Tue 29 Nov 2005
In our Quota! thread, HWC writes:
Now, if you want to talk quotas, ask why Williams only has 9% Asian-American enrollment from a hugely qualified and eager applicant pool as evidenced by the percentages at:
Amherst 13%
Dartmouth 13%
Duke 13%
Princeton 13%
Brown 14%
Yale 14%
Swarthmore 16%
Columbia 16%
Harvard 17%
MIT 28%It’s not the international enrollment at Williams that is out of step with the prevailing supply and demand at high-end US colleges. Looking at those numbers, it is hard to not speculate that Williams may have an “Asian-American quota”. I have a hard time imagining that Asian-Americans simply aren’t applying to the #1 ranked liberal arts college in the country.
A “current eph” replies:
Williams does not have a cap or limit on asian admits. The relatively low number of asian admits at Williams is reflective of the admissions pool rather than any particular Williams admission practice. Most likely this is due to a carry-over of Williams’ reputation as being a school for upperclass white boys combined with a relative lack of asian recruiting (compared to other minority groups recruiting) on the part of Williams’ admissions office.
HWC also writes:
I am skeptical about the claim of a small Asian-American applicant pool at Williams. I see no reason that its brand identity would scare off applicants any more than, say, Dartmouth’s nearly identical geographic location and market positioning. Particularly telling is that Williams’ percentage of Asian-Americans has declined
from its high-point in the early 1990s (11.2%). Asian-American enrollment at most elite colleges has skyrocketed in the last ten years. For example, Swarthmore’s 1995 Asian-American enrollment was exactly the same as Williams that year (10.8%). By 2004, Swarthmore’s percentage had increased to 15.8%; Williams’ had declined to
9.2%. Simple twist of fate, running against the demographic grain? Or, institutional guidance to the admissions office?I think a likely explanation is that the admissions office at Williams has been given higher priorities than enrolling Asian-Americans, who tend to be more likely to be seriously academic and music oriented; less likely to be varsity athletes. When 28% of the incoming class consists of recruited athletes, as it did this year,
the Asian-American enrollment will tend to be lower. According to Williams’ Diversity Report data, 49% of the white students play varsity sports at Williams compared to 33% of the Asian-American students.This is directly analagous to the “jew quotas”. If I recall, the argument was that the academically-focused Jewish students were not “well-rounded” enough (and that included being well-rounded enough for the hockey team).
It is also possible that the smaller aid budget for US students impacts Asian-American enrollment. This group, on average, qualifies for frequently for need-based aid (44% at Williams) than caucasian students (32% at Williams). This theory could be tested by looking at the relative yields for accepted Asian-American students.
Comments:
1) I agree with “current eph”. I do not believe that Williams has a quota for Asian Americans. What would be the purpose of such a policy? Who could imagine someone like Morty being in favor of it?
2) I agree with HWC that this is an interesting topic. The percentage of Asian Americans at Williams is much smaller than I would have guessed. The difference between 13% at Amherst and 9% at Williams is not that large, but I am surprised by it none-the-less.
3) There are clearly plausible explanations with regard to Ivy League and city schools. Most every Chinese immigrant mother wants her daughter to go to an Ivy League school. (And I am allowed to make this observation!) But why would Amherst have 50% more Asians than Williams?
4) It would be great to have some data on this topic. What percentage of the total applicant pool at Williams is Asian? What is the average SAT score and/or Academic Rank of admitted Asian students?
Speculation, gossip and innuendo are welcome.
November 29th, 2005 at 6:54 am
“Speculation, gossip and innuendo are welcome.”
Why is that? One of the reasons I read Ephblog is that the level of thought and reasoning is high. I can get speculation, gossip, and innuendo anywhere on the Web, and even pay for it at my local supermarket’s checkout stand. Ephblog shouldn’t stand for junk, just like Williams doesn’t stand for junk.
November 29th, 2005 at 7:23 am
It’s almost impossible to discuss something like this without resorting to speculation, since we don’t have great data and certainly not the kind of in depth data that would be required to state anything other than a hypothesis. But, since one has been advanced that I have trouble believing (quota regarding asians) I will advance a counter-hypothesis.
