<p>
</p>
<p>I was not going to, even after Canuckguy repeatedly but indirectly brought up the issue, but when an another poster reasonably wonders what is being implied, I thought that person deserves a straight answer. I have nothing more to say about Unz here.</p>
<p>
You make it sound like his hs classmates should have genuflected when he went by. Perhaps he also failed to recognize just how “wonderful” some of his classmates were. The social thing is a 2-way street.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If this is what people believe, it would really help the discussion if people were less coy and just spit it out, so we can discuss it. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes. They hate Asians so much that they send interviewers to Asian countries just so they can find them, interview them, get their hopes up and reject them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This, I think, is the crux of the discussion – taking it away from Asians per se, because
a) of course anyone of anyone background could be poorly socialized
b) there’s nothing to suggest that Mikyale specifically was referring to Asians other than supposition
c) there’s nothing to suggest that there isn’t a certain % of unsocialized-kids in ANY cohort of applicants – whether domestic, international, white, black, Asian, or purple</p>
<p>The crux is – is just possessing sheer, quantifiable academic brilliance enough that it should trump other factors – including deficits in personal hygiene (not explainable by extreme poverty) or deficits in getting along with others? It seems that there is one side, perhaps represented by collegealum and QM and beliavsky, who says yes - if a kid demonstrates X brilliance, none of the rest should matter, he deserves admission (unless he kicks puppies, I suppose). It seems that the other side – and MIT for that matter – doesn’t think that pure brilliance should be the determining factor in all cases, and that it doesn’t “excuse” or obviate deficits in other areas. Or, if it does, it can’t be that way for masses of kids.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Beliavsky, I appreciate that you give straight answers and don’t play coy.</p>
<p>Let me make that clearer. I adore the logic, depth and breadth- and wit- of many stem sorts, especially engineers, I’ve known. I forgive a lot, when following how they think, process and when learning from them. I’m missing that logic and processing in many posts here. Or plain old critical thinking.</p>
<p>To be fair to Canckguy (and his posts consistently annoy me so I’m not exactly a fan) - I don’t think he is explicitly talking about any ethnic group. He always carefully uses the term “affinity” group, and I know his big theme is that the group in power will try to maintain that power (which I like to call the Revolutionary Theory of “Duh”). But I think he may just be referring to a “power elite” composed of various ethnic elements.</p>
<p>Beliavsky, OTOH, I don’t know. He keeps bringing up that Unz article. But he’s brought up so many articles, I’m not exactly sure what his POV is, other than the fact he thinks admissions should be based more on quantitiative criteria.</p>
<p>^^ I don’t often agree with Bel, but love when we get glimpses of his broader thoughts. I’m not good with coy.</p>
<p>In an effort to be as un-coy as possible:</p>
<p>I see the basic issue of using language to dehumanize and distance as having the potential to be damaging to ANY minority group. My pet hobby horse is gay rights. However, some might consider my immediate and extended family part of the “robotic” group. So far all the practically-perfect SOs, who chose my snowflakes, are from <em>other</em> ethnicities/cultures so I am concerned about prejudice from many directions. </p>
<p>I, personally, don’t care all that much about MIT admissions at this point. Or Yale, etc. I do really care about how language impacts all of us. I think it influences how we think and how we act.</p>
<p>I 100% support QM’s criticisms of MIT admissions on this thread. I find them admirable, especially the time and patience spent on the topic. I am not sure whether I agree with some students being “auto-admits” because I am not sure what I think at this point about elite admissions in general. However, I am extremely interested in the discussion, and the opportunity to explore the topic.</p>
<p>I support QM’s inquisitiveness, but not the aggressive posts towards Mollie, particularly after she stated her discomfort. I found that really unbecoming and rude.</p>
<p>As for words like robotic and ‘barely human,’ they do matter. Robotic less than “less than human.” At some point, there has got to be some poetic license in the language for the rest of us humanities types who love words.</p>
<p>Further up thread Hunt asked: should MIT admit a math genius who cannot read?</p>
<p>I find this an interesting question. It goes at it sideways, but it does ask an interesting question about admissions and the ability to communicate.</p>
<p>I think it’s rude and wrong for persons who have the duty to evaluate college applicants to insult them. However, it can’t be wrong for them to evaluate the applicants. We can disagree, of course, on what the criteria for evaluations should be. And we can disagree about whether the claimed criteria are the “real” criteria.</p>
<p>And it seems to me that lack of socialization, poor hygiene, arrogance, and many other traits are fair game for disfavoring a candidate in comparison with others.</p>
<p>
