Tiffany’s, and she was an excellent
dancer. The combination of her academic ability,
dancing talent, and “multiracial” background ranked
her as one of America’s top college recruitment prospects,
gaining her admission and generous financial
packages from Harvard, Yale, Stanford and every
other elite university to which she applied, including
the University of Chicago’s most prestigious academic
scholarship award and a personal opportunity to meet
Chelsea Clinton while visiting Stanford, which she
did, before ultimately selecting Yale.
89
Finally, there was the case of Becca Jannol, a girl
from a very affluent Jewish family near Beverly Hills,
who attended the same elite prep school as Julianna,
but with her parents paying the full annual tuition. Despite
her every possible advantage, including test-prep
courses and retaking the exam, her SAT scores were
some 240 points lower on the 1600 point scale, placing
her toward the bottom of the Wesleyan range, while
her application essay focused on the philosophical
challenges she encountered when she was suspended
for illegal drug use. But she was a great favorite of her
prep school counselor, who was an old college friend of
the Wesleyan admissions officer, and using his discretion,
he stamped her “Admit.” Her dismal academic record
then caused this initial decision to be overturned
by a unanimous vote of the other members of the full
admissions committee, but he refused to give up, and
moved heaven and earth to gain her a spot, even offering
to rescind the admissions of one or more already
Excelling in certain types of mainstream
high school activities, such as ROTC and
4-H Clubs, actually reduced a student’s
admission chances by 60–65 percent.
3 8 T H E A M E R IC A N CON SE RVAT I V E
DECEMBE R 2 0 1 2
Education
selected applicants to create a place for her. Eventually
he got her shifted from the Reject category to wait-list
status, after which he secretly moved her folder to the
very top of the large waiting list pile.
90
In the end “connections” triumphed, and she received
admission to Wesleyan, although she turned it
down in favor of an offer from more prestigious Cornell,
which she had obtained through similar means.
But at Cornell, she found herself “miserable,” hating
the classes and saying she “didn’t see the usefulness of
[her] being there.” However, her poor academic ability
proved no hindrance, since the same administrator
who had arranged her admission also wrangled
her a quick entrance into a special “honors program”
he personally ran, containing just 40 of the 3500 students
in her year. This exempted her from all academic
graduation requirements, apparently including
classes or tests, thereby allowing her to spend her four
college years mostly traveling around the world while
working on a so-called “special project.” After graduation,
she eventually took a job at her father’s successful
law firm, thereby realizing her obvious potential as a
member of America’s ruling Ivy League elite, or in her
own words, as being one of “the best of the best.”
91
Steinberg’s description of the remaining handful of
Wesleyan applicants seems to fall into a very similar
pattern, indicating that our elite admissions process
operates under the principle of “Ideology and Diversity
tempered by Corruption.” Certainly the majority of
the decisions made seem to demonstrate that although
the Maoist doctrine of favoring “Red over Expert” was
abandoned decades ago in China, it is still alive and
well in America’s elite university admissions process,
though sometimes mitigated by factors of wealth
and influence.
92 The overwhelmingly liberal orientation
of the elite university community, the apparent
willingness of many liberals to actively discriminate
against non-liberals, and the fact that American Jews
remain perhaps the most liberal ethnic community
may together help explain a significant portion of our
skewed enrollment statistics.
93
We should also note that although admissions officers
are poorly paid, earning less than public school
teachers,
94 they nevertheless control a very valuable
resource. According to Steinberg’s account, when individual
officers are particularly forceful in their advocacy
for an obviously under-qualified applicant, their
colleagues regularly ask them, perhaps jokingly, “how
much are they paying you to get that student admitted?”
95
Indeed, Golden states that admissions officers
at top universities are constantly being offered explicit
bribes, sometimes even including promises of houses
or cruises.
96 And although Steinberg’s presentation of
Wesleyan’s admissions practices was glowingly favorable,
it may have been more than pure coincidence that
the particular admissions officer who was the focus of
his reporting decided to seek employment elsewhere
just before the book was scheduled to appear in print.
97
Steinberg’s narrative is engagingly written and he
makes no effort to conceal his own ideological orientation,
but some of his major lapses are troubling. For
example, he accepts without question the notion that
Asian-American applicants receive a racial “diversity”
boost in elite admissions, though it has been obvious
for decades that the exact opposite is true. And in his
introduction, he describes the disturbingly exclusionary
world of the past, explaining that until the late
1950s Jews “need not have bothered trying” to enroll
at Harvard or the other Ivies.
98 Yet in fact, Jews were
heavily, often massively over-represented in the Ivy
League throughout the entire Twentieth Century, and
by 1952 constituted 25 percent of Harvard undergraduates,
a rate some 700 percent higher than their share
of the general population.
99
Steinberg is an award-winning journalist who has
spent most of the last 15 years covering education for
the
New York Times, and surely ranks near the very
top of his profession; his book was widely reviewed
and almost universally praised. For such huge factual
errors to pass unnoticed is a very disturbing indication
of the knowledge and assumptions of the individuals
who shape our public perceptions on the realities
of higher education in our society.
I
n fact, it seems likely that some of these obvious
admissions biases we have noticed may be related
to the poor human quality and weak academic credentials
of many of the university employees making
these momentous decisions. As mentioned above,
the job of admissions officer is poorly paid, requires
no professional training, and offers few opportunities
for career advancement; thus, it is often filled by
individuals with haphazard employment records. As
one of the “Little Ivies,” Wesleyan is among America’s
most prestigious liberal arts colleges, and Steinberg’s
description of the career paths of its handful
of admissions officers is eye-opening: the interim
Director of Admissions had most recently screened
food-stamp recipients and run a psychiatric half-way
house; another had worked as an animal control officer
and managed a camera store; a third unsuccessfully
sought a job as a United Airlines flight attendant;
others were recent college graduates, whose
main college interests had been sports or ethnic studies.
100
The vast majority seem to possess minimal academic
expertise and few intellectual interests, raising
D E C EMB E R 2 0 1 2
T H E AME R I C A N C O N S E RVAT I V E 3 9
serious questions about their ability to reasonably
evaluate their higher-quality applicants.
As additional evidence, we can consider
What It
Really Takes to Get into the Ivy League
, a 2003 advice
book written by Chuck Hughes, who spent five years
as a Senior Admissions Officer at Harvard, after having
himself graduated from that university. Although
he strongly emphasizes his own college participation in
varsity sports, he never says a word about any personal
academic interests, and near the end of his book on elite
college admissions, he appears to describe Duke, Northwestern,
and Rice as being members of the Ivy League.
101
A more explicit statement of this exact problem is
found in
A for Admission, a very candid 1997 description
of the admissions process at elite private universities
written by Michele A. Hernandez, who had spent
four years as Dartmouth’s Assistant Director of Admissions.
Near the beginning of her book, Hernandez explains
that over half of Ivy League admissions officers
are individuals who had not attended such academically
challenging universities, nor probably had the
intellectual capability to do so, and were sometimes
confused about the relative ranking of SAT scores and
other basic academic credentials. She also cautions
students to avoid any subtlety in their essays, lest their
words be misunderstood by their readers in the admissions
office, whose degrees are more likely to have been
in education than in any serious academic discipline.
102
It seems quite possible that poorly-paid liberal arts
or ethnic-studies majors, probably with few quantitative
skills and a vaguely “progressive” ideological focus,
could implement highly unfair admissions decisions
without even realizing their actions. According
to Steinberg, admissions officers seem to assume that
an important part of their duty is maximizing nonwhite
enrollment, and this is especially true if they
themselves are non-white, while there is no indication
that they are actually aware of America’s overall
population distribution.
103
The last point is not a trivial one, since although our
country is only about 13 percent black, according to
a 2001 Gallup survey most people thought the figure
was 33 percent, with the average non-white putting
it at 40 percent.
104 This was roughly confirmed by the
GSS respondents in 2000, who also believed that nearly
18 percent of Americans were Jewish, a figure more
than eight times too large.
105 A very recent 2012 survey
found that Americans believe Protestants outnumber
Jews in this country by only 2.5 to 1, when the actual
ratio is ten times greater.
106
Such shocking demographic ignorance is hardly
confined solely to the uneducated. For example, soon
after Karabel’s book appeared, a prominent Massachusetts
law school dean with a major interest in ethnic discrimination
issues devoted two hours of his televised
public affairs program to a detailed discussion of the
topic with the author, but at the end let slip that he believed
California’s population was 50 percent Asian, an
utter absurdity.
107 So perhaps many college administrators
may have little idea about which ethnic groups are
already enrolled above parity and which are below, instead
taking their marching orders from an amorphous
academic narrative which valorizes “racial diversity.”
Meanwhile, any hint of “anti-Semitism” in admissions
is regarded as an absolutely mortal sin, and any
significant reduction in Jewish enrollment may often
be denounced as such by the hair-trigger media. For
example, in 1999 Princeton discovered that its Jewish
enrollment had declined to just 500 percent of parity,
down from more than 700 percent in the mid-1980s,
and far below the comparable figures for Harvard or
Yale. This quickly resulted in four front-page stories
in the
Daily Princetonian, a major article in the New
York Observer
, and extensive national coverage in
both the
New York Times and the Chronicle of Higher
Education.