But first, on the athletics point, I believe at least Amherst has very similar percentage of recruited varsity athletes to Williams, and more so in the “low band” sports. Amherst is basically as successfull, in recent years, as Williams in the sports that likely require the most significant admissions concessions: Football, Hockey, Basketball, Lacrosse, Soccer, Baseball. Indeed, Amherst has been more successful in some of these sports. And Amherst has to admit just as many recruited athletes to fill those spots as Williams, with a MUCH smaller class overall — I mean, both schools have 75 football players, but at Amherst that is a much larger percentage of the student body. The varsity sports that have absolutely huge rosters at Williams — crew, cross country, swimming and diving, and track and field — tend not to underperform academically and in fact produce tons of academic all americans, rhodes scholars, scholar-athlete awards, etc. I mean, because Williams has a varsity crew team and Amherst doesn’t, does that make Williams have a more problematic athlete culture than Amherst, given that this is a huge team with some of the hardest working and brightest students at Williams?
And Williams, again, has just enormous rosters for these sports (over 100 in track and field alone), which I don’t think anyone is claiming diminish campus culture in any way — in fact, many of the hardest workers I knew at Williams, predictably, were crew, track and cross country athletes. Swarthmore is a huge difference from Williams, but other than HWC, does anyone want Williams to turn into Swarthmore? Most people go to Williams because they will encounter a wide variety of types of people, philosophies and campus activities, and a more accurate cross section of perspectives and priorities, something I found notably lacking at Swarthmore, where I found the students to feel pressured/compelled to always appear outwardly intellectual at all times. If you want less of a traditional college life, with no homecoming tailgates and a lot of extra stress over the weekend, fine, send your kids to Swarthmore, but the schools are different for a reason. But among Nescac schools, Williams athletic dominance, at least in recent years, is really more of a dominance in terms of high-band athletic recruits. Williams is just, on the balance, competing on even terms with its key athletic/academic conference rivals — Amherst, Middlebury, Bowdoin — in the sports that feature the most heavily recruited athletes. Compare records for the past five years, in particular, in sports like hockey and lacrosse (where Williams has been dominated by those three schools on the balance).
Back to the Asian issue — I will speculate that is largely a function of Williams’ name recognition. At least many of the asian kids I knew, especially kids of first generation parents, faced an enormous pressure to go to a “name brand” school. Williams, for whatever reason, doesn’t have a lot of name brand recognition beyond people in the know, certainly less than the ivies, but less even than Swarthmore and Amherst. Williams still manages to enroll the same absolute number of asian americans as those two schools, but due to its slightly larger size, that represents a smaller percentage of the student body, and not a terribly dramatic one at that. I think that tends to describe most of the differential. I think if Williams aggressively marketed itself to asian parents, this could change, given its strength in areas, again a stereotype here, of interest to many asian american parents, namely math and science — Williams can make a strong case that in terms of facilities, research opportunities, faculty quality, and fellowship performance, Williams is the top liberal arts college in this arena.
But that brings me to one more point about Swarthmore’s very high asian percentage — it has an engineering program. What percent of engineering programs nationwide are asian vs. what percent of liberal arts? That alone could account for the difference.
November 29th, 2005 at 7:28 am
Perhaps I should have said “Informed speculation and gossip are welcome.”
We do aim for a higher standard than “junk,” but it is often the case that there is no official comment on a topic. Certainly, in this case, if Williams does have a quota — explicit or otherwise — on Asian-Americans, you will never get a College official to go on the record with that information.
So, we need to rely on informed speculation and gossip, as we did in finding out the truth in the Nigaleian controversy.
So, if any EphBlog reader works in admissions or knows someone who does, your insights would be much appreciated. Guy is correct that we probably don’t need anymore innuendo.
November 29th, 2005 at 7:36 am
Jeff asks:
1) I think that this is an unfair dig against HWC. He does not want Williams to “turn into” Swarthmore. He finds some aspects of life at Williams problematic (as do we all) and thinks that, for some of those aspects, Swarthmore does a better job.
2) I think that Williams would be a better college if the life of the mind were further celebrated and encouraged. Many of my side projects, like publishing senior theses and CGCL, seek to make some small contributions in this direction. In this dimension, Swarthmore may do a better job overall and it certainly does a better job in some areas. For example, the Swarthmore Honors Program might be something that Williams could learn from.
