How do you think Marilee JOnes' resignation will affect the MIT admissions process?

[3Ks]

<p>What exactly is the debate? That MIT has diversity goals and actively practices holistic admissions to those ends? You bet they do, and if you read Bryan Nance’s and the other blogs, MIT is open about it. What’s more they back up their selection with costly programs to help students succeed at MIT. Amherst openly discusses their policy and programs, as does Stanford and others. It appears that MIT and the other like-minded universities prefer to lead in this respect. Mollie has said it over and over, MIT likes it their way, yet many posters seem to want it another way. I actually respect these institutions using their huge endowments to affect change. I think it’s in keeping with MIT’s mission to make a difference in the world.</p>

<p>So seriously what is the debate? There is room enough in America for private institutions to have different priorities in selecting a class—especially when there is a bounty of choice. Is Caltech losing on application selection and yield and you don’t like it? What do you want the women of MIT to concede? That applying and attending technical schools that for generations were predominately male is some how easy? What do you want the accepted students to say? That skill sets in addition to demonstrated math and science are not desirable in a campus community?</p>

<p>As many Caltech boosters persuasively demonstrate with their incessant bashing—there is nothing easy about it when everything from admissions qualifications to intelligence is constantly called into question. Your very actions clearly demonstrate what these women, URMs, or any selected student are up against, and it is distasteful. Many of you have been harking your message against MIT on these boards long before the Marilee Jones debacle. What is the obsessive interest in how MIT does admissions? I really do not believe it is from some morally superior position.</p>

<p>I suggest that the primary reason the rhetoric has increased about MIT admissions is not because it is so patently unfair, more because Marilee and her team, including the lively CC posters have been wildly successful in getting out the message about MIT. As I said before, they are in the desirable position of having a bounty of choice among applicants. Their efforts have driven up the desirability and selectivity—hence more disgruntled complaining. It’s getting old. No one is saying anything new. </p>

<p>I’m beginning to think it is one of these obsessive posters decrying the admissions practices of MIT that had the obsessive and compulsive drive to google or background check Marilee Jones and then anonymously call the Dean.</p>

[userx]

<p>Talking about “merit” scholarships, except those awards that based on competitions on specific subjects, almost all require things other than grade and test score.</p>

<p>One doesn’t have to define “Merit” strictly as a combination of grades and test scores and research papers alone, or one day our top universities and colleges will have to fill their campuses with robots instead of human.</p>

[adellaid]

<p>"since Caltech environment is really on the brink of being unhealthy, they can't afford to lose any more female and minority admits. So who is to say that these factors do not give the females and the minorities a conscious or subconscious tip in the admissions process?"</p>

<p>Pebbles, I'm sorry, but psychoanalyzing the Caltech admissions committee is just a little absurd. I could just as easily say that a group of people in a school that is predominantly male might look with <em>subconscious</em> skepticism at the application of a science-oriented female and question the depth of her passion for these fields simply because her gender generally gets less exposure to them.</p>

<p>Admissions decisions are made by a committee, and not by an individual, precisely in order to control for personal prejudices.</p>

[cghen]

<p>

@userx

One should not compare Caltech min# 1.7x vs MIT max# 2.6x</p>

<p>In 03-04, Caltech admitted 14.00% male vs 27.56% female (~2x) while MIT admitted 11.57% male vs 29.33% female (~2.54x).</p>

<p><a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/...71#post4058171%5B/url%5D%5B/quote%5DThree"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/...71#post4058171

Three</a> years ago the numbers look similar to today. If you average all three years, you still get a pretty big gap between Caltech and MIT for a pretty large pool of individuals (i.e. not bad statistics).</p>

[cghen]

<p>

@pebbles

1) "Merit" scholarship money to minorities regardless of economic status. What about that is meritocratic? If I'm not mistaken, I distinctly recall many of you (yes, the ones who are champions of race-gender-blind fairness) complaining about these programs that separate the "minorities (who often do not need any help)" from the "regular people". Minority-only workshops, etc etc. It sounds a whole lot like giving an advantage to minorities to me.

