<p>Yeah, actually, I think we do need more data. A place that prides itself on transparency ought to be releasing everything that doesn't identify individual students and letting independent researchers come to the conclusions, not just tossing out worthless-on-their-own and unqualified selected nuggets that happen to agree with the party line, like the average GPA statistic unadjusted for major or class selection, or the "700=800" claim unadjusted for class selection or HS GPA or anything else.</p>
<p>Pebbles - it sounds to me like your definition 2 is right on point. We've already established that "affirmative action" as currently practiced is discriminatory by definition or it wouldn't be AA. And you can't discriminate IN FAVOR of one race unless you at the same time discriminate AGAINST another, even if this secondary effect is unintentional.</p>
<p>Originally, AA was meant to be things like additional targeted recruiting efforts, extra help in navigating the application process for people who might not be as savvy as a suburban kid about resume padding (Marilee could give them lessons), etc. Get it - "affirmative" action. Only later when those measures fell short of reaching "targets" (defined as the minority % in the general population) did AA enter it's current decadent phase where it became another name for racial and gender quotas. If you can't get the scale to balance, you just put your thumb on it, and viola, the scale is balanced - no need to fix the secondary school system or anything else. I think there is a BIG moral difference between doing things that encourage minorities and women to get in the game vs. rigging the game in their favor. Extra merit aid is a borderline case but it's far more justifiable that just outright docking points from the "wrong" kind of minority ( which is the same as adding points to the "right" kind). </p>
<p>Again the fundamental problem is that without this point rigging system reaching the AA targets would be be completely impossible as matters stand now. For example, there are under 250 black kids in the entire US who score above 750 SAT math in any year and these get split up among all the Ivies plus MIT, CalTech, Standford, etc. Without AA MIT would end up with 1% black enrollment, just like CalTech and you couldn't do those gorgeous rainbow colored photos in the student catalog. </p>
<p>You have to know that history is not on your side here - O'connor put a 25 year cap on further AA in Grutter but I predict it won't last anywhere close to that long. It's already been abolished in public institutions in several states and more referenda are predicted (Grutter was a Phyrric victory for AA given that it was essentially repealed by the voters in Michigan) . America was based on the idea that "all men are created equal" from the very first sentence of its founding document. Sometimes we deviate from that, but the lesson of American history is that any law or institution that does not uphold that ideal cannot survive in the long run because we are alway trying to form a "more perfect" union . AA takes us in the wrong direction - away from perfection of our ideals, more toward ignoring our ideals in the name of a pragmatic result. In that sense, AA is like Marilee herself - she acted with what appeared have been justifiable motives (to her) and for what seemed to her to be good and compelling cause ( bringing more women, namely herself, to the workplace) but the ends did not and do not justify the means.</p>
<p>
Deflection usually doesn't help you win debates.</p>
<p>Indeed, these scholarships have already been addressed before in this thread. Even more so, you make it sound like these are the only merit scholarships available to Caltech students; there are about twice as many scholarships given out purely on the basis of academic merit. Finally, I thought both females and minorities were eligable for these (if that's not the case, then we should return again to your claim that Caltech lavishes money on female applicants which would be completely false).</p>
<p>Also, I do really think there is a huge distinction between giving out merit money to those students who are accepted versus incoporating race into who gets accepted. They're really completely different ways of trying to solve the underlying issues.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yeah, actually, I think we do need more data. A place that prides itself on transparency ought to be releasing everything that doesn't identify individual students and letting independent researchers come to the conclusions, not just tossing out worthless-on-their-own and unqualified selected nuggets that happen to agree with the party line, like the average GPA statistic unadjusted for major or class selection, or the "700=800" claim unadjusted for class selection or HS GPA or anything else.