November 29th, 2005 at 9:30 am
David, isn’t Williams attempting to move in the direction of Swarthmore’s Honors program with the goal of increasing the number of tutorials? Also, many senior seminars seem to serve a similar purpose to the honors program. Most senior seminars are all discussion based, and both math and economics(and perhaps more majors) have an oral presentation component for all majors.
Also, as far as I know, all theses writers (which I believe are the students who receive honors from a department) present their research to a group of professors and students.
November 29th, 2005 at 10:02 am
After graduation I spent two years working as an admission officer at an elite small liberal arts college (not Williams, not in the NESCAC), and all I really have to add to your discussion is that nearly every conversation you have in this blog about admissions is infuriating; any demographic trend leads immediately to a largely baseless conspiracy theory (the leaps of logic astound me). As you continue, keep this in mind: the manifold goals and priorities of a given admission office are a lot to juggle and keep track of as you read and evaluate hundreds of individual applications and large scale patterns are difficult to see, especially given the uncertainty of yield.
That said, the Asian numbers are interesting (though, I assure you, there is no quota). There are probably a few things going on here. First, as has been mentioned before, Williams’s location and lack of Ivy League status are probably a factor. Second (and maybe this is your “conspiracy”), Asians don’t have the minority advantages in the admissions process that other minorities do (such as being Black or Hispanic). I think they’re seen as not being as disadvantaged (a completely separate debate), so not as in need of an admissions boost. That fact, however, is true at most schools like Williams, so even it does not adequately explain the difference Asian population. In truth, I cannot adequately explain the numbers you have found (though maybe looking at a wider range of schools may help–most schools you cite are really only directly comparable to Williams in reputation alone. Try other NESCAC schools, the Claremont Colleges, Carleton, etc.), but I can assure you that a quota would be last on my list of explanations. Put your Williams-taught critical thinking skills to use!
November 29th, 2005 at 10:49 am
If the subject of admissions is like certain other subjects appearing on this board, then from an insider’s point of view most of that which is said here about admissions (to the extent that it involves matters with subtle implications of substance) is patently a crock - a laughable crock to one happening to be indifferent to it.
November 29th, 2005 at 11:40 am
Hello from Phillips Exeter Academy. Technorati let me here to another post, and in browsing I find this newer entry which is of particular interest to me. As an 11th grader, I am ironically in no way knowledgable of college quotas. Bewildering though I find much of the college admissions process, I do have a note which I can add from the perspective of the PEA High School admissions, courtesy a document quite literally stolen from our Admissions office, complemented by willfully provided information. At PEA, there was a distinct trend where percentages were “called for” and then achieved–and then promptly ignored for another decade. In very short order, a tremendous increase n a specific non caucasian demographic–followed by plateau. Negative feedback. But with a more holistic picture, it isn’t out of line for our peer schools… unlike the image given here with Williams vs. Ivy.
Obviously, it is important to consider the context of these statistics given the “minority advantage” nodded at above.
Anyhow, sorry for mucking up your comments, but I appreciate the great discourse you’ve got going, and this blog in general is a source of great information for me! Appreciate these efforts,
Sam Jackson
November 29th, 2005 at 1:05 pm
Ephblog can be “a great source of information” sometimes for specific issues. However, most Williams people don’t post on this blog or read it. If you want to get a feel for the school, try also writing to a current student.
November 29th, 2005 at 1:29 pm
The US News 2006 college rankings, “Campus Diversity” page, lists the Asian-American % for many liberal arts colleges. Based on these numbers, Williams does not seem to be unusual relative to most other small colleges in New England and upstate New York:
14 % Amherst
13 % Mt. Holyoke
11 % Bowdoin
11 % Smith
10 % Williams
10 % Wesleyan
9 % Vassar
8 % Middlebury
6 % Hamilton
6 % Union
6 % Colby
6 % Trinity
6 % Colgate
5 % Skidmore
4 % Bates
Nationally, the private LACs with the highest % of Asian-Americans are urban women’s colleges — Wellesley (31%) and Barnard (18%) — and coed schools with engineering programs — Harvey Mudd (19%) and Swarthmore (17%). It’s probably not realistic to compare Williams to such schools (although Williams may someday want to add an engineering program to its fine science programs). Note that Dartmouth, and all other Ivy League schools, also have engineering programs.
The real question is not why Williams (9-10%) ranks so low, but why Amherst (14%) ranks so high. Amherst is well ahead of any other coed private LAC on the list.