Nothing is meritocratic about giving minorities and females money not on the basis of merit - that's obviously counter to the definition of meritorcratic. Caltech does it, though, because it has only has a very small negative effect on those who don't qualify (I am included in that pool, so I think I'm qualified to speak on that). Whereas, some might argue, that if MIT did a corresponding thing with admissions, there would be a large part of people completely cut out of the process (which is simply not the case at Caltech because of it's good financial aid).</p>

[cghen]

<p>

@3ks]<br> What exactly is the debate? That MIT has diversity goals and actively practices holistic admissions to those ends?</p> <p>[/quote]<br> That is <em>precisely</em> the debate and what pebbles (and many others at MIT) have insisted is **not **the case for female vs. male applicants.</p></p> <p><p>i.e. statements like:</p> <p>[quote=pebbles

With that in mind, it seems to me the two institutions (MIT and Caltech) have almost identical admissions policies regarding men and women.

</p>

[cghen]

<p>

@3ks

What exactly is the debate? That MIT has diversity goals and actively practices holistic admissions to those ends? You bet they do, and if you read Bryan Nance’s and the other blogs, MIT is open about it. What’s more they back up their selection with costly programs to help students succeed at MIT. Amherst openly discusses their policy and programs, as does Stanford and others. It appears that MIT and the other like-minded universities prefer to lead in this respect. Mollie has said it over and over, MIT likes it their way, yet many posters seem to want it another way. I actually respect these institutions using their huge endowments to affect change. I think it’s in keeping with MIT’s mission to make a difference in the world.</p>

<p>So seriously what is the debate? There is room enough in America for private institutions to have different priorities in selecting a class—especially when there is a bounty of choice. Is Caltech losing on application selection and yield and you don’t like it? What do you want the women of MIT to concede? That applying and attending technical schools that for generations were predominately male is some how easy? What do you want the accepted students to say? That skill sets in addition to demonstrated math and science are not desirable in a campus community?</p>

<p>As many Caltech boosters persuasively demonstrate with their incessant bashing—there is nothing easy about it when everything from admissions qualifications to intelligence is constantly called into question. Your very actions clearly demonstrate what these women, URMs, or any selected student are up against, and it is distasteful. Many of you have been harking your message against MIT on these boards long before the Marilee Jones debacle. What is the obsessive interest in how MIT does admissions? I really do not believe it is from some morally superior position.</p>

<p>I suggest that the primary reason the rhetoric has increased about MIT admissions is not because it is so patently unfair, more because Marilee and her team, including the lively CC posters have been wildly successful in getting out the message about MIT. As I said before, they are in the desirable position of having a bounty of choice among applicants. Their efforts have driven up the desirability and selectivity—hence more disgruntled complaining. It’s getting old. No one is saying anything new.</p>

<p>I’m beginning to think it is one of these obsessive posters decrying the admissions practices of MIT that had the obsessive and compulsive drive to google or background check Marilee Jones and then anonymously call the Dean.

Please, skip the lecture. I have no qualms with how MIT does its admissions; all I want is a little awknowledgement that gender does play a role in admissions. I do not think that doing so is a bad idea for MIT, nor other schools. </p>

<p>Why is it important to mention it? Because people like to harp on why Caltech gets so few females, and people (yourself included) like to argue that its because of low female yield. pebbles go so far as to suggest that Caltech males are sexist. CalAlum suggested that the Caltech professors are sexist.</p>

<p>What actually causes the difference, as I tried to explain very early in this thread, is that Caltech matriculates less females because of its different admissions policies regarding males vs. females, and that relative to males, both schools have comparable female yields. (See post #80 in this thread). i.e. if Caltech admitted women at a 50-50 rate to men (as MIT does), they would end up with about the same percentage of matriculating females as MIT.</p>

<p>All I want is a little awknowledgement that MITs admission policies are what cause the difference in enrolled female student percentages and not some stereotypical claim about how the students or faculty are sexist.</p>

[3Ks]

<p>Look, I seriously meant no disrespect. I just find it odd that so many Caltech posters camp out in the MIT forums. It is puzzling to me why you care so much about MIT. It appears to be a one-sided obsession, and I don’t see why you need someone from MIT to acknowledge your viewpoint.</p>

[holycow0515]

<p>One poster writes: </p>

<p>"What exactly is the debate? That MIT has diversity goals and actively practices holistic admissions to those ends? You bet they do, and if you read Bryan Nance’s and the other blogs, MIT is open about it. What’s more they back up their selection with costly programs to help students succeed at MIT. Amherst openly discusses their policy and programs, as does Stanford and others. It appears that MIT and the other like-minded universities prefer to lead in this respect. Mollie has said it over and over, MIT likes it their way, yet many posters seem to want it another way. I actually respect these institutions using their huge endowments to affect change. I think it’s in keeping with MIT’s mission to make a difference in the world.</p>

<p>So seriously what is the debate? