<p>Whoops. Sorry to escalate this thread into such a debate.
I think we all need to understand that MIT and Caltech has different goals. Both have their pros and cons and help set up the environment of the school. If you don't like one system, don't participate in it. I doubt either school is going to change only over a simple forum debate. aka we aren't achieving anything.
I highly doubt those attending/favoring Caltech system at the moment will concede just as I doubt those that favor MIT's system will surrender.
If no firm action is going to take place, what is the goal of these arguments? Wouldn't our time be better spent doing something else?</p>
<p>Dianal, you've misread this thread. Ben Golub and the rest haven't been arguing in favor of the Caltech system, he's simply trying to show that yes, MIT does follow affirmative action, which some of the parents on this thread seem to disbelieve. </p>
<p>No one's arguing for either system, they're just trying to explain what the systems are. One is based on pure (or tries to) meritocracy, the other favors composing a more diverse class. It's really this way based on institutional need. Caltech is small, so that it must seek to get the most select group of academically promising students as possible, since its student body is so small. MIT on the otherhand, is bigger and thus seeks diversity in order to diversify it's interests as it seeks to enter the HYP group instead of being added to it usually as an afterthought.</p>
<p>"it's interests as it seeks to enter the HYP group instead of being added to it usually as an afterthought."</p>
<p>No I will not bite on that one.</p>
<p>MIT suffers due to claims of AA. Caltech suffers from lack of diversity. It truely is up to the prospective student to decide which of these two fine universities is a better "fit".</p>
<p>Akdaddy, am I wrong? Caltech is never going to join the ranks of HYP, but MIT is big enough that it is stronger than HYP is some ways, but still lacks the social emphasis that HYP has, which is why for MIT diversity is a neccessity.</p>
<p>To vaguely answer Diana's question:</p>
<p>part of the point of these discussions, at least for me, is to express disappointment that our brothers and sisters on the other coast -- who were once with us in the no-nonsense, Feynmanesque pursuit of pure math and science excellence (indeed, who preceded us in this!) -- are straying into the squishy realms of diversity and let's-have-everything and we-mustn't-seem-narrow! </p>
<p>We already have enough HYP in the world, and the fact that MIT, at the undergraduate level, is becoming a shadow of its former meritocratic self is a shame. Of course, you might say it's none of my business and I shouldn't complain about someone else's school, but it would not be showing proper respect not to tell a friend the truth.</p>
<p>I think Feynman would, today, be proud of Caltech but unhappy with recent developments at MIT.</p>
<p>Just my usual inflammatory two cents.</p>
<p>True. Admittedly,it would be interesting if Ben Jones dropped by and commented...though I bet he's overwhelmed with the amount of work these days.</p>
<p>I believe MIT already know about the complaints that Caltech admission officers already have on their system and yet they still haven't changed. This conversation/argument has been repeated several times over these forums and often times the same arguments are brought up. The same (group of) people are reading it, where are we trying to go? Though I do commend Caltech's attempt at being purely meritocratic, I still question the effect these seemingly petty arguments have unless one within the MIT ranks rises to complain.</p>
<p>If the quality of MIT graduates suffers from their admission process, it will show through and eventually impact the school, which hopefully will bring about change once again.</p>
<p>Just my inflammatory two cents.</p>
<p>Going overboard in either direction relating to diversity has negative consequences. Ben has pointed out some that he sees in MIT. I will point out one that we see as a fault of Caltech. Common data set numbers (2004-2005) for entering freshman class: black 0.5%, native american 0.5% and hispanic 6%. The polar opposite of diversity could be viewed as insensitivity or discrimination.</p>
<p>To me this information shows that Caltech tries to admit its class solely on the base of merit.</p>
<p>akdaddy --</p>
<p>We are in an odd situation indeed when the refusal to discriminate on the basis of race or gender -- i.e. the refusal to treat people differently based on biological traits entirely beyond their control -- "could be viewed as discrimination".</p>
<p>One may view it that way if one wants, but only at very serious risk to one's sanity :-).</p>
<p>My sanity is always at risk.</p>