November 29th, 2005 at 3:53 pm
Jeff suggested that Amherst has as much emphasis on athletics as Williams. I don’t believe the statistics bear that out. In fact, if you take away men’s football and ice hockey, Amherst’s numbers would look pretty much like Swarthmore’s:
Number/Percentage of male students on varsity team:
Amherst: 242/29% (170/20% without football)
Swarthmore: 150/21%
Williams: 380/39%
Number/Percentage of female students on varsity team:
Amherst: 167/21%
Swarthmore: 154/20%
Williams: 284/29%
Total athletic budget:
Amherst: $3,004,696 ($2,558,145 without football)
Swarthmore: $2,213,811
Williams: $5,697,753
Jeff miscalculated in assuming that the number of athletes is directly proportional to the number of teams. The IPEDS data shows that Amherst has many more of its varsity slots being filled by multi-sport athletes. This explains the large difference in number and percentage of varsity athletes. It also suggests that their admissions office may allocate fewer total slots to recruited athletes. (note: this is not the same number as the 66 “tips”)
BTW, I think it’s quite likely that the number of recruited athletes in the admissions process accounts for the differences in Asian-American enrollment. It’s not that Williams doesn’t want Asian-Americans, but once the athletic slots are filled (28% of this year’s freshman class had the “A” attribute from the athletic department), there just isn’t as much room at the Inn.
November 29th, 2005 at 4:46 pm
That one is easy. Amherst places the highest institutional priority on diversity (both ethnic and socio-economic) of all New England co-ed LACs. And, they have the per student endowment to back up that priority.
Diversity is expensive. Many of the colleges towards the bottom of CalEph’s list simply can’t afford diversity.
November 29th, 2005 at 5:58 pm
Amherst may have a lower percentage, overall, of varsity athletes, but as I said before, the difference really comes in sports that don’t create the kind of culture many are concerned about: lower academic qualifications, excess alcohol use, etc. Look at indoor track alone. Amherst has 52 indoor track athletes. Williams has 136. Amherst has no varsity crew program. Williams has 50 varsity crew rowers. Cross country teams have similarly disproportionate numbers. Those three sports right there essentially account for the difference in terms of varsity participation percentages. Amherst has more tips as a percentage of the student body than Williams, and Amherst has more students in the likely “problem” sports (as the report on varsity athletics noted, only a few sports feature a real differential in gpa, etc., and we can all guess what they are) as a proportion of its student body than Williams. So, if you want to make the argument that Williams is out of proportion to its peers, then you are really taking an issue with Williams’ absolutely enormous crew, cross country, and track and field programs. And I didn’t know a single person from any of these teams who was not a good citizen of Williams and a devoted student. I would guess that hardly any were tips. Most I would bet bring other things to the table besides athletics and academics. Maybe less than ten percent are asian, but I have no idea.
Williams needs something to sell itself to prospective students to differentiate itself from Amherst, and Pomona, and Swarthmore. I think the setting, and the outdoor / well-rounded / work hard/play hard, athletic / mountain day / winter carnival / down to earth kind of culture go hand in hand with attracting student-athletes who wouldn’t find Amherst or Swarthmore appealing, just like Amherst can sell the five college area and Swarthmore the proximity to Philly and its outwardly intellectual. I just don’t see this as problematic — I see it as a good thing. No school can be all things to all people, and if you want a hyper intellectual atmosphere, then go to UChicago — I did for grad school, and believe me, I much preferred Williams. Where I thought the people were a lot smarter, but didn’t feel the need to prove it all the time.
Particularly when Williams is now 30 percent domestic minority and 6 percent international, which is really pretty comparable to its competitors. The only difference is asian americans, and Williams is hardly underrepresented there — to the contrary, in terms of percent of American population, Williams, like most elite schools, is overrepresented, so I don’t see it as a crisis. Percentage of kids on financial aid has also gone up in recent years to the point where Williams is becoming more competitve with its peers. Again, another arena where Williams can definitely improve, but the way to do that, in my view, is outreach and publicity, since most kids from disadvantaged (or even moderate) backgrounds still have never heard of Williams or the Berkshires.