[/quote]
I know what you mean, but I also understand why they don't release the data -- imagine all the posts on CC about "here's what you need to get into MIT".</p>
<p>And the definition of "discrimination" can break down into</p>
<p>noun
1. unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice
2. The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment.</p>
<p>By definition #2 discrimination isn't a bad thing at all! It's just acknowledging a difference! I don't think with these words you can take the softest and most neutral definition possible by itself and rid it of all its connotations. Racism is a bad word for what you are describing because of the other definitions. All the definitions together describe what is generally considered "racism". Affirmative Action can be considered discrimination (even that's stretching it a little, prejudice is not well-defined here) but not racism. Is all.</p>
<p>
It depends how you look at it. Presuming they'd release information on what qualities lead to success at MIT, and so students could figure out how to best prepare themselves for that level of work.</p>
<p>The problem is that MIT gets many more applications from people who will do well, get good college GPA's, etc than it can accept. So releasing more detailed data will not help people understand how to prepare or present themselves. MIT already tells people that it expects high GPA and test scores, and that beyond that many other factors are taken into account. On this board the common reactions to these statements appear to be 1. I don't believe it and simultaneously 2. This should not be true, MIT should rank students by some combination of grades and test scores, start admitting from the top down, stopping when the class is full.</p>
<p>Since the evidence MIT does present showing that it is not all grades and test scores is either ignored, or used as proof that the admissions process should change, hard to see how publishing more data would help. </p>
<p>Several Caltech students say that Caltech relies much more on grades and test scores than does MIT. I believe this, although Caltech also does not publish the sort of detailed statistics that people here are calling for from MIT. Caltech also enrolls a much narrower range of student. It has far fewer extracurriculars on campus, far far fewer intercollegiate sports teams, and a far smaller portion of students who major in something other than STEM. </p>
<p>In short, Caltech is after a different kind of student body, and uses different admissions criteria to get it. This does not make Caltech better, just different. MIT is quite clear that admissions to MIT are much like admissions to the Ivies. MIT wants people who will enrich the EC life on campus, just like the Ivies do, and who will major in a range of fields. Why don't we hear on this board complaints about Harvard's admissions, which are quite clearly not driven purely by academic ability? How many Ivy football players of the year would Harvard accumulate if it admitted students by the Caltech method?</p>
<p>Caltech is Caltech and it should pursue its priorities. However, I cannot help but speculate that the surprisingly low yield for such an outstanding university is largely related to the narrow undergraduate experience and the unbalanced M F ratio.</p>
<p>The "we shouldn't release information because people will just go into a frenzy" argument is a little condesending. Markets want more information. The result is the "goods" will be more accurately valued.</p>
<p>Also, I'm not sure how we get from "admit by merit" and "don't use genetic factors (race and gender)" to "only using SAT's and grades". There are plenty of higher level tests than the SAT's and plenty of higher level activities than high school courses. One huge problem is that access to the high level tests and activities is limited largely to the best suburban schools, private schools, and those kids who have parents with time, money, and initiative. </p>
<p>I propose an alternative to going aroung the country telling ambitious, energetic kids to spend more time daydreaming and that they can have "less stress, more success". How about MIT making it it's mission for EVERY child, rural, inner city, poorer suburban, that is frustrated in school because it doesn't offer enough, and wants to do even simple research but doesn't know how or where, to have the information he/she needs to learn more and have more now. In middle school, even.</p>
<p>OpenCourseWare is great, but starts a pretty high level. Why not provide and promote a series of free MIT approved video classes that could get every kid equally prepared for the MIT starting gate? How about free online training for the AMC and AIME? Physics demonstrations on YouTube (OK, I'm trying to be creative here...)</p>
<p>I'm not bashing MIT for not having already done this. I realize that MIT already does a lot of outreach. But if MIT's mission is to level the playing field I'm not sure we can wait 18 years and then remedy the situation. Bright kids are languishing in 90% of the schools out there. Even in the other 10% of schools, most of the kids are enjoying the opportunties (rather than making themselves sick with stress). How about recreating joy in learning for our children by providing more opportunities to learn, rather than encouraging less?</p>
<p>That's the direction I'd be proud to see MIT go in.</p>
<p>Well OpenCourseWare was intended to put MIT classes online. Unfortunately the type of stuff you were talking about is not really a class, but I still think you can find a lot of useful stuff.</p>
<p>Check the introductory courses across majors and you can find lots of interesting classes. They are putting more classes on OCW soon.</p>
<p>Just had to add that bit since I love OCW :)</p>
<p>CADream:</p>
<p>MIT actually does significant outreach to minorities in high school. Oner specific program is MITES.</p>
<p>
[quote]
MITES (Minority Introduction to Engineering and Science) is a rigorous six-week residential, academic enrichment summer program for promising high school juniors who are interested in studying and exploring careers in science, engineering, and entrepreneurship. This national program stresses the value and reward of pursuing advanced technical degrees and careers while developing the skills necessary to achieve success in science and engineering in an increasingly racially and ethnically diverse nation and world. MITES is rooted in MIT's belief in the importance to our nation that minorities and other underrepresented segments of the population pursue higher education and careers in these fields. MITES is 100% scholarship funded.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Granted, this is only for 40 students per year, but is part of a greater initiative by MIT to increase access to science and engineering by minorities. </p>
<p>Another MIT program accessible to minorities in the Boston area is the SEED program.