108 These articles included denunciations of
Princeton’s long historical legacy of anti-Semitism and
quickly led to official apologies, followed by an immediate
30 percent rebound in Jewish numbers. During
these same years, non-Jewish white enrollment across
the entire Ivy League had dropped by roughly 50 percent,
reducing those numbers to far below parity, but
this was met with media silence or even occasional
congratulations on the further “multicultural” progress
of America’s elite education system.
I suspect that the combined effect of these separate
pressures, rather than any planned or intentional bias,
is the primary cause of the striking enrollment statistics
that we have examined above. In effect, somewhat
dim and over-worked admissions officers, generally
possessing weak quantitative skills, have been tasked
by their academic superiors and media monitors with
the twin ideological goals of enrolling Jews and enrolling
non-whites, with any major failures risking
harsh charges of either “anti-Semitism” or “racism.”
But by inescapable logic maximizing the number of
Jews and non-whites implies minimizing the number
of non-Jewish whites.
Problems with Pure Diversity
and Pure Meritocracy
In recent decades, elite college admissions policy has
frequently become an ideological battlefield between
liberals and conservatives, but I would argue that both
4 0 T H E A M E R IC A N CON SE RVAT I V E
DECEMBE R 2 0 1 2
Education
these warring camps have been missing the actual reality
of the situation.
Conservatives have denounced “affirmative action”
policies which emphasize race over academic merit,
and thereby lead to the enrollment of lesser qualified
blacks and Hispanics over their more qualified white
and Asian competitors; they argue that our elite institutions
should be color-blind and race-neutral. Meanwhile,
liberals have countered that the student body of
these institutions should “look like America,” at least
approximately, and that ethnic and racial diversity intrinsically
provide important educational benefits, at
least if all admitted students are reasonably qualified
and able to do the work.
My own position has always been strongly in the
former camp, supporting meritocracy over diversity
in elite admissions. But based on the detailed evidence
I have discussed above, it appears that both these ideological
values have gradually been overwhelmed and
replaced by the influence of corruption and ethnic
favoritism, thereby selecting future American elites
which are not meritocratic nor diverse, neither being
drawn from our most able students nor reasonably reflecting
the general American population.
The overwhelming evidence is that the system
currently employed by most of our leading universities
admits applicants whose ability may be unremarkable
but who are beneficiaries of underhanded
manipulation and favoritism. Nations which put
their future national leadership in the hands of such
individuals are likely to encounter enormous economic
and social problems, exactly the sort of problems
which our own country seems to have increasingly
experienced over the last couple of decades.
And unless the absurdly skewed enrollments of our
elite academic institutions are corrected, the composition
of these feeder institutions will ensure that
such national problems only continue to grow worse
as time passes. We should therefore consider various
means of correcting the severe flaws in our academic
admissions system, which functions as the primary
intake valve of our future national elites.
One obvious approach would be to wave a magic
wand and make the existing system “work better” by
replacing many thousands of college admissions officers
by individuals more competent and less venal,
guardians of the common good who would properly
balance objective academic merit against other intrinsic
student qualities, while avoiding any lapse
into rank favoritism. But this same simple solution
could always be proposed for any other obviously
failing system, including Soviet-style Communism.
A more fundamental change might be to directly
adopt the implicit logic of America’s “academic diversity”
movement—whose leadership has been
overwhelmingly Jewish
109—and require our elite
universities to bring their student bodies into
rough conformity with the overall college-age
population, ethnicity by ethnicity, in which
case the Jewish presence at Harvard and the
rest of the Ivy League would drop to between
1.5 and 2 percent.
110
However, even leaving aside the rights and
wrongs of such a proposal, it would be extremely
difficult to implement in practice. The
pattern of American ethnic origins is complex
and interwoven, with high intermarriage
rates, leading to categories being fluid and ambiguous.
Furthermore, such an approach would foster clear
absurdities, with wealthy Anglo-Saxons from Greenwich,
Conn. being propelled into Yale because they fill
the “quota” created on the backs of the impoverished
Anglo-Saxons of Appalachia or Mississippi.
An opposite approach would be to rely on strictest
objective meritocracy, with elite universities automatically
selecting their students in academic rankorder,
based on high school grades and performance
on standardized exams such as the SAT. This approach
would be similar to that used in many other
developed countries around the world, but would
produce severe social problems of its own.
Consider the notorious examples of the singleminded
academic focus and testing-frenzy which
are already sometimes found at many predominantly
Asian immigrant high schools, involving endless
cram-courses and massive psychological pressure.
This seems very similar to the stories of extreme educational
effort found in countries such as Japan, South
Korea, and China, where educational success is an
overriding social value and elite admissions are fully
determined by rank-order academic performance.
At present, these severe educational pressures on
American teenagers have been largely confined to a
portion of our small Asian-American population and
perhaps some of their non-Asian schoolmates, but if
It appears that both the values of
meritocracy and diversity have gradually
been overwhelmed and replaced by the
influence of corruption and ethnic favoritism.
D E C EMB E R 2 0 1 2
T H E AME R I C A N C O N S E RVAT I V E 4 1
Harvard and its peers all selected their students based
on such criteria, a huge fraction of American students
would be forced to adopt similar work-habits or lose
any hope of gaining admission. Do we really want to
produce an entire nation of “Asian Tiger Moms” of all
ethnicities and backgrounds, probably with horrible
consequences for the future mental health, personal
creativity, and even long-term academic performance
of the next generation?
Also, we would expect such a system to heavily
favor those students enrolled at our finest secondary
schools, whose families could afford the best private
tutors and cram-courses, and with parents willing
to push them to expend the last ounce of their
personal effort in endless, constant studying. These
crucial factors, along with innate ability, are hardly
distributed evenly among America’s highly diverse
population of over 300 million, whether along geographical,
socio-economic, or ethnic lines, and the
result would probably be an extremely unbalanced
enrollment within the ranks of our top universities,
perhaps one even more unbalanced than that of today.
Although American cultural elites may currently
pay too much lip service to “diversity” as a value,
there is also such a thing as too little educational diversity.
Do we really want a system in which all of
America’s top 100 universities selected their students
much like Caltech does today, and therefore had a
similar academic environment?
We should also consider that under such a selection
system, any interest or involvement not directly
contributing to the academic transcript—including
activities associated with artistic talent, sports ability,
or extra-curricular leadership—would disappear
from our top universities, since students who devoted
any significant time to those pursuits would tend
to lose out to those who did not. Even those highestability
students who gained admission would tend to
forego the benefits of encountering classmates with a
somewhat more balanced mix of interests and abilities,
a group closer to the American mainstream, and
might therefore develop a very one-sided and unrealistic
view of our national population. And if every
student admitted to Harvard believed, not without
some justification, that he had been objectively determined
to be among the smartest and hardest
working 0.05 percent of all Americans his age, that
might not be the best psychological starting point
for a teenager just entering his adult life and future
career.
These same problems would also manifest themselves
in an admissions system based on strict meritocracy
as adjusted by socio-economic status, which
Richard Kahlenberg prominently advocated in his
1996 book
The Remedy, and various other writings.
Although this approach has always seemed reasonably
attractive to me and the results would certainly
provide more socio-economical balance than straight
meritocracy, other “diversity” enhancements might be
minimal. We should remember that a significant fraction
of our Asian immigrant population combines very
low socio-economic status with extremely strong academic
performance and educational focus, so it seems
likely that this small group would capture a hugely disproportionate
share of all admissions spots influenced
by these modifying factors, which may or may not be
fully realized by advocates of this approach.
An Inner Ring and an Outer Ring
But if selecting our future elites by purest “diversity”
wouldn’t work, and using purest “meritocracy” would
seem an equally bad idea, what would be the right approach
to take as a replacement for today’s complex
mixture of diversity, meritocracy, favoritism, and corruption?
Perhaps an important starting point would be
to recognize that in any normal distribution curve,
numbers widen greatly and differences become far
less significant below the very top. Today’s academic
supporters of “affirmative action” frequently claim
that beneath the strongest tier of academic applicants
to Yale or Stanford, the differences between particular
students become relatively small, only slightly indicative
of how they will perform at the college if they
are enrolled;
111 and this claim is not entirely false. A
large fraction of all the students applying have demonstrated
that they have the ability and commitment
to adequately perform the college work in question,
and although they are unlikely to graduate in the top 5
percent of Princeton’s class, the same is also true of the
vast majority of their classmates. The average student
at Harvard is going to be an average Harvard student,
and perhaps it would be better if a large majority of
the admitted students would not find this prospect a
horrifying disappointment after their previously stellar
career of having always been the biggest student
fish in their smallish academic ponds.
