<p>What do you guys think about caltech's race blind admissions process? I honestly love it, and I will probably be applying ea to caltech. Who thinks that other elite universities who practice affirmative action are pretty backward compared to caltech's modern "treat everyone the same" policies? Also, who thinks that universities such as harvard, princeton, stanford, and yale would be much better places if they had non-affirmative action admissions such as caltech?</p>
<p>I think it’s great. I did not get into caltech, but I am very impressed by their meritocratic admissions process. while I regret not getting in, I am comfortable in knowing that every admit was actually better than me. this is not the case with other universities, who I have seen firsthand to accept applicants who are inferior in every way. </p>
<p>fwiw, I am white.</p>
<p>Hm, well my son’s Hispanic and he was admitted to Caltech but presumably, that’s based on his strength as an applicant. I guess at least at Caltech, people wouldn’t be wondering if he got in because he’s Hispanic. It could happen at other schools, I guess, which is too bad since he’s a very strong applicant.</p>
<p>I’m not sure how I feel about building a diverse class. My son has a diverse body of friends and presumably, he would want that in college.</p>
<p>^ My S’s host for PFW is hispanic so I don’t think hispanics are an oddity on campus and they all are there surely based on their qualifications!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>sbj: Don’t worry about your son’s Hispanic background. Judging from what I have read, he is really a strong applicant. Not just at Caltech, he will get admission at many places. He should be proud of his heritage no matter what. Good luck to your son at college.</p>
<p>"who thinks that universities such as harvard, princeton, stanford, and yale would be much better places if they had non-affirmative action admissions such as caltech? "</p>
<p>Hey, thanks for that suggestion! I see that HYPS have really been in the toilet as far as educational ability and prestige. They better alter their ways in order to rise in their prestige. I’ll bet is was that durn “affirmative action”! Good catch!</p>
<p>pfft!</p>
<p>Thanks for the positive comments, T.A.D</p>
<p>My son is looking forward to his visit in a few days!</p>
<p>How do I feel about it? It’s awful, it’s stupid and unnecessary. Caltech is great in many ways. One thing it does not do very well in is diversity. In fact I’ll go past that, Caltech is absolutely horrible in that regards. Caltech has no affirmative action. As a result, 1% of Caltech undergraduates are black. 1% at Caltech means that there were ~9 black undergraduate students. The other numbers are not much better. There are 0 (I repeat, 0) students who identify as american indian or alaska native. Only 6% of the undergraduate population is hispanic. </p>
<p>The common argument I hear is that Caltech is simply too difficult to allow someone without the best math and science background to attend. They argue that anyone who has not mastered the sciences by the time they get here has no hope of succeeding. That bothers me to no end. </p>
<p>My alma mater is arguably equally as strong as Caltech (Stanford) but was much more diverse. 10% of the undergraduate population was black, 14% were hispanic and 3% were american indian or alaska native. </p>
<p>Now quite frankly I would argue that as a private institution Caltech should, and as within its rights, have affirmative action. I am not one of these minorities (Middle Easterners are over represented) but these horrible statistics drive me crazy. I see no diversity amongst these students. I saw a trip from a local middle school; the students were predominantly hispanic and I could not help but ask myself: when these students walk around will they not notice that no one here looks like them? Will they not internalize it and think that this is just not their future? That they are not destined to roam these halls? </p>
<p>I look at the current undergraduates and I think: how are these students going to grow when they live in such a homogenous enclave? How will they grow without meeting and debating with say a queer Hawaiian native who believes in Hawaii rights to succeed from the United States or an african american who grew up with a teenage mother and an incarcerated father in one of the poorest parts of Stockton (he is in fact current running for city council <a href=“http://mdtubbs.com/)?%5B/url%5D”>http://mdtubbs.com/)?</a> </p>
<p>I believe that private universities (I would argue the same for public but understand that that might be a bit more contentious) are not meant to ‘reward’ who they see as the most fit, but should instead try to create the best collective group of students they possibly can. This has to go beyond academics. I believe affirmative action helps the university as a whole. </p>
<p>PS: I whole-heartedly agree that people from underprivileged backgrounds regardless of race should also have affirmative action </p>
<p>PPS: By referencing Stanford I am in no way saying that it is ideal there either. Stanford itself has a long way to go too. It’s just a lot farther along that way than Caltech is. </p>
<p>PPPS: Women are also underrepresented at Caltech. ~40% of the undergraduate population is female. That said Caltech has worked hard to improve this number over the years.</p>
<p>The percentage of URMs has jumped in recent years. According to the College Board <a href=“BigFuture College Search”>BigFuture College Search, Caltech’s entering class was 12% Hispanic.</p>
<p>Agreed with superwizard. </p>
<p>Race is not nearly as important as people on CC like to think. They prefer to think that they were waitlisted or rejected for something they couldn’t control - race, geography, legacy status, athletic prowess - rather than face the uncomfortable reality that other applicants were simply more impressive.</p>
<p>Here’s something I posted recently about this:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is evidenced by the increasing proportions of low-income and/or first-generation students at the elite universities, and by the increasingly frequent statements from admissions offices regarding their policies on socioeconomic status and affirmative action (more the former, less the latter). For example, Stanford’s statement on it:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Stanford isn’t skirting the issue here. Its FAQ on this used to be very explicit about its use of AA. But Stanford’s admissions have shifted over the past few years. Organizations like QuestBridge (which was founded at Stanford) have pushed this shift a lot.</p>
<p>By the way, according to Caltech’s most recent common data set, racial/ethnic status is checked as “considered.”</p>
<p><a href=“http://finance.caltech.edu/documents/9-cds2011_final_4_28_11.pdf[/url]”>http://finance.caltech.edu/documents/9-cds2011_final_4_28_11.pdf</a></p>
<p>I also wonder to what extent Caltech has a “treat everyone the same” policy when females get in at 3x the rate. There may be some self-selection, but notice that the % females has gone from ~25% to 40% over the past several years. </p>
<p>
</a></p>
<p>IIRC, that guy used to post on the Stanford CC forum and got a lot of crap from people for getting into Stanford with a below-average SAT score. Now he’s a Truman Scholar, has interned in the White House, etc. He sure showed the haters ;)</p>
<p>Caltech will have more of my respect than any other school in the nation as long as they continue race-blind admissions. As soon as they start admitting the URMs with lower stats, my respect for the school will diminish significantly.
@those who say other schools look more at background than race: GREAT! If they really wanted to look at background, they would prohibit their adcom from seeing the race of applicants, therefore allowing each applicant to be evaluated for their background ONLY, without taking into account whether it was a low income Asian or a low income Black.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You need to remove your rose colored glasses. Once minorities get into these schools, they cluster like bees around their own and hardly ever interact – other than minimally – with other races. So, all the effort at URM “diversity” looks good on paper but in practice the diversity de-diversifies and concentrates again by race.</p>
<p>^ agree that minority groups tend to do that. but i am not sure if that’s reason enough not to give them opportunities.</p>
<p>[University</a> admissions need to change | The California Tech](<a href=“The California Tech”>The California Tech)</p>
<p>I definitely agree with superwizard and phantasmagoric. Caltech is a scientific institution so maybe it can get away with it. Yet it does not make it any better than any other University. Harvard, Princeton and MIT still match CalTech in every way in terms of prestige with the latter two even surpassing Caltech in different polls. (MIT and Caltech tend to be evenly matched.) Sooo for all it’s talk about race blindness it is no better for it in my opinion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>placido240, IIRC you were rejected from Stanford and have been railing against it many times for the past few weeks. Give it a rest?</p>
<p>What you say is false. Yes, there is some self-segregation among minorities, but at Stanford and MIT (can’t speak for the rest), they’re heavily integrated. I know because I’ve seen it.</p>
<p>Nihility, what do you have to say about Caltech’s common data set in which ‘race’ is checked as considered? It isn’t race-blind. Also, how do you think gender-aware admissions affects Caltech’s reputation?</p>
<p>I’ll add that Caltech’s admissions have not garnered it any more [respect](<a href=“Harvard Number One University in Eyes of Public”>http://www.gallup.com/poll/9109/harvard-number-one-university-eyes-public.aspx</a>) among the general public (and Caltech and MIT are never evenly matched in polls of prestige - not that this matters much). It also doesn’t give Caltech a leg-up in employment, as shown by employment statistics from its competitors. It’s fine if you think that Caltech is more “noble” for not considering race (although that’s a lie, since Caltech states that it does), but don’t pretend that it has any effect on how others - from the layman to employers - perceive Caltech.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think Caltech runs itself the way it does to try and maximize perceived prestige with high school students (or, for a large part, the general public). </p>
<p>And, heck, it’s hard to get a leg-up in employment when both you and your biggest competitors all get the same recruiters dropping by.</p>
<p>What Caltech is really about is the process it puts its students through, and the way in which it’s done. They want to take the people that are the absolute best at math & science in the country already and refine those skills to a level that isn’t available at almost every other university in the country.</p>
<p><a href=“Whether%20I%20agree%20if%20this%20process%20or%20not%20is%20worth%20it%20to%20the%20majority%20of%20the%20students%20it%20serves%20is%20a%20different%20discussion%20all%20together.”>size=1</a>[/size]</p>
<p>^ While I agree that Caltech’s process is unique, I don’t see how it ultimately ‘refine[s] those skills to a level that isn’t available at almost every other university in the country.’ What universities match that level? Why are they reaching that level and not others? Are you sure that they aren’t?</p>
<p>@superwizard~~~sounds like you worry too much!</p>