Now, this is not to say, to address David’s point, that Williams can not do some things better — I am all for more tutorials and other ways to get students more intellectually engaged in line with the Mark Hopkins on a log model, I am all for increasing non-alcoholic social options and decreasing dangerous drinking, etc. etc.. But HWC’s comments, taken as whole, go far beyond these kind of adjustment — he (or she) is clearly enamored with Swarthmore and finds its model much preferable to the Williams model. I don’t. That’s fine. There is room for both in higher education.
And one thing is for sure, what Williams is doing is working — its endowment has exploded in recent years well above its competitors (1.5 billion and climbing), it has been ranked first in academics and athletics for three years running, it has the highest percentage of minority students in its history, highest SAT’s in its history, and most applicants in its history. Plus enormous success in prominent fellowships in the last few years. Based on the higher education market, which should appeal to the neo-cons on this site, Williams has positioned itself well, because despite not being located anywhere close to an urban area (thus making campus visits, etc. more difficult), it continues to receive as many or more applications as basically all of its peers (except for Amherst some years).
HWC constantly demonizes the athletic culture at Williams and exalts the nerd culture at Swarthmore. So send your kids to Swarthmore, that is fine. But basically, realize that by complaining about the relative sheer number of athletes on campus, you are basically upset about three absolutely enormous teams with none of the detrimental side effects normally imputed to recruited athletes. And if you want to complain about admissions concessions via tips, fine I see that as a very legit issue, but every NESCAC school faces the same issues, several of them with much smaller student bodies, and they all have to make the same concessions, particularly in football and hockey, to remain remotely competitive in the league. I think the league has made a lot of positive reforms in this regard in recent years, and a league-wide approach is the right way to go about continuing to address those issues so all NESCAC schools are affected equally. Basically, I am all in favor of not admitting, via the tip system, any athlete who falls a certain standard deviation from numeric means, but I think that kind of policy should be league-wide to maintain parity (and I note that still allows Trinity to admit a very different sort of player than Williams or Amherst).
In sum, I don’t want to come across as an apologist or a blind defender, but this site is mostly populated by people who are very critical of everything Williams purportedly does wrong. And being a small school, it can’t do everything right. But I think the school is in the midst of, in many respects, a golden age in terms of maintaining academic, athletic, and artistic excellence among students, attracting better and more diverse students each year, improving campus facilities at record pace, and maintaining a great financial base for the future. The administration seems competent and popular. They have succeeded in hiring lots of badly needed, and often very impressive, new faculty. Basically, it’s not broke so it doesn’t need dramatic fixing — just some fine tuning here and there. We often forget that Williams is basically envied by 99 percent of higher education institutions in the country, and that a dramatic reformulation might not necessarily be the way to go in that position.
November 29th, 2005 at 6:39 pm
I’ve never argued that Williams is broken. Just the opposite. I’ve argued that Williams should embrace its unique qualities, specificially the fact that it is the powerhouse Division III athletic college in the country. Whenever I suggest that, people get all defensive about it — something that I don’t understand. I think the accomplishments of the athletic department are something to be proud of and the heavy emphasis on athletic recruiting gives Williams a distinct admissions profile with recognizable product differentiation.
In my opinion, Williams has the most advantageous brand identity for its target consumer base of all elite LACs. The athletics and the party reputation both have a great deal of appeal. For de facto proof of the strength of the brand, look at the large percentage of full-pay customers the school attracts.
The only people who really complain about embracing the brand identity are some faculty members, a few alumni, and nerdy applicants who probably wouldn’t be a good fit at Williams in the first place.
November 29th, 2005 at 9:23 pm
“…and nerdy applicants who probably wouldn’t be a good fit at Williams in the first place.”
Great. Just great. We are #1 LAC in the country, and you suggested that Williams should not try to get “nerds” (btw, I am currious, how do you define that?) apply. Why dont we scrap the classes all together. They indeed interfere with the whole “college experience” thing. The whole education should consist of extracurriculars and versity athletics. Imagine how many fine Ibankers we would produce.
November 29th, 2005 at 10:01 pm
Comments like the last one by hwc directly serve to depreciate the value of my college degree, and hurt our “brand identity” as an elite institution of higher education.
November 29th, 2005 at 10:27 pm
Ronit:
How?
Jeff made a good point. By any objective measure, Williams is stronger than at any time in the last three decades, perhaps ever. Some of that is surely due to the demographics of the echo-boomers; however, Jeff makes a strong case that the school’s identity as an academically strong, sports-oriented, work hard/play hard school for “balanced” students is attracting a strong applicant pool. In fact, it could be argued that the strong brand identity is, in part, responsible for the current success. Doesn’t make much sense to change a winning formula. It’s not like the formula doesn’t include excellent professors and plenty of students who are academically engaged.