The notion of top universities only selecting a slice of
their students based on purest academic merit certainly
seems to be the standard today, and was so in the past
as well. Karabel recounts how during the 1950s and
1960s, Harvard reserved about 10 percent of its spots
for “top brains,” while selecting the remainder based
on a mixture of different factors.
112 In Choosing Elites,
4 2 T H E A M E R IC A N CON SE RVAT I V E
DECEMBE R 2 0 1 2
Education
Robert Klitgaard indicates that roughly this same approach
continued into the 1980s, with only a fraction
of admitted students being classified and admitted as
“first-class scholars.”
113 As already mentioned, according
to Hughes, who served five years as a Harvard Senior
Admissions Officer at Harvard, by the mid-2000s
only 5 percent or less of Harvard undergraduates were
selected purely on academic merit, with extracurricular
activities and a wide variety of unspecified other criteria
being used to choose among the other 80–85 percent
of applicants who could actually handle the academic
work; and this same pattern is found at most other
highly selective universities.
114 Given a widening funnel
of ability, it is absurd to base admissions decisions on
just a small difference of twenty or thirty points on the
SAT, which merely encourages students to spend thousands
of hours cramming in order to gain those extra
crucial twenty or thirty points over their competitors.
But if our elite colleges were to select only a portion
of their students based on purest academic merit, how
should they pick the remainder, merely by flipping a
coin? Actually, that might not be such a terrible idea,
at least compared with the current system, in which
these decisions are often seemingly based on massive
biases and sometimes even outright corruption. After
all, if we are seeking a student body which is at least
somewhat diverse and reasonably representative of the
American population, random selection is hardly the
least effective means of ensuring that outcome. And the
result would be true diversity, rather than the dishonest
and ridiculous pseudo-diversity of our existing system.
The notion of using random selection to overcome
the risk of unfair bias has been used for centuries, including
in our own country, and is regularly found
in matters of the greatest civic importance, especially
those involving life and death. Our jury system relies
on the random selection of a handful of ordinary citizens
to determine the guilt or innocence of even the
most eminent and powerful individuals, as well as to
render corporate verdicts with penalties reaching into
the billions. The millions of Americans ordered to
fight and perhaps die in our major wars were generally
called into the military by the process of a random
draft lottery. And today, the enormous growth of
games of chance and financial lotteries, often government-
run, have become an unfortunate but very popular
aspect of our entire economic system. Compared
to these situations, requiring an excellent but hardly
spectacular student to take his chances on winning a
spot at Harvard or Yale hardly seems unreasonable.
In
The Big Test, journalist Nicholas Lemann traces
the history of meritocratic admissions policy, and
the philosophical conflicts which liberals faced once
that policy first came into direct conflict with the racial
diversity they also favored, beginning when the
DeFunis
“reverse discrimination” case reached the
U.S. Supreme Court in 1974. At that point, one of the
high court’s strongest liberal voices was Justice William
O. Douglas, and he repeatedly considered the
possible use of random lotteries as the fairest means
of allocating college admissions slots below the top
tier of most highly qualified applicants.
115
Let us explore the likely social implications of such
an admissions policy, focusing solely on Harvard
and following a very simple model, in which (say)
300 slots or around 20 percent of each entering class
are allocated based on pure academic merit (the “Inner
Ring”), with the remaining 1300 slots being randomly
selected from the 30,000 or so American applicants
considered able to reasonably perform at the
school’s required academic level and thereby benefit
from a Harvard education (the “Outer Ring”).
First, we must recognize that the 300 applicants
admitted by straight merit would be an exceptionally
select group, representing just the top 2 percent
of America’s 16,000 NMS semifinalists. Also, almost
any American students in this group or even reasonably
close would be very well aware of that fact, and
more importantly, nearly all other students would realize
they were far too distant to have any chance of
reaching that level, no matter how hard they studied
or how many hours they crammed, thus freeing them
from any terrible academic pressure. Under today’s
system, the opaque and haphazard nature of the admissions
process persuades tens of thousands of students
they might have a realistic shot at Harvard if
only they would study a bit harder or participate in
one more resume-stuffing extracurricular,
116 but that
would no longer be the case, and they would be able
to relax a bit more during their high school years, just
so long as they did well enough to qualify and try
their luck as one of the “Outer Ring” of applicants.
The 300 Inner Ring students would certainly be
quite different in all sorts of ways from the average high
school student, even aside from their greater academic
ability and drive; they might not be “diverse” in any
sense of the word, whether geographically, ethnically,
or socio-economically. But the remaining 1300 Outer
Ring students would represent a random cross-section
of the tens of thousands of students who applied for
admission and had reasonably good academic ability,
and since they would constitute 80 percent of the
enrollment, Harvard would almost certainly become
far more diverse and representative of America’s total
population in almost all ways than is the case today,
when 30 percent of its students come from private
D E C EMB E R 2 0 1 2
T H E AME R I C A N C O N S E RVAT I V E 4 3
schools, often the most elite and expensive ones.
117
Furthermore, the vast majority of Harvard graduates—
and everyone who later dealt with them—
would know perfectly well that they had merely been
“lucky” in gaining their admission, thereby tempering
the sort of arrogance found among too many
of today’s elite college graduates. And our vast and
growing parasitic infrastructure of expensive cramschools,
private tutors, special academies, and college
application consultants would quickly be reduced
to what was merited by their real academic value,
which may actually be close to nil. A general armistice
would have been declared in America’s endlessly
growing elite admissions arms-race.
Under such a system, Harvard might no longer
boast of having America’s top Lacrosse player or a
Carnegie Hall violinist or a Senatorial scion. But the
class would be filled with the sort of reasonably talented
and reasonably serious athletes, musicians, and
activists drawn as a cross-section from the tens of
thousands of qualified applicants, thereby providing a
far more normal and healthier range of students.
The terrible family pressure which students, especially
immigrant students, often today endure in the
college admissions process would be greatly reduced.
Even the most ambitious parents would usually recognize
that their sons and daughters are unlikely to ever
outrank 99.99 percent of their fellow students academically,
so their only hope of reaching a school like Harvard
would be the same as that of everyone else, via the
admissions lottery. And losing in a random drawing
can hardly be a source of major shame to any family.
One of the most harmful aspects of recent American
society has been the growth of a winner-take-all
mentality, in which finishing even just slightly below
the top rung at any stage of the career ladder seems
to amount to economic and sometimes personal failure.
An aspect of this is that our most elite businesses
tend to only recruit from the top universities, assuming
that these possess a near-monopoly on the brightest
and most talented students, even though it actually
appears that favoritism and corruption these days
are huge factors in admission. But if it were explicitly
known that the vast majority of Harvard students had
merely been winners in the application lottery, top
businesses would begin to cast a much wider net in
their employment outreach, and while the average
Harvard student would probably be academically
stronger than the average graduate of a state college,
the gap would no longer be seen as so enormous, with
individuals being judged more on their own merits
and actual achievements. A Harvard student who
graduated
magna cum laude would surely have many
doors open before him, but not one who graduated in
the bottom half of his class.
This same approach of an Inner Ring and an Outer
Ring of admissions could similarly be applied to
most of America’s other selective colleges, perhaps
with some variations in the relative sizes of the two
groups. It is possible that some universities such as
Caltech, which today selects its 200 entering freshmen
by purely meritocratic academic rank-order, might
prefer to retain that system, in which case the Inner
Ring would constitute the entire enrollment. Other
universities, which glorify the extremes of total diversity,
might choose to select almost all their students by
random lot. But for most, the sort of split enrollment I
have outlined might work reasonably well.
Since colleges would still be positioned in a hierarchy
of national excellence and prestige, those students
whose academic record just missed placing them
within the Inner Ring of a Harvard or a Yale would almost
certainly gain automatic admission to a Columbia,
Cornell, or Duke, and the same sort of cascading
effect would be found down through all subsequent
layers of selectivity. Thus, although America’s top
couple of thousand students each year would not all
be found among the 4000 entering Harvard, Yale, or
Princeton, they would at least gain admission to some
Ivy or its equivalent, in contrast to the shocking examples
of admissions injustice recounted by Golden.
Since essays, personal statements, lists of extracurricular
achievements and so many other uniquely
complex and time-consuming elements of the American
admissions process would no longer exist, students
could easily apply to long lists of possible colleges,
ranking them in order of personal preference.
Meanwhile, the colleges themselves could dispense
with nearly their entire admissions staff, since the
only remaining part of the admissions process would
be determining the academic ranking of the tiny
fraction of top applicants, which could be performed
quickly and easily. Harvard currently receives almost
35,000 applications, which must each be individually
read and evaluated in a massive undertaking,
but applying a crude automatic filter of grades and
test scores would easily winnow these down to the
1,000 plausible candidates for those 300 Inner Ring
slots, allowing a careful evaluation of those highestperforming
students on pure academic grounds.
Eliminating at a stroke the enormous expense and
complexity of our baroque admissions process might
actually raise the quality of the students attending elite
colleges by drawing more applicants into the system,
especially if, as I suggest elsewhere, tuition at our top
private colleges were drastically reduced or even elim
4
4 T H E A M E R IC A N CON SE RVAT I V E
DECEMBE R 2 0 1 2
Education
inated (See “Paying Tuition to a Giant Hedge Fund”).
The late James Q. Wilson certainly ranked as one
of America’s most highly-regarded social scientists
of the second half of the twentieth century, and
when he was awarded the Gold Medal of the National
Institute of Social Sciences in 2011, his remarks
provided some fascinating details of his own educational
background. Although an outstanding high
school student in Southern California, no one in
his family had ever previously attended college nor
had he himself given it any thought, instead starting
work in his father’s auto repair shop after graduation
in order to learn the trade of a car mechanic. However,
one of his teachers arranged his admission to a
small college on a full scholarship, which launched
him on his stellar academic career.
118
It seems likely that the vast paperwork and expense
of today’s admissions system, with its endless forms,
intrusive questionnaires, fee-waiver-applications, and
general bureaucracy intimidates many bright students,
especially those from impoverished or immigrant
backgrounds, and deters them from even considering
an application to our elite colleges, especially since
they perhaps wrongly assume that they would stand
no chance of success. But filling out a few very simple
forms and having their test scores and grades scores automatically
forwarded to a list of possible universities
would give them at least the same chance in the lottery
as any other applicant whose academic skills were adequate.
F
ollowing the 1991 collapse and disintegration
of the Soviet Union, some observers
noted with unease that the United States was
left as about the only remaining large and fullyfunctional
multi-ethnic society, and the subsequent
collapse and disintegration of ethnically
diverse Yugoslavia merely strengthened these
concerns. China is sometimes portrayed by the
ignorant American media as having large and
restive minority populations, but it is 92 percent
Han Chinese, and if we exclude a few outlying
or thinly populated provinces—the equivalents
of Alaska, Hawaii, and New Mexico—closer
to 95 percent Han, with all its top leadership
drawn from that same background and therefore
possessing a natural alignment of interests.
Without doubt, America’s great success despite
its multiplicity of ethnic nationalities is almost
unique in modern human history. But such success
should not be taken for granted.
Many of the Jewish writers who focus on the
history of elite university admissions, including
Karabel, Steinberg, and Lemann, have critiqued and
rebuked the America of the first half of the Twentieth
Century for having been governed by a narrow
WASP ascendency, which overwhelmingly dominated
and controlled the commanding heights of business,
finance, education, and politics; and some of
their criticisms are not unreasonable. But we should
bear in mind that this dominant group of White
Anglo-Saxon Protestants—largely descended from
among the earliest American settlers and which had
gradually absorbed and assimilated substantial elements
of Celtic, Dutch, German, and French background—
was generally aligned in culture, religion,
ideology, and ancestry with perhaps 60 percent of
America’s total population at the time, and therefore
hardly represented an alien presence.
119 By contrast,
a similarly overwhelming domination by a tiny segment
of America’s current population, one which is
completely misaligned in all these respects, seems
far less inherently stable, especially when the institutional
roots of such domination have continually
increased despite the collapse of the supposedly
meritocratic justification. This does not seem like a
recipe for a healthy and successful society, nor one
which will even long survive in anything like its current
form.
Power corrupts and an extreme concentration of
power even more so, especially when that concentration
of power is endlessly praised and glorified by the
major media and the prominent intellectuals which
100
300
500
700
900
1,100
1,300
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
’80 ’85 ’90 ’95 ’00 ’05 ’10
GDP per capita growth
Constant international dollars adjusted for purchasing power parity
Ratios, 1980=100
China
U.S.
D E C EMB E R 2 0 1 2
T H E AME R I C A N C O N S E RVAT I V E 4 5
F
rom its 1636 foundation Harvard had always
ranked as America’s oldest and most prestigious
college, even as it gradually grew in size
and academic quality during the first three
centuries of its existence. The widespread destruction
brought about by the Second World War laid low its
traditional European rivals, and not long after celebrating
its third centennial, Harvard had become the
world’s greatest university.
Harvard only improved its standing during the
successful American postwar decades, and by its
350th anniversary in 1986 was almost universally
recognized as the leader of the world’s academic community.
But over the decade or two which followed,
it quietly embarked upon a late-life career change,
transforming itself into one of the world’s largest
hedge funds, with some sort of school or college or
something attached off to one side for tax reasons.
The numbers tell the story. Each September, Harvard’s
6,600 undergraduates begin their classes at the
Ivy-covered walls of its traditional Cambridge campus
owing annual tuition of around $37,000 for the
privilege, up from just $13,000 in 1990. Thus, over
the last two decades, total tuition income (in current
dollars) has increased from about $150 million to almost
$250 million, with a substantial fraction of this
list-price amount being discounted in the form of the
university’s own financial aid to the families of its less
wealthy students.
Meanwhile, during most of these years, Harvard’s
own endowment has annually grown by five or ten or
even twenty times that figure, rendering net tuition
from those thousands of students a mere financial
bagatelle, having almost no impact on the university’s
cash-flow or balance-sheet position. If all the students
disappeared tomorrow—or were forced to pay double
their current tuition—the impact would be negligible
compared to the crucial fluctuations in the mortgagederivatives
market or the international cost-of-funds
index.
A very similar conclusion may be drawn by examining
the expense side of the university’s financial
statement. Harvard’s Division of Arts and
Sciences—the central core of academic activity—
contains approximately 450 full professors, whose
annual salaries tend to average the highest at any
university in America. Each year, these hundreds of
great scholars and teachers receive aggregate total
pay of around $85 million. But in fiscal 2004, just
the five top managers of the Harvard endowment
fund shared total compensation of $78 million, an
amount which was also roughly 100 times the salary
of Harvard’s own president. These figures clearly
demonstrate the relative importance accorded to the
financial and academic sides of Harvard’s activities.
Unlike universities, the business model of large
and aggressive hedge funds is notoriously volatile,
and during the 2008 Financial Crisis, Harvard lost
$11 billion on its net holdings, teetering on the verge
of bankruptcy as its highly illiquid assets could
not easily be redeployed to cover hundreds of millions
of dollars in ongoing capital commitments to
Paying Tuition to a Giant Hedge Fund
together constitute such an important element of that
power. But as time goes by and more and more Americans
notice that they are poorer and more indebted
than they have ever been before, the blandishments of
such propaganda machinery will eventually lose effectiveness,
much as did the similar propaganda organs
of the decaying Soviet state. Kahlenberg quotes Pat
Moynihan as noting that the stagnant American earnings
between 1970 and 1985 represented “the longest
stretch of ‘flat’ income in the history of the European
settlement of North America.”
120 The only difference
today is that this period of economic stagnation has
now extended nearly three times as long, and has also
been combined with numerous social, moral, and foreign
policy disasters.
Over the last few decades America’s ruling elites
have been produced largely as a consequence of the
particular selection methods adopted by our top national
universities in the late 1960s. Leaving aside the
question of whether these methods have been fair or
have instead been based on corruption and ethnic
favoritism, the elites they have produced have clearly
done a very poor job of leading our country, and
we must change the methods used to select them.
Conservative William F. Buckley, Jr. once famously
quipped that he would rather entrust the government
of the United States to the first 400 names
listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the
faculty of Harvard. So perhaps an important step in
solving our national problems would be to apply a
similar method to selecting the vast majority of Harvard’s
students.
Appendices to this article can be found at www.theamericanconservative.com/meritocracy-appendices
4 6 T H E A M E R IC A N CON SE RVAT I V E
DECEMBE R 2 0 1 2
Education
various private equity funds. The desperate hedge
fund—ahem, academic institution—was forced to
borrow $2.5 billion from the credit markets, lay off
hundreds of university employees, and completely
halt construction work on a huge expansion project,
ultimately surviving and later recovering in much
the same way as did Goldman Sachs or Citibank.
During all these untoward events, the dollars being
paid in by physics majors and being paid out to
professors of medieval French literature were of no
significance whatsoever, and if institutional investors
had balked at the massive bond sales, both groups
might have arrived at the classroom one morning
only to see a “Closed for Bankruptcy” notice, while
Cerberus Capital Management and the Blackstone
Group began furiously bidding for the liquidated
real estate properties and private equity holdings of
what had once been America’s most storied center of
learning. Meanwhile, Bill Gates might have swooped
in and acquired the unimportant educational properties
themselves for a song, afterward renaming the
campus itself Microsoft U.-East.
It is commendable that so many former students
feel gratitude to their academic alma mater, but personal
loyalty to a wealthy hedge fund is somewhat
less warranted, and if Harvard’s residual and
de
minimis
educational activities provide it with enormous
tax advantages, perhaps those activities should
be brought into greater alignment with benefit to our
society. The typical private foundation is legally required
to spend 5 percent of its assets on charitable
activities, and with Harvard’s endowment now back
over $30 billion, that sum would come to around $1.5
billion annually. This is many times the total amount
of undergraduate tuition, which should obviously be
eliminated, thereby removing a substantial financial
barrier to enrollment or even application.
One of the major supposed reasons Harvard disproportionately
admits the children of the wealthy or
those of its alumni is the desperate need to maintain
its educational quality by soliciting donations, and the
endless irritations of fund-raising drives are an inevitable
accompaniment to the reunion process. But the alltime
record for a total alumni class contribution was set
earlier this year by the Class of 1977 at just $68.7 million,
or about 0.2 percent of the existing endowment;
and even the aggregate amount of annual alumni donations
to support the college is quite trivial compared
to the overall income and expenditure statement.
There is also the Internet gossip of an explicit
“Harvard Price,” a specific donation dollar amount
which would get your son or daughter admitted. The
figure is said to be $5 million these days for an applicant
who is reasonably competitive and $10 million
for one who is not. Daniel Golden’s
The Price of
Admission
provides a specific example which tends to
generally confirm this disturbing belief.
But if such claims are true, then Harvard is following
an absurd policy, selling off its good name
and reputation for just pennies on the dollar, not
least because the sums involved represent merely a
day or two of its regular endowment income. Harvard
surely ranks as the grandest academic name in
the world, carrying a weight of prestige that could be
leveraged to extract far greater revenue at far lower
cost of academic dignity.
Suppose, for example, that instead of such surreptitious
and penny-ante wheeling and dealing,
Harvard simply auctioned off a single admissions
slot each year to the highest blind bidder on the international
markets. I suspect that the same sorts of
individuals who currently pay $50 million or $100
million for a splotchy painting they can hang on
their walls would surely be willing to spend a similar
amount to have their son or daughter embossed
with the Harvard stamp of approval. The key factor
is that such prestige goods are almost entirely
positional in value, with most of the benefit derived
from the satisfaction of having outbid your rival Internet
billionaires, oil sheikhs, or Russian oligarchs,
so the higher the price goes, the more valuable the
commodity becomes. And since the goal would
be to extract as much money as possible from the
wealthy bidders, a non-refundable bidding deposit
of 2 percent or 5 percent, win or lose, might double
or triple the total dollars raised.
Thus, instead of extracting steep net tuition from
thousands of undergraduates (and perhaps quietly
selling a handful of spots each year for a few million
dollars each), Harvard could probably raise just as
much revenue by enrolling a single under-qualified
student in a process which would publicly establish
the gigantic financial value contained in a Harvard
diploma. It’s even quite likely that a useful side-benefit
of the publicity would be a large rise in Harvard’s
total applicants, including those of highest quality, as
families all across the country and the world sought
to obtain at zero cost the exact same product which a
billionaire had just bought for $70 million.
If Harvard wishes to retain its primary existence
as a gigantic profit-maximizing hedge fund, that is
well and good, but meanwhile perhaps it should be
required to provide a free top quality college education
to a few thousand deserving students as a minor
community service.
—Ron Unz
D E C EMB E R 2 0 1 2
T H E AME R I C A N C O N S E RVAT I V E 4 7
1
“Harvard Says 125 Students May Have Cheated on a Final
Exam,” Richard Perez-Pena and Jess Bidgood,
The New York
Times
, August 30, 2012: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/31/
education/harvard-says-125-students-may-have-cheated-onexam.
html
2
By 2010, the top 1% of Americans possessed 35.4% of the
national net wealth, while the bottom 95% held 36.9%. See Edward
N. Wolff, “The Asset Price Meltdown and the Wealth of
the Middle Class,”
New York University, August 26, 2012: http://
appam.confex.com/appam/2012/webprogram/Paper2134.html.
3
See Ho (2009) pp. 11, 13, 40-69 passim, 256 for an extensive
discussion of the college background and recruitment choices
made by Wall Street firms in recent years. According to her
“ethnography” of Wall Street, major financial firms recruit
very heavily from Harvard and Princeton, somewhat less at
the remaining Ivy League schools and a few others such as
Stanford and MIT, and rarely anywhere else, partly because
they believe admission to elite universities provide evidence of
“smartness,” which Wall Street values above all else (p. 38).
The claim that attendance at an Ivy League or other elite
university provides a substantial advantage over similarly
talented individuals has been disputed by the recent research
of Stacy Dale and Alan B. Krueger, but their findings are based
on students who graduated college almost two decades ago,
and probably do not capture the dramatic recent changes in the
American economy and Wall Street practices since that time.
See David Leonhardt, “Revisiting the Value of Elite Colleges,”
The New York Times
, February 21, 2011: http://economix.blogs.
nytimes.com/2011/02/21/revisiting-the-value-of-elite-colleges/.
4
Ezra Klein, “Wall Street Steps In When Ivy League Fails,”
Washington Post,
February 16, 2012: http://www.washingtonpost.
com/business/economy/wall-street-steps-in-when-ivyleague-
fails/2012/02/16/gIQAX2weIR_story.html
5
Austin Bramwell, “Top of the Class,” The American Conservative,
March 13, 2012: http://www.theamericanconservative.
com/articles/top-of-the-class/
6
As an example of these extreme efforts, see “NYC’s Kindergarten
Wars,”
The New York Post/PageSix Magazine, October 5,
2008: http://www.nypost.com/pagesixmag/issues/20081005/
NYCs+Kindergarten+Wars
7
Jenny Anderson and Peter Applebome, “Exam Cheating on
Long Island Hardly a Secret,”
The New York Times, December
1, 2011: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/02/education/onlong-
island-sat-cheating-was-hardly-a-secret.html
8
Golden (2006) pp. 44-48.
9
Ssu-yu Teng, “Chinese Influence on the Western Examination System,”
Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies
, Sept. 1943, pp. 267-312.
10
Karabel (2005) pp. 89-109.
ENDNOTES
The Shape of the River
(1998) William G. Bowen and
Derek Bok
Equity and Excellence in American Higher Education
(2005) William G. Bowen, Martin A. Kurzweil, and
Eugene M. Tobin
Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother
(2011) Amy Chua
No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal
(2009) Thomas J.
Espenshade and Alexandria Walton Radford
The Price of Admission
(2006) Daniel Golden
Twilight of the Elites
(2012) Christopher Hayes
A Is For Admission
(1997) Michele A. Hernandez
Liquidated: An Ethnography of Wall Street
(2009)
Karen Ho
Asian Americans in Higher Education and at Work
(1988) Jayjia Hsia
What It Really Takes to Get into the Ivy League
(2003)
Chuck Hughes
The Chosen
(2005) Jerome Karabel
Choosing Elites
(1985) Robert Klitgaard
The Big Test
(1999) Nicholas Lemann
The Chosen People: A Study of Jewish Intelligence and
Achievement
(2011) Richard Lynn
How to Be a High School Superstar
(2010) Cal Newport
Joining the Club: A History of Jews and Yale
(1985)
Dan A. Oren
How They Got Into Harvard
(2005) The Harvard
Crimson
The Gatekeepers
(2002/2012) Jacques Steinberg
The Half-Opened Door
(1979/2010) Marcia Graham
Synnott
The Retreat from Race
(1992/1998) Dana Y. Takagi
The Abilities and Achievements of Orientals in North
America
(1982) Philip E. Vernon
The Creative Elite in America
(1966) Nathaniel Weyl
The Geography of American Achievement
(1989)
Nathaniel Weyl
PRIMARY BIBLIOGRAPHY
4 8 T H E A M E R IC A N CON SE RVAT I V E
DECEMBE R 2 0 1 2
Education
11
Oren (1985) p. 62.
12
Karabel (2005) p. 126.
13
Karabel (2005) pp. 387-391.
14
Karabel (2005) p. 364
15
Karabel (2005) pp. 93, 194-195, 486-499.
16
Karabel (2005) pp. 524-525.
17
Admittedly, surveys show that the vast majority of Asian-
Americans do not believe their racial background hurts their
chances of college admission, but such factors would obviously
apply primarily only at the elite, highly selective universities,
which only a small fraction of Asians seek to attend. See “The
Rise of Asian Americans,”
Pew Research Center, June 19, 2012:
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/06/19/the-rise-of-asianamericans/.
18
Jesse Washington, “Some Asians’ College Strategy: Don’t Check
‘Asian,’”
The Associated Press, December 3, 1011:
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/education/
story/2011-12-03/asian-students-collegeapplications/
51620236/1. See also Jon Marcus, “Competitive
Disadvantage,”
The Boston Globe, April 17, 2011: http://www.
boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2011/04/17/
high_achieving_asian_americans_are_being_shut_out_of_
top_schools/ and Scott Jaschik, “Is It Bias? Is It Legal?,”
Inside
Higher Ed
, February 3, 2012: http://www.insidehighered.com/
news/2012/02/03/federal-probe-raises-new-questions-discrimination-
against-asian-american-applicants.
19
Espanshade (2009) p. 92-93.
20
Golden (2006) p. 200.
21
The elite university enrollment statistics for Asians and other
racial and ethnic groups derived from the NCES data are
provided in Appendix C. All the Asian figures provided by the
NCES exclude “mixed race” individuals, who were previously
included in the “Race Unknown” category but since 2009 have
been provided separately.
22
Hsia (1988) pp. 93-148, Takagi (1992/1998).
23
For example, see Oren (1985) pp. 320-322 and Synnott
(1979/2010) pp. 112,195.
24
A portion of this decline in relative Asian enrollment may be apparent
rather than real. As noted earlier, some Asian applicants,
especially those of mixed parentage and without an identifying
Asian name, may attempt to conceal their non-white ancestry
in hopes of enhancing their likelihood of admission. But such
a situation can hardly be used to justify Ivy League policy, and
since the numbers are unknown, we must generally confine our
analysis to the officially reported statistics.
25
It should be noted that some former Ivy League admissions
officers strongly deny such charges of anti-Asian bias. For example,
Chuck Hughes, who spent five years as a Harvard Senior
Admissions Officer, claims in his 2003 book that Asian American
applicants—just like blacks, Hispanics, American Indians, and
other non-whites—actually receive a beneficial “tip” in evaluating
their application packages. It should also be noted that Hughes
strongly emphasizes his own enthusiastic participation in varsity
sports as a Harvard undergraduate, while avoiding mention of any
academic interests. See Hughes (2003) pp. 86, 145.
26
Hsia (1988) pp. 98-99; Karabel (2005) p. 500.
27
Indeed, Dean L. Fred Jewett of Harvard suggested in 1985 that
among Asians “family pressure makes more marginal students
apply” but provided no evidence for this claim, which seems
contradicted by the objective evidence. See Hsia (1988) p. 97.
28
College Confidential, September 16, 2011:
http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/13210307-post724.html.
29
One apparent difficulty in such Asian surname analysis might
be the case of mixed-race individuals with Asian names, but this
difficulty is quite insignificant. First, mixed-race Asians are only
about 15% of the total Asian population, and are excluded from
our Asian statistics for college enrollments. Meanwhile, until
quite recently, the overwhelming majority of marriages between
Asians and non-Asians involved an Asian wife, hence the last
names of any children would tend not to be Asian and would be
excluded from our list analysis. Thus, both our college enrollment
figures and our academic performance estimates tend to
exclude part-Asians and should be fully consistent.
30
The 2000 Census lists 310,125 Nguyens, or about 1 in 3.6 of the
total Vietnamese population of 1,122,528. Meanwhile, there were
194,067 Kims, representing 1 in 5.5 of the 1,076,872 Koreans.
31
Weyl (1987) pp. 26-27.
32
Stephan and Abigail Thernstrom, America in Black and White
(1997) pp. 398-400 provides some racial statistics on the past
distribution of top SAT scores which would strongly support
this conclusion. In 1981, Asians were just 2% of the college-age
population but accounted for over 4% of students with Verbal
scores of 700 or above and 11% of those with Math scores of 750
or above. By 1995, college-age Asians were still just 3% of the
total, but produced over 14% of those high Verbal scores and a
remarkable 28% of the high Math scores. Since Asian-Americans
have now increased to roughly 5% of students of college
age and have also become much more affluent, we would expect
such figures to be far higher today.
33
Although the primary measure of human “fluid intelligence”—
so-called “g”—is measured consistently across different
groups, for reasons not entirely clear the three principal
subcomponents of Verbal, Mathematical, and Visuospatial
abilities sometimes vary substantially across racial or ethnic
lines. For example, East Asians tend to be especially strong in
Visuospatial ability but much less so in Verbal ability, Jews are
extremely strong in Verbal but mediocre in Visuospatial skills,
while most white Europeans tend to be intermediate in both
these different categories. See Vernon (1982) pp. 20-21, 160-
163, 178-180, 272-277.
34
Suein Hwang, “The New White Flight,” The Wall Street
Journal
, November 19, 2005: http://online.wsj.com/article/
SB113236377590902105-search.html.
35
At his 1992 Milwaukee trial, Jeffrey Dahmer freely admitted
torturing, killing, and cannibalizing 17 young men, but vigorously
denied he had selected his mostly black victims out of any
racial bias. In a more typical case, after black Connecticut truck
driver Omar Thornton massacred five of his white co-workers,
the media focused considerable attention on whether they had
been innocent victims or “racists” as Thornton had alleged.
36
In recent years, the Reading and Writing SAT scores for entering
freshmen at all four universities have been almost identical,
while the Math SAT scores at Caltech have been significantly
higher, as have been the percentages of National Merit Scholars.
See the NCES website: http://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/ and
Steve Hsu, “Elite Universities and Human Capital Mongering,”
October 10, 2010: http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2010/10/eliteuniversities-
and-human-capital.html.
37
Indeed, the 1988 official register of Harvard, intended for
prospective applicants, actually described the Harvard admissions
process as “complex, subjective, and sometimes difficult
to comprehend.” See Takagi (1992/1998) p. 63.
38
As Asian applications to the University of California system
grew rapidly during the 1980s, there were major efforts to
replace a simple and objective meritocratic admissions system
with a “holistic” and opaque system, closer to that of the
Ivies, which had the initial effect of sharply reducing Asian
admissions. See Hsia (1988) pp. 106-119, Takagi (1992/1998).
D E C EMB E R 2 0 1 2
T H E AME R I C A N C O N S E RVAT I V E 4 9
However, political resistance by Asian groups in California
and especially the subsequent passage of Proposition 209
eventually overcame these policies.
39
Earlier this month, a lengthy New York Times article on
Asian admissions issues written by the newspaper’s former
Education Editor argued that the use of objective admissions
standards had caused the Berkeley and UCLA campuses to
become more than half Asian, and suggested that this had led
to adverse social and educational consequences. However, this
claim contains serious factual errors, given that the 2011 Asian
undergraduate enrollments were just 37% and 34% respectively,
and had never come close to half at any point in history.
See Ethan Bronner, “Asian-Americans in the Argument,”
The
New York Times
, November 4, 2012: http://www.nytimes.
com/2012/11/04/education/edlife/affirmative-action-a-complicated-
issue-for-asian-americans.html.
40
Asians are currently 72% of the students at Stuyvesant and 63%
at Bronx Science, while the latter school was just 20% Asian in
1986. See Kyle Spencer, “For Asians, School Tests Are Vital Steppingstones,”
The New York Times
, October 28, 2012:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/27/education/a-grueling-admissions-
test-highlights-a-racial-divide.html and Deborah Anderluh,
“High School for Gifted Kids May Open in L.A.,”
The
Los Angeles Herald-Examiner
, September 28, 1986: http://www.
ronunz.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/HeraldExaminer-
1986-SAS1.jpg.
41
In the mid-1980s, charges that anti-Asian discrimination in
the UC system were similar to the old “Jewish quotas” of the
Ivy League quickly provoked television network coverage. See
Takagi (1992/1998) pp. 50-51.
42
Media coverage played a huge role in influencing the growth
and outcome of the battle over the admissions of Asians to the
UC system. See Takagi (1992/1998) pp.49-51, 74-77, 100-103.
43
Asian-Americans had 2010 median annual household income of
$66,000, about 22% higher than the white figure and were almost
60% more likely to have graduated from college, in each case
ranking the highest of any racial group. See “The Rise of Asian
Americans,”
Pew Research Center, June 19, 2012: http://www.
pewsocialtrends.org/2012/06/19/the-rise-of-asian-americans/.
44
In defending Harvard against 1980s accusations of anti-Asian
discrimination in admissions, Dean Fred Jewett made exactly
this point regarding the impact of Asian geographical concentration.
See Takagi (1992/1998) p. 69.
45
These were exactly the arguments made by a relatively recent
Harvard graduate who had served as Editor-in-Chief of the
Harvard Independent
and also reported on admissions practices.
See Matthew Yglesias, “Harvard and Princeton Clearly
Discriminate Against Asian Applicants; the Question Is
Whether It’s Illegal,”
Slate.com, February 14, 2012: http://www.
slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/02/14/harvard_and_princeton_
clearly_discriminate_against_asian_appliants_the_question_
is_whether_it_s_illegal.html.
46
Daniel Golden, “Harvard Targeted in U.S. Asian-American Discrimination
Probe,
Bloomberg News, February 2, 2012: http://
www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-02/harvard-targeted-in-us-
asian-american-discrimination-probe.html; Daniel E. Slotnik,
“Do Asian-Americans Face Bias in Admissions at Elite Colleges?,”
The New York Times
, February 8, 2012: http://thechoice.
blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/do-asian-americans-facebias-
in-admissions-at-elite-colleges/; Editorial, “A Ludicrous
Lawsuit,”
The Harvard Crimson, February 8, 2012: http://www.
thecrimson.com/article/2012/2/8/lawsuit-admissions-fair/.
47
Dana Vachon, “The Code of the Winklevii,” Vanity Fair,
December 2011: http://www.vanityfair.com/business/features/
2011/12/winklevosses-201112.
48
For decades, comparing and contrasting Asian-Americans
with Jews has been a commonplace in public policy analysis,
given that both groups are small but high-performing minorities
in American society. See, for example, “The Triumph of
Asian-Americans” and “Asians and Jews,” David A. Bell,
The
New Republic
, July 15-22, 1985 and Michael Barone, The New
Americans
(2001) pp. 193-274. Indeed, one-third of Barone’s
book consists of the section entitled “Jews and Asians.” Most
recently, the entire front page of the
Wall Street Journal Weekly
Review section was devoted to exactly this topic; see Lee Siegel,
“Rise of the Tiger Nation,”
Wall Street Journal, October 27-28,
2012: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020407620
4578076613986930932.html.
49
Jewish enrollment estimates for elite universities are summarized
in Appendix D.
50
Karabel (2005) p. 536.
51
Since the overwhelming majority of Harvard’s foreign students
are drawn from non-white countries or countries with negligible
Jewish populations, it is likely that nearly all the Jewish students
reported by Hillel are American. However, 6.2% of Harvard
undergraduates refused to report their race in 2011, and many
of these, possibly a majority, may actually be white. This “Race
Unknown” category has typically ranged between 5% and 15%
of Harvard undergraduates over the last couple of decades, with
roughly similar numbers at most other Ivy League schools.
52
For all these Jewish demographic estimates, see Appendix B.
53
The combined undergraduate enrollment of the eight Ivy
League universities includes roughly 12,000 Jews, 9,000
Asians, and 13,000 non-Jewish whites, as well as 5,000 students
whose racial background is unknown. The population of
college-age Americans consists of roughly 10 million whites,
including 300,000 Jews, and 800,000 Asians.
54
Steve Sailer, “National Merit Semifinalists by School
and Name,” September 18, 2010: http://isteve.blogspot.
com/2010/09/national-merit-semifinalists-by-school.html;
“The Far East Rises in the West,” Takimag.com, February 29,
2012: http://takimag.com/article/the_far_east_rises_in_the_
west_steve_sailer/print; “More Views on California Surnames
of Semifinalists,” February 29, 2012: http://isteve.blogspot.
com/2012/02/more-views-on-california-sunrnames-of.html.
Obviously such a Jewish surname analysis would miss the children
of intermarried families in which the husband was non-
Jewish, hence only count half the half-Jews. However, any such
errors introduced are probably small relative to the broader
uncertainty in defining and estimating total Jewish numbers,
the ambiguity in identifying Jewish names, and the likely estimation
errors in the Jewish college enrollment statistics.
55
Fernanda Santos, “To Be Black at Stuyvesant High,” The
New York Times
, February 25, 2012: http://www.nytimes.
com/2012/02/26/education/black-at-stuyvesant-high-onegirls-
experience.html. In 2012, Asians were 72.5% of Stuyvesant
students, with all whites at just 24%, of whom an unspecified
fraction were Jewish. Charles Murray has noted that in
1954, Jewish children comprised 24/28 or 85% of the highestscoring
students in NYC on a citywide IQ test, although at that
point Jews were probably a little less than 30% of the city’s total
white population, so a similar degree of over-representation at
the local elite academic schools seems plausible. See Charles
Murray, “Jewish Genius,”
Commentary, April 2007.
56
Weyl (1989) p. 26-27.
57
Vernon (1982) 160-162, 178-179, 273; Richard Lynn, “The
Intelligence of American Jews,”
Personality and Individual
Differences
, January 2004; Margaret E. Backman, “Patterns of
5 0 T H E A M E R IC A N CON SE RVAT I V E
DECEMBE R 2 0 1 2
Education
Mental Abilities: Ethnic, Socioeconomic, and Sex Differences,”
American Educational Research Journal
, Winter 1972.
58
Evidence that these low Jewish enrollments are due to meritocratic
admissions factors rather than merely lack of possible
applicants may be seen if we compare different UC campuses.
Berkeley and UCLA are the most selective, and at those Jewish
enrollment averages about 9.5% or about one-quarter the
Asian total; meanwhile, Santa Cruz and Santa Barbara are
much less selective, and the Jewish percentages are nearly
twice as high and also close to the local Asian figures. Jewish
enrollments are also very substantial at the lower-tier California
State University system, with numbers being much higher
both at CS Northridge than nearby UCLA and at San Diego
State compared to UCSD. Large numbers of Jewish students
also attend the schools in the lowest-tier community college
system as well, such as Pierce College in the San Fernando
Valley. If these Jewish students had had higher academic performance,
most would almost certainly have selected the much
more prestigious University of California campuses.
59
Kimball A. Milton and Jagdish Mehra, Climbing the Mountain:
The Scientific Biography of Julian Schwinger
, 2003, p. 218.
60
Weyl (1989) p. 26-27 estimates Jews as having a “performance
coefficient” of 339 on the 1987 NMS semifinalist list. Since
Jews were then approximately 2.4% of the American population,
they would have been roughly 8.1% of the 1987 NMS
semifinalists.
61
David W. Murray, “The War Against Testing,” Commentary,
September 1998.
62
California contains a large fraction of America’s mainland
Japanese-Americans, who represent approximately 1.1% of the
state’s population, while roughly 0.8% of the state’s NMS semifinalists
have Japanese surnames. However, the older mean
age of this group implies that it probably represents a relatively
reduced fraction of the high school population.
63
Weyl (1966) pp. 53-54, 83-84.
64
Most recently, Judge Richard Posner, one of America’s most
highly regarded jurists, made such a claim that Jews have a
mean IQ of 115 on his blog, together with an even more absurd
claim that the same was also true for Asian-Americans. See
“Rating Teachers,” The Becker-Posner Blog, September 23,
2012, http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/2012/09/ratingteachersposner.
html
. 65 Lynn (2011) pp. 274-278.
66
Ron Unz, “Race, IQ, and Wealth,” The American Conservative,
August 2012: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/
articles/race-iq-and-wealth/.
67
For example, the GSS indicates that just 3% of Jews live in
rural areas, a tenth of the overall white rate, while Jews are
over twice as likely to live in major cities or suburbs than the
general white population.
68
Helmuth Nyborg, “The Intelligence-Religiosity Nexus: A Representative
Study of White Adolescent Americans,”
Intelligence
(2009) pp. 81-93.
69
See Appendix A.
70
Sam Roberts, “A Village With the Numbers, Not the Image, of the
Poorest Place,” The New York Times, April 20, 2011:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/21/nyregion/kiryas-joel-a-village-
with-the-numbers-not-the-image-of-the-poorest-place.html.
71
See Appendix G.
72
Ron Unz, “Some Minorities Are More Minor Than Others,” The
Wall Street Journal,
November 16, 1998: http://www.ronunz.
org/1998/11/16/some-minorities-are-more-minor-than-others/.
73
Espenshade (2009) p. 113.
74
See http://www.onlinecolleges.net/2012/02/21/the-10-mostgenerous-
college-donations-of-all-time/.
75
Hughes (2003) p. 31. In 2003, roughly 450 students with perfect
SAT scores of 1600 applied to Harvard, and fewer than 200
were accepted. For the 2000 rates, see Steinberg (2002) p. 220,
and for the case of Princeton, see Kim Clark, “Do Elite Private
Colleges Discriminate Against Asian Students?,”
US News &
World Report
, October 7, 2009: http://www.usnews.com/education/
articles/2009/10/07/do-elite-private-colleges-discriminate-
against-asian-students.
76
William R. Fitzsimmons, “Guidance Office: Answers From
Harvard’s Dean, Part 2,”
The New York Times, September
11, 2009: http://thechoice.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/11/
harvarddean-part2/
77
Hughes (2003) 49, 57-58.
78
Karabel (2005) pp. 292, 311.
79
Privacy considerations prevent the public release of information
on honors degrees awarded to graduates, but the top
10% of each Harvard class is inducted into Phi Beta Kappa,
the national honors society, and the university’s PBK rosters
of the last fifty years are available on the Internet: http://
isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k19082&pageid=icb.
page189954. Thirty or forty years ago, Jewish names were
very common on the PBK lists, but more recently they have
dropped to fairly low levels. It appears that Harvard’s non-
Jewish whites are now perhaps five times as likely as their
Jewish classmates to achieve such high academic performance,
with Asian students doing nearly as well. See Appendix G.
In recent years, Jewish conservatives have often been in
the forefront of accusations that ethnic favoritism leads elite
academic institutions to unfairly admit large numbers of
blacks and Hispanics, who subsequently underperform once
on campus. But perhaps such critics should consider looking
into a mirror.
80
Karabel (2005) p. 667n95.
81
Harvard’s most recent presidents have been Neil Rudenstine
(1991-2001), Larry Summers (2001-2006), and Drew Faust
(2007-present); the first two were of Jewish ancestry, while
the last has been married to Charles E. Rosenberg since 1980.