<p>This brings us full circle back to inherent differences, or lack thereof, between different races, cultures, regions and genders. Since we have covered that at length already, I will only summerize with the statement that there is little if any difference in native ability. Hence in any group large enough for valid statistical sampling, we should find reasonable agreement with society as a whole. When that is not the case terms like insensitivity or discrimination can come into play.</p>
<p>It is probably time to move on. I do not want any potential student to question the excellence of either school, both are wonderful at what they do.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I will only summerize with the statement that there is little if any difference in native ability. Hence in any group large enough for valid statistical sampling, we should find reasonable agreement with society as a whole. When that is not the case terms like insensitivity or discrimination can come into play.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That is a deeply incoherent argument. What does "native ability" have to do with anything? Caltech and MIT aren't admitting infants in diapers. By the time students apply, academic accomplishments and developed abilities -- which are the ones that matter by the time they get to college -- differ markedly across, say, ethnic groups.</p>
<p>That is a tragic truth, but not one that we can fix by pretending the groups are all still equal, on average, and admitting them at equal rates. That is whitewash, not a solution. </p>
<p>By this stage in their lives, we owe students an honest evaluation based on their actual talents, not some hypothetical talents they may have developed if the world had been different. To do otherwise dilutes the quality of an academic institution and only masks the broader social problem.</p>
<p>No they are admitting young adults that have great potential but limited background. To say that those who haven't had the opportunity to develop the academic accomplishments and abilities, but have the raw talent, should be shut out of the process in favor of those that have been able to take advantage of what the system has to offer is clearly discriminatory.</p>
<p>We can argue all day how to address the problem but the bottom line is that while all groups are clearly not equal in accomplishment, they are equal in talent and ability. Doing nothing is equally as bad as blindly choosing students by a quota.</p>
<p>You and I can certainly break bread over the premise that young people with limited past opportunities should be given a chance to realize their potential if there is still a chance they can do it. Affirmative action as currently practiced looks not at past opportunity but at color (or gender); thus it perversely rewards many minorities who have had way more opportunity than the average non-minority applicant. But on the philosophical ideal, we agree.</p>
<p>On the other hand, I think it's also important to remember that we would not expect all groups to be represented at the same level if there were equal opportunity. Anyone who wants to can play online poker, but it is a predominantly male activity by large margins. I think being a professional scientist is, in many ways, like being a professional online poker player. You have to be kind of dumb and risk-seeking to want to do it (and men win on these traits -- certainly</a> the latter). It's quite possible that different groups will have different interests, without any oppression causing that. I fear the kind of equality you like is eerily homogeneous and doesn't allow for the interesting differences between groups that lie at the heart of true diversity.</p>
<p>LOL or football for that matter. I fully agree that exact balance is not likely. Time does not allow more than a cursory glance at your reference but it raises interesting questions. </p>
<p>"It's quite possible that different groups will have different interests, without any oppression causing that. I fear the kind of equality you like is eerily homogeneous and doesn't allow for the interesting differences between groups that lie at the heart of true diversity."</p>
<p>Agree completely except for the part about what kind of equality I like. What I like is a world where this conversation would no longer have any relevance. You and I both agree on that. How do we get there is the issue.</p>
<p>I might disagree on the professional scientist analogy since all the woman in our extended family come under that umbrella, but anecdotal evidence does not a fact make so I'll leave that one as a question mark.</p>
<p>It's fair enough that Caltech considers the possible disadvantages kids may have during their highschool career. What AA is really trying to do is incorporate disadvantaged students and just grouping people by their skin color isn't necessarily the best way to go about it.
If Caltech factors a lack of AP or honor classes or even comprehends a student's obstacles through an essay. They are trying to bridge the gap in a more meritocratic manner.