And I’ll give my answer: maybe. There might be somebody who is such a math genius that you would overlook extreme limitations in other aspects of his life. But his inability to read would be a negative.</p>
<p>I think we all instinctively draw such lines, but perhaps in different places. Personally, for example, no matter how smart somebody is, if he’s a total jerk I don’t want to be around him. If I were an adcom, people who presented as jerks would be at a disadvantage.</p>
<p>I will be all over the map again with my posts. Sorry, to those who are bothered by it.</p>
<p>No, I don’t think that the terms “robotic” nor “only vaguely human” are code words for “Asian.” I do think that the stereotype has differential impact across groups of different national origin or heritage, and cuts more strongly against Asians (of all various origins, thanks, mini) than against, say the French.</p>
<p>I really appreciated sevmom’s information about the use of “vaguely human” to refer to the MIT faculty. Haven’t tracked the chronology yet, but wouldn’t be surprised if that was the origin of the phrase.</p>
<p>poetgrl: I think poetic license is important… equally important that an individual or society has the right to object when that license is seen as offensive. Just think of all the authors who are currently out of favor. Some excellent writers whose language we no longer tolerate.</p>
<p>Then we get into the even more complicated idea of taking back words that may currently have offensive connotations. I have to leave now to go to my weekly “ladies lunch” I am the only female in this lunch group. I will never call it a “ladies lunch” to anyone. It was named such by the other members - all gay males. </p>
<p>I am so glad you decided to post on this thread!</p>
<p>Alh, I’d add, how minsinformation distracts and affects others’ thinking. Put out misinfo in the guise of “I think” is still putting out misinfo. 100 posts later, retract- but the impression was made. At times, as Bogi points out, what we think is central to this format. But, indiscrimately inserting suggestions isn’t good. </p>
<p>Neither you nor QM know MIT admisisons. Admirable? You each know only one iota of what goes on. She says, but I spoke with profs and I have students in stem and a brilliant young friend was waitlisted. And you had a disappointment. Nicely meant, what do you really know about what goes on? </p>
<p>So, after a few hundred posts, QM said, right, I really don’t know what’s going on- and the whole cycle of Jones and everything started right up again. </p>
<p>You both have a right to your opinions.</p>
<p>With regard to poetgrl’s post, #1178, I have repeatedly apologized for calling on Mollie and for the mistake that I made about her high school background (although in fairness to myself (!), I think that one can see how I might have made that mistake, from one of the posts that I recalled).</p>
<p>On this thread, I have called on Pizzagirl over and over. I don’t think she takes it amiss. If she does, I will stop immediately. (Seriously.) I have called on JHS in a number of threads, because he is exceedingly well informed about a wide array of topics and I have learned a staggering amount from him. (Truly.) I might not have explicitly called on collegealum314, but have certainly alluded extensively to his posts. It was in this same spirit, actually, that I called on Mollie. We had exchanged a few PM’s over the years, and I have high regard for her. She has an insider’s perspective that I lack.</p>
<p>I wasn’t calling on her to defend a post that she did not make–if anything, I was calling on her to bear witness to the inappropriateness of referring to applicants [well, enough of that], even if the phrase originated in reference to the faculty, which may be the case.</p>
<p>I also was not calling on her to defend MIT Admissions policy, though she perhaps thought so. lookingforward has stated that the Jones era is over! past! no longer influential! get over it! (well, not literally, but with that impression). I was instead asking her whether she thought that the admissions philosophy had shifted or not. Different, really.</p>
<p>People are free to call me out on CC. I will respond as I have time and am able–both rather variable.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If someone cannot read, how can s/he read a math book or math article?</p>
<p>And, when she said she was uncomfortable being in this loop, you invited her to offer more, no?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I wasn’t suggesting that at all. And yes, he probably did not notice that some of his classmates were “wonderful” because sadly sometimes he is oblivious to the things around him. I confessed that he lacked social skills and my point was that he could not relate to his classmates. They probably saw him as a quirky kid who was in his own world and he probably saw them as people who did not share his interests. I equate his math program experience to that of many parents who share that programs like CTY really changed their kids’ world.</p>
<p>I hesitated in posting for fear that describing my kid as brilliant would engender some negative feedback. I was just trying to share what his experience was like given that he is very, very different and that even with his deficits, he adds value to a college community.</p>
<p>I could be wrong but MIT students might consider it a compliment to be called vaguely human. Some of them do want to be more like machines. :D</p>
<p>I was looking up some faculty members in CS/EE department and noticed someone received a doctorate from Berkeley at 24. I am sure that qualifies for vaguely human.</p>