Richard Levin has served as president of Yale since 1993, as
did Harold Shapiro at Princeton (1988-2001), while the current
presidents of Penn and Cornell are Amy Gutmann (2004-present),
and David Skorton (2006-present) respectively, all of Jewish
origins, as is Yale’s newly named incoming president Peter
Salovey. In addition, former NYC Mayor Ed Koch identified
Columbia President Lee Bollinger (2002-present) as being of
Jewish ancestry in an angry column regarding Iran, but I have
been unable to independently verify that claim. See Ed Koch,
“Columbia Prez Should Have Stood Up for America, Too,”
Jewish
World Review
, September 26, 2007.
82
Princeton’s last seven provosts have been Neil Rudenstine
(1977-1987), Paul Benacerraf (1988-1991), Hugo Sonnenschein
(1991-1993), Stephen Goldfeld (1993-1995), Jeremiah Ostriker
(1995-2001), Amy Guttmann (2001-2004), and Christopher
Eisgruber (2004-present), and all were of Jewish ancestry. Four
of Harvard’s last five provosts have had similar ethnicity, as
well as three of three at Brown and two of five at Yale, including
in each case the current officeholder.
83
Fox Butterfield, “Harvard’s ‘Core’ Dean Glances Back,” The
New York Times
, June 2, 1984.
84
See Appendix D. It is also curious that the weighty 1998
defense of preferential ethnic admissions policies at elite
institutions written by former Harvard President Derek Bok
and former Princeton President William G. Bowen contains
no mention whatsoever of the widespread claims of anti-Asian
D E C EMB E R 2 0 1 2
T H E AME R I C A N C O N S E RVAT I V E 5 1
discrimination at their own institutions, and does not even include
a single reference to “Jews” in their very detailed index.
See Bowen (1998).
85
Three of Caltech’s most recent six presidents have been Harold
Brown (1969-1977), Marvin Goldberger (1978-1987), and
David Baltimore (1997-2006), all of Jewish ancestry. Two of
MIT’s most recent five presidents have been Jerome Wiesner
(1971–1980) and Leo Reif (2012–present), who have the same
ethnic background.
86
Espenshade (2009) pp. 92-93.
87
Espenshade (2009) p. 126.
88
Steinberg (2002/2012) pp. 124-136, 219-220.
89
Steinberg (2002/2012) pp. 27-38, 204-210, 243-252.
90
Steinberg (2002/2012) pp. 38-47, 173-195, 256-257.
91
Steinberg (2002/2012) pp. 258-261, 281-282, 298-299.
92
For example, Harvard President Derek Bok once denigrated
the compensatory rational for affirmative action, instead
praising “diversity” as “the hallmark” and the “core” of a
university experience. As a positive instance of such “diversity,”
he cited the benefits of enrolling a friend of his who had
served as a captain of the women’s track team, and came from
a background wealthy enough that she celebrated her birthday
with a trip to Italy. See Kahlenberg (1996) p. 29.
93
See Howard Kurtz, “College Faculties A Most Liberal Lot,
Study Finds,”
The Washington Post, March 29, 2005: http://
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.
html; Emily Esfahani Smith, “Survey Shocker: Liberal profs
admit they’d discriminate against conservatives in hiring,
advancement,”
The Washington Times, August 1, 2012: http://
www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/1/liberal-majorityon-
campus-yes-were-biased/; Eric Alterman, “Think Again:
Jews Are Still Liberal,”
The Center for American Progress, April
19, 2012: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/media/
news/2012/04/19/11420/think-again-jews-are-still-liberal/.
94
Steinberg (2002/2012) p. 9.
95
Steinberg (2002/2012) pp. 181-182.
96
Golden (2006) p. 60.
97
Steinberg (2002/2012) pp. 282-284.
98
Steinberg (2002/2012) pp. xiii, 130-131.
99
See Appendix D.
100
Steinberg (2002/2012) pp. 59-63, 265-266.
101
Hughes (2003) p. 86, 202.
102
Hernandez (1997) pp. 1-5. She suggests that the Harvard is
the only Ivy League university in which a majority of the
Admissions Officers tend to have an Ivy League background.
103
Steinberg (2002) p. 131, 177-178.
104
Joseph Carroll, “Public Overestimates U.S. Black and Hispanic
Populations,”
Gallup News Service, June 4, 2001.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/4435/public-overestimates-usblack-
hispanic-populations.aspx
105
Razib Khan, “How Many Minorities Are There in the USA?,”
Discover Magazine/GNXP Blog
, January 7, 2012: http://blogs.
discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/01/how-many-minoritiesare-
there-in-the-usa/.
106
Grey Matter Research Consulting, September 13, 2012
107
Dean Lawrence R. Velvel of the Masschusetts School of Law
interviewing Prof. Jerome Karabel on “Books of Our Time,” a
public affairs show. The remarks described appear in the last
nine minutes of the second hour segment. Hour One: http://
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8911761293819497494;
Hour Two:.http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc
id=-4805892219974282.
108
“Sharp Drop in Jewish Enrollment at Princeton U. Stirs
Concern,”
The Chronicle of Higher Education, May 7, 1999;
Ben Gose, “Princeton Tries to Explain a Drop in Jewish Enrollment,”
The Chronicle of Higher Education
, May 14, 1999;
Caroline C. Pam, “Enrollment of Jews at Princeton Drops
by 40% in 15 Years,”
The New York Observer, May 31, 1999;
Karen W. Arenson, “Princeton Puzzle: Where Have Jewish
Students Gone?,”
The New York Times, June 2, 1999. It should
be noted that Princeton’s president at the time was Harold
Shapiro, of Jewish ancestry, and just a few years earlier, the
university had opened a $4.5 million Center for Jewish Life.
See Synnott (1979/2010) p. xxvi-xxvii.
109
See William Lind, “The Origins of Political Correctness,”
February 5, 2000, Accuracy in Academia: http://www.academia.
org/the-origins-of-political-correctness/. Nearly all the
figures mentioned were of Jewish origins.
110
As discussed earlier, the recent accusations of Harvard
racial discrimination from a rejected Asian applicant were
denounced as “ludicrous” and “surreal” by the student editors
of the
Harvard Crimson, who emphasized the tremendous importance
of affirmative action policies in maintaining student
ethnic “diversity” at elite colleges and pointed out that Asians
were anyway already over-represented by 200% relative to
their portion of the American population. It so happens that
the two top names on the
Crimson masthead both came from
an ethnic group over-represented at Harvard by nearly 1300%.
111
For example, Bowen (1998) p. 37-39 attempts to compare the
academic strength of black students admitted under affirmative
action policies with the bottom decile of admitted white
students, as a proxy for those whites rejected under affirmative
action, and notes that the gap is smaller than often believed.
The authors, former presidents of Harvard and Princeton, also
emphasize that the crucial factor is to ensure that all admitted
are above a high academic threshold and able to reasonably
perform the work in question (p. 23). One obvious problem
with this analysis is that if elite universities admit many underqualified
white students based on favoritism or corruption,
these would constitute the bottom decile in question, and the
comparison made would merely highlight this fact.
112
Karabel (2005) p. 292.
113
Klitgaard (1985) pp. 23-30.
114
Hughes (2003) pp. 15, 49, 56. Also, in 1990 Harvard officials
told federal investigators that 80-90% of applicants could
probably do the academic work and 50-60% could do superb
work. See Takagi (1992/1998) p. 194.
115
Lemann (1999) pp. 206-207.
116
Examples of the extreme effort students take in building their
resumes for elite college admissions purposes are discussed
throughout Newport (2010) and Harvard Crimson Editors
(2005).
117
See for example Austin Bramwell, “Top of the Class,” The
American Conservative
, March 13, 2012: http://www.theamericanconservative.
com/articles/top-of-the-class/.
118
Quoted in Heather Higgins, “Remembering James Q.
Wilson,”
US News and World Report, March 5, 2012: http://
www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2012/03/05/rememberingjames-
q-wilson.
119
The quota provisions of the 1924 Immigration Act were based
on the national origins of the existing American population
and therefore required a detailed analysis of existing
ethnicities, and the totals for 1920 are presented in Madison
Grant,
Conquest of a Continent (1933) pp. 278-280. Around
that time, well over one-third of all Americans were of British
ancestry, 80 percent were Protestant, and 85% of whites had
origins in Northwestern Europe.
120 Quoted in Kahlenberg (1996) p. 115.
This is poorly formatted, and therefore I could not read much of it.
ReplyDelete"Finance remains the employment of choice for Harvard" and Princeton grads, etc. Right - to screw people out of their money.
I can't help but notice the the uber liberal class that is so worried about racial equality is really only worried about one color. Green.
ReplyDeleteWhat a bunch of frauds. That's academia of today. Please watch what your children are doing in school. You really have no idea........
This seems to be deep but after you read it, it makes sense. I wish people would read this and comment.
ReplyDeleteI read it, basically education ans staus only pays for those who belong to the club!
ReplyDelete