November 29th, 2005 at 10:49 pm
I agree with Jeff’s comment 100%: “But I think the school is in the midst of, in many respects, a golden age in terms of maintaining academic, athletic, and artistic excellence among students, attracting better and more diverse students each year, improving campus facilities at record pace, and maintaining a great financial base for the future. The administration seems competent and popular. They have succeeded in hiring lots of badly needed, and often very impressive, new faculty. Basically, it’s not broke so it doesn’t need dramatic fixing — just some fine tuning here and there.”
We do get sucked into byzantine rat holes from time to time, and it is worthwhile to remember that things hum along pretty well at Williams. I can certainly get worked up — as those in the Alumni Office know — on the technology front, in that I think alumni giving and loyalty could be radically energized with some of the tools available today, especially for the younger classes. However, IT sophistication isn’t that high a priority in higher education, and it isn’t at Williams either. Williams is not on the bleeding edge — Carleton and Dartmouth are ahead in some ways — but it’s certainly not in the back of the pack, either.
So a bit of a detour to point out that while we may have an intense debate about something like Asian American admissions, being 4 percentage points lower than Amherst is not the greatest crime of the century.
November 29th, 2005 at 11:18 pm
An anonymous respondent to hwc said:
Actually, Oren Cass ‘05 argued a similar perspective here in an opinion piece this past May, where he said
Well, read the linked post for more on how much EphBlog readers disagree with Cass, and with you, Anonymous.
We don’t pay $40,000 a year to do sports, to drink alcohol, or to go hiking in the Berkshires. We pay for professors, for classes, and for some small level of enlightenment, and for us few nerdy kids who find a few professors who like this whole education thing, well, it works.
November 29th, 2005 at 11:20 pm
Sorry, sorry, I realize the anonymous poster was against hwc; I meant “and you, hwc.”
November 30th, 2005 at 3:39 am
I bet that for $40,000+ per year most students expect (and in my view their “freight paying” parents deserve) a lot more than mere professors, classes and “enlightenment”. Attempting to meet many of those expectations and succeeding in very substantial part can make Williams a desirably rare place - without such an attempt and success a much lesser place in the eyes of most.
November 30th, 2005 at 12:43 pm
Diana, I didn’t mean to diminish the intellectual aspects of life at Williams, and by using the word “nerd” I guess I did so — hell, many Williams students/alums, myself certainly included, would qualify as such. Rather, what I think makes Williams attractive to many is that it is not a place where students put on intellectual airs, nor focus on academics so intensely that they can’t be very involved in other aspects of campus life. I think the “average” (e.g. non low-band tip) varsity athlete on campus adds, rather than detracts, from this image. Indeed, given that Williams does not suffer vs. Amherst or anyone in terms of NON-athletic non-academic pursuits — just see the number of people involved in music/theater/dance/art/newspaper/campus radio on campus, or community service, or the outing club, or student leadership of some sort — a good chunk of varsity athletes also contribute to campus in myriad other ways. At the same time, I think a true love of learning and ideas should always be a paramount value at Williams, just not the ONLY value Williams holds in the highest regard. I felt at some schools I am familiar with (notably UChicago) that was definitely the case. And given HWC’s clarification, I agree with him.
November 30th, 2005 at 6:57 pm
I seem to recall while I was on College Council at Williams in ‘01 that Asian students tended to report that Williams was rather unwelcoming to Asians. I don’t remember the context of the discussion, nor the reasons offered for the opinion, but since the decline observed coincides with the period I was at Williams, it may be that something about campus culture and the Asian experience on campus turns off potential applicants from Asian descent.
Not to throw gasoline on the fire, but I’m not sure what difference a few percentage points here or there in enrollments of particular ethnicities matters in the grand scheme of things. Does Williams necessarily need to be self-conscious about its image, so that nobody could have reasons not to go there?
November 30th, 2005 at 7:12 pm
Such self-consciousness would be reason enough!
December 3rd, 2005 at 3:43 am
Jay Mathews, education report for the Washington Post, had two articles on this issue back in early 2005:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26499-2004Oct12.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35075-2005Jan25.html