When a school takes a student in they have to ask, "What will the student bring? and if they wish to factor in diversity they must also answer, "What does diversity bring? What is the motive to bringing more culturally more diverse students while shunning students who appear to have more potential academically?</p>
<p>My own aunt and uncle (granted, they live up near SLO) routinely referred by accident to me being at Cal Poly for the first couple years I was at Caltech. :-)</p>
<p>An older guy at my high school graduation party in Michigan, who I think is related to me somehow at least by marriage, seeing the "-tech" on the cake, asked me if I was going to be a machinist or an electrician. I guess I did learn to use machine tools, so maybe there was something to that one.</p>
<p>This is probably why I chose to go to UMich right after Caltech. That degree gets some respect back home! (kidding)</p>
<p>Oh. I see that's no longer the topic of this thread.</p>
<p>I'll just say: Ben, you da man. You have laid out a coherent and compelling case which has not been countered by anything but wishy-washiness.</p>
<p>On the diversity stuff, YES there is a cost to Caltech choosing to abstain from affirmative action. I don't personally care what color the people around me are, so that wasn't a factor, but I can say conclusively that I didn't much enjoy the male/female ratio, particularly after having actually been fairly social in high school. (Of course, that has made life since then seem pretty darn sweet by comparison in that department.)</p>
<p>So, why is it so difficult for the MIT folks to accept that YES, there is a cost to choosing TO use affirmative action as well?</p>
<p>In the end, I really admire Caltech for trying to come as close to a merit-only admissions process as they can, and in my one year on the committee I was proud to do my best to help uphold that tradition. Yes, it was difficult to walk across campus and not see many female faces, but I loved the feeling that every man and woman who I did see was there for their talents and abilities, and would have been there regardless of race or gender.</p>
<p>Bravo Joe and Ben! What I find odd about this is that it is Caltech's choice which is beleaguered. It's not as if the vast majority of schools are unwilling to try AA and other such standard-adjusting ideas. It is Caltech which is the extreme minority. In one year, I heard that the accreditation agency actually threatened Caltech with non-accreditation because it wasn't practicing AA hard enough. Yet Caltech is one tiny outlier in the world of academic behemoths.</p>
<p>One more thing: The claim that the scores of all admits to the top two or three schools is high enough that the pool is mostly indistinguishable is false. Even at these levels internal documents suggest that students scoring below a 700 on the SAT Math are more likely to do worse than those with a 780-800. The correlation may not be high, but it is there.</p>
<p>A more recent study of the top 5 PhD programs in econ found an amazing result. Even in a world where most everyone got between a 770-800 on the GRE Quant, GRE scores still had a significant correlation with first year course grades and likelihood of completion. It seems the results were heavily driven by the few students who got in with scores below a 750. The top 5 Econ PhD programs are probably more homogeneous academically than either Caltech or MIT partly due to self-selection. Yet the homogeneity of the student body, the clear focus of their work, and the extensive admission filtering should have rendered these miniscule differences moot. Apparently not. </p>
<p>Oh and as to the original post. I am constantly amazed how many people I run into are proud to tell me they flunked or transferred out of Caltech yet still admire it. One prof -- who graduated from other distinguished institutions after transferring out of Tech was discussing Feynman's death at a cocktail party many years ago. A young lady from the NorthEast asked "What's Caltech?" A guy who'd gone to MIT for grad school jumped in, smiled, and said, "Well, it's like MIT-squared."</p>
<p>It is good to be among reasonable people :). What is most sickening is that AA, as practiced, focuses on pure race-counting (look, eighteen black people!) without paying attention to which, if any, of these people has ever suffered any disadvantage related to race. Then its advocates turn around and defend it as a way to do justice and compensate for early-childhood inequalities or unrealized potential. Then they accuse Caltech, which actually does pay attention to disadvantage as opposed to color, of being biased. (Though this ridiculous argument is, thankfully, rare.) It boggles the mind.</p>
<p>We at Caltech will never behave as if black people are disadvantaged just because they are black. We will give an equal hearing to anyone who has had to fight adversity, and reward a person's accomplishment in the context of his opportunities. Not the opportunities of his-race-taken-as-a-whole. We will not assume a person's race is a proxy for his experiences, which is racism plain and simple. And in this we will retain the moral high ground over our weaker brethren who adopt results-oriented but unfortunately racist expedients.</p>