[quote]
The Saturday Engineering Enrichment and Discovery (SEED) Academy was founded to help underrepresented minority students pursue technical careers by strengthening their fundamental math, science and communication skills through hands-on applications of engineering disciplines.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>"I love OCW"</p>
<p>Me, too. DS is already using 8.01 -8.02 for AP physics self-study. It's better than any HS AP physics course anywhere. The demonstrations are so memorable! Each year they put more classes with video lectures online. I think he's looking at doing linear algebra next. It's great. I was proposing extending it downward, though. Bill Nye the Science Guy is entertaining, but just doesn't cut it for systematic learning for younger kids.</p>
<p>Yes MIT has good outreach. But,</p>
<p>There are so many, many high school students who are desperate to learn more. They dream about MIT, but can't figure out how to get to the starting gate. While I have a son who can learn out of a book, most kids (most people!) can't do this, so they can't get to the OCW stage. It's tough to learn out of a book, even if you have a friend doing it with you. Most of us are just wired to learn by having another human explain things to us, or by playing a game that promotes the accumulation of understanding.</p>
<p>Most community colleges won't enroll you until you are at least 16.</p>
<p>It's good that MIT is out there looking for this talent at the college admissions stage, but is there a way to do more?</p>
<p>Pebbles - "2. The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment.</p>
<p>By definition #2 discrimination isn't a bad thing at all!"</p>
<p>OK, now we engage in sophistry in order to defend the morally indefensible. What if the "power to engage in fine distinctions" resulted in MIT docking each female or URM applicant 200 SAT points? Would that be OK in your book? It comes down to "discrimination is a bad thing if it's against MY group, it's a good thing if the discrimination is in favor of MY group -then it's just a sign of "discernment", like being a connoisseur of fine wine." </p>
<p>The blindness here is what I mentioned before - AA people don't see it as "racism" because they see it as "positive discrimination" - they're only trying to help some group, they're not motivated by ill feeling against any other group. What they miss is that in the real world what counts is not purity of motive but results - if you run me over with your car because you're looking at something in the distance and don't see me, I'm just as hurt as if you were aiming directly for me. They also willfully blind themselves to the fact that admissions, job placement, etc. is essentially a zero sum game - if I get the spot, then someone else doesn't, so it's not a "victimless crime". What's interesting is that it seems to me that the same people who are lining up to say that "Marilee's lie didn't hurt anyone" also are lining up on the "pro-AA" side.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What they miss is that in the real world what counts is not purity of motive but results - if you run me over with your car because you're looking at something in the distance and don't see me, I'm just as hurt as if you were aiming directly for me.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>LOL, but I think the legal ramifications would be a little different.</p>
<p>Situation 1: Little Susie breaks a ceramic dish helping her mom load the dishwasher.</p>
<p>Situation 2: Little Susie breaks a ceramic dish throwing it at her mom.</p>
<p>Don't tell me in real life intention does not matter.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What's interesting is that it seems to me that the same people who are lining up to say that "Marilee's lie didn't hurt anyone" also are lining up on the "pro-AA" side.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Conversely, then you are saying that the people who are anti-AA are the ones out for blood on the Marilee Jones thing. But doesn't that just say that your reprimand of her actions is based on your own stake in her cause? I hope that isn't the case. Her actions are deplorable no matter what. The AA thing is just a side discussion. </p>
<p>I'm not sure if you're referring to me, but I do not believe her lies did not hurt anyone at all.</p>
<p>
LOL, but I think the legal ramifications would be a little different.</p>
<p>Situation 1: Little Susie breaks a ceramic dish helping her mom load the dishwasher.</p>
<p>Situation 2: Little Susie breaks a ceramic dish throwing it at her mom.
</p>
<p>Yes, but the dish would still be broken either way, which is the result of the action of breaking a dish. Legal ramifications and punishment are assigned by outside entities and can't be considered in a direct cause-effect analysis, which I have trouble believing that you don't understand, so it appears that you're just trying to be flip and distract from the truth: admitting some students because of race or gender means not admitting other students because of race or gender, because there are not an infinite number of positions in a given freshman class.</p>
<p>But RACISM has intention involved. In fact, it's all about intention. You can't ACCIDENTALLY be a racist like you can accidentally break a dish. You're distracting from my point by cramming it full of your Anti-AA agenda. All I'm saying is the usage of the word "racism" is incorrect.</p>
<p>How did this thread turn into an anti-AA rant? It has long lost any connection with its initial objective and needs to die.</p>
<p>CAdream: Speaking of the devil, guess what I just got in my e-mail?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Is that what you're referring to? Because if so, it is cominggg!!</p>
<p>Thanks collegeguy2k7,</p>
<p>The link on your post just gets me to the OCW home page. How do I get to the part specifically about adapting OCW to AP curricula?</p>
<p>This is so great.</p>
<p>I was just going to post that. It's an OCW summer job for MIT students.</p>
<p>As for Marilee Jones, she had to be let go. Nevertheless MIT's students, professors, and administrators do like her policies and appreciate and admire the work she has done for the admissions office and MIT in general.</p>
<p>Your arguing won't make it any different.</p>
<p>It's pretty overwhelming how many things need to be worked on in this society. Would it even be recognizable when these problems are eliminated? </p>
<p>When I was in high school I ran an annual diversity & anti-prejudice conference for students in the middle to high school age-group (plus whatever adults wanted to attend). I think coming up with workshops and lessons that will make an impact and stay with people throughout their lives is a task infinitely harder than the hardest problem sets here. My senior year we had a woman speak to an audience of 1200 who taught high school in the most crime-ridden part of Long Beach. The things that she recounted really really changed my views forever on just how different life experiences can be in this supposedly advanced country.</p>
<p>I just discovered that she has a wikipedia article. If you're interested in education and educational reform you should really look into this lady:</p>
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erin_Gruwell%5B/url%5D">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erin_Gruwell</a></p>