<p>Caltech's choice of admissions system is certainly the most philosophically pleasing: how can you argue against a meritocracy? Perhaps more importantly, the difficulty of the core curriculum dictates the minimum level of academic achievement for admissions which limits any possible use of AA to a minimum.</p>
<p>That being said, I appreciate that other schools do indeed practice affirmative action - even if at the unpleasant level of giving black students a small advantage just because they are black (for example). Why? Because I feel it's incredibly important to create minority role models. The impact of a few highly successful people can inspire a whole generation of developing students. </p>
<p>For example, if a black student is given a little aid to get into say MIT because of his or her race, but then is able to use that opportunity to do great research and win a scientific Nobel prize, that person alone could help change unfortunate stereotypes and 'open the doors' for future black success in science.</p>
<p>I'm not trying to suggest lowering the bar for such people in general - that would be incredibly counterproductive, but it doesn't feel too terrible to give small preferences in undergraduate college admissions - college admissions to places like MIT is hardly a free ticket to success; much work is still required. </p>
<p>Indeed, I think it's important to keep in mind that admissions is not about rewarding past success but is rather based on the extent to which one will take advantage of offered opportunities. And those two factors are not necessarily the same and certainly are not if societal benefit is remotely considered.</p>
<p>I agree that the social impact should be considered, but this cuts both ways. Having a program that clearly gives a boost based on race conveys the impression that black people (e.g.) can't make it on their own with the same standards. It also encourages a culture of entitlement -- India's affirmative action programs have been a disaster for this reason.</p>
<p>I think it's an open empirical question whether the role-model social effect helps more than the lowering-standards social effect hurts. That would be an interesting subject to study further.</p>
<p>"And in this we will retain the moral high ground over our weaker brethren who adopt results-oriented but unfortunately racist expedients."</p>
<p>And end up with as little as one member of a significant minority group in an entire class (2009). If that is the moral high ground I guess from my perspective you can have it.</p>
<p>One minority whom we respected enough to give a fair shake is way better than thirty whom some would let in partially because of what color they were.</p>
<p>(When did Hispanics become an "insignificant" minority, pray tell?)</p>
<p>It's entirely unfair to criticize Caltech for only have one member of a "significant minority group" when you have no idea how many members of that group were accepted, or how many applied in the first place.</p>
<p>It probaby is. It is also unfair to criticize Caltech or MIT for following policies that both schools truely believe in. I think we would all be better served by discussion of issues and avoid the name calling. Promise to try.</p>
<p>akdaddy, you are descending further into racialism with each post here. Now you're assigning "significance" to individuals by virtue of skin color?</p>
<p>I actually think this is an argument for non-elite schools with high standards, rather than selective schools where the lack of standards becomes a gift to academically weaker students from any race or group. Why do you think a Caltech that accepted a dozen more minorities who might not survive Core be a kindness to anyone?</p>
<p>I say this in all seriousness. It is compromise I despise.</p>
<p>This is what good state schools should do. With less selectivity but good classes, they should provide an opportunity for students who don't make the private elite cut (or who prefer to save money) a chance to really show their stuff. Better than be the token. And if it turns out that you really wouldn't have survived at MIT or Caltech, state schools give you a chance to do well and get an excellent education.</p>
<p>In my own field of economics, Chicago used to have the reputation of being the easiest Phd program in the top ten to enter, but the hardest to graduate from. This meant that people whose applications were somewhat "defective" got a chance to show their stuff. And one can't argue with the overwhelming excellence of Chicago's output.</p>
<p>Would that grade inflation didn't debase the grades of so many elite school grads. I think however that the lack of a tough minimum and grade inflation is an inevitable equilibrium in a world in which standards at the bottom of the class are lowered for legacies, athletes or what have you.</p>
<p>akdaddy, I think Caltech people are happy to let the MIT folks have their affirmative action policy, as just about all posts on this thread have indicated. Caltech has made a conscious decision to favor merit at the expense of racial/gender diversity and MIT has made a conscious decision to favor racial/gender diversity at the expense of merit.</p>
<p>It's not "unfair" to point out that the policies are, in fact, different, and have different results though--which is all the poster who got you so worked up originally did.</p>
<p>Further, I do reject the assertion that it's "unfair" to criticize any policy so long as said policy is "truly believed in." Such criticism should be (and in the case of the Caltech folks on this thread, in my opinion, has been) done in a civil way, but for goodness sake--the medievals "truly believed" that the sun went 'round the Earth, and "truly believed" that Galileo ought to be condemned to hell for saying otherwise! Sincerity of belief is no metric for either the correctness or the morality of a given concept.</p>
<p>You think MIT policies are racist and I think Caltechs are. We are never going to agree on this one. My comment about "unfair" relates to civil discourse not belief structure. I don't yet "believe" string theory but enjoy the discussion about it.</p>
<p>Ignoring cultural and gender difference (one biased standard for all) is just as bad as giving a preference to non qualified applicants(AA). My point all along has been that what some of you call AA (ie.) shaping a class among equals is no such thing, just as you say ignoring certain differences is not biased.</p>
<p>The truly equitable, non biased, non racial answer must lie somewhere in between. There are measurable differences on standardized tests, parental income and education, location and a multitude of other measurements that can't be ignored. Until the societal biases that produce very different results on what should be standard measurement disappears, we need to identify which members of these groups is as able, and if given equal opportunity, would excel as other top students can.</p>
<p>I will admit current attempts to do so fall short of the mark. There are to many false positives under one scenario and too many false negatives under the other. Proponents of one will call the others strategy biased. I see only one way to reduce the error rate. That involves gathering a lot more personal information about applicants. Then we can apply more careful analysis to truly identify those who only appear less talented due to inherent system bias, disadvantaged childhoods or other measurable roadblocks. Until all aspects of our society at least resemble the make up of the whole there is work to be done. I fear there is no simple answer.</p>
<p>Akdaddy- are you serious? One biased standard for all? Bias means favoring one thing over another. If you do not consider or gender in your admissions, you literally do not have a bias.</p>
<p>You really should just stick to AA's strong point-- that it creates a diverse student environment. Arguments that attempt to show that AA is as based on merit as a non-AA system are absurd. Arguments that attempt to show a meritocratic system as racist are also absurd.</p>
<p>"Ignoring cultural and gender difference (one biased standard for all) is just as bad as giving a preference to non qualified applicants(AA)."</p>
<p>We know you think that, but I don't actually agree with you there, and I don't think you prove the point by repeating it. I don't think Caltech's standard is "biased" towards anything except finding the people best able to use a Caltech education, to the best of the admissions committee's ability.</p>
<p>"There are measurable differences on standardized tests, parental income and education, location and a multitude of other measurements that can't be ignored."</p>
<p>...and also have nothing to do with skin color. Caltech, in my experience, is absolutely fine giving a break to someone from a poor background, or who didn't go to the best high school, or whose parents didn't attend college--all in the drive to find those that Caltech truly believes are the best to take advantage of a Caltech education. That means that someone <em>actually from</em> the inner-city probably would be excused for never having done, say, an Intel project or USAMO, as long as he or she showed great potential as demonstrated in using the resources that were available to him or her. Again, this has nothing to do with skin color and is not about "diversity" or "balancing the class" but merely about evaluating a student in the context of his or her <em>personal</em> (i.e., not collective) background.</p>
<p>What Caltech will <em>not</em> do is give Random Middle Class Suburban Honors Student A an advantage over Random Middle Class Suburban Honors Student B just because one happens to be a "significant" (as you put it!) color or gender.</p>
Yes, I actually think most people agree that this is the ideal solution - more information on which one can make a valid judgment (not based on skin color ideally) of which students are economically disadvantaged.</p>
<p>Now, unfortunately that's the idealized solution: perfect information leads to fair decisions. The real question here, though, is what do we do in the lack of such details. If I am understanding what people are saying, akdaddy is proposing we err on the side of admitting too many privileged, minority students, where Ben and others suggest that ignoring race will remove any "false positives" by ignoring race. In addition, they (and Caltech) use the information they have to best assess which students indeed are genuinely disadvantaged and appropriately compensate for that. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, as I see it, it's very hard to argue a priori one way is better than the other; it's all in the details. For me, which version I would favor would hinge on questions like:
(a) to what extent is a given school successful at gauging disadvantaged students without using race?
(b) are the extent of the racial differences in testing enough to merit such delineation between races?
(c) what is the risk of a student failing out at a school for those not adequately prepared?
(d) to what extent is well-developed racial diversity important for the institute's community?
(e) to what extent does admitting students partially based on race perpetuate unfair stereotypes?
(f) how void is any given field of minority participants (e.g. compare a black looking into majoring in Afrrican American studies versus theoretical high-energy physics)?</p>
<p>I think only by answering those (and many other) questions can any institution begin to figure out how to deal with race in admissions. Moreover, it's not surprising that different institutions come up with different answers based on their particular situation. As a result, I don't think we need to go labeling them as "racist" for just coming up with a conclusion which intends to reach racial equality just because they use different approaches.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Then we can apply more careful analysis to truly identify those who only appear less talented due to inherent system bias, disadvantaged childhoods or other measurable roadblocks.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Collecting more information or having better tests would help us identify people from disadvantaged backgrounds who are just as capable "innately" as the best Caltech kids. The real problem is that colleges -- especially extremely difficult, elite colleges -- are very limited in what they can do with students of great potential but inadequate preparation. </p>
<p>There is, quite simply, a vast amount of hardcore academic preparation required to succeed at Caltech. Not just potential, but also just book knowledge. At the very extreme bare minimum, to have a real chance of making it at Caltech, you need a good knowledge of calculus, at least a year of physics, a year of chemistry, good computer skills, along with a trained ability to absorb lots of technical knowledge rapidly. It is very hard to get any of this at a bad high school, and there is nothing Caltech can do about it while remaining Caltech. Many disadvantaged minority kids are as innately talented as the very best physics champion at Caltech, but what can we do, akdaddy, about the fact that they would need at least two years of extra training before they could start the Caltech core?</p>
<p>One solution to this is to seriously lower requirements for students once they get here. This has been the MIT path. The current MIT core requirements are, compared to Caltech's, feather-like (they used to be comparable). You can, today, graduate from MIT without ever writing down a single mathematical proof and without ever taking more than a semester of physics (as opposed to Caltech's universally required 5 trimesters of physics plus 5 of math -- over three yearlong classes' worth.) If a college does this, it becomes feasible to enroll substantial numbers of underprepared students (by the old standards). But it also dilutes the signal of the diploma and compromises the goal of having everybody uniformly educated to a high level.</p>
<p>Which is why Not quite old's solution is the one where my heart is. Schools like Caltech should stay true to their high-powered selves and demand the same level of preparation and coursework they have always had. Alas, there are only tiny numbers of minority students who are currently qualified (not just potentially, but actually prepared) to do Caltech-level work. But that doesn't mean Caltech should change its standards or its challenges. It means society must work harder so that more students of every color have access to these loftiest of goals. If instead we take the shortsighed way of lowering the bar to compensate for inequalities, we will abandon the most valuable thing we have to give to society -- the memory of what is worth reaching for.</p>
<p>O my, Ben, how lovely - you should seriously consider changing your concentration: from microeconomics to macro- (e.g., economic policy/history, stuff like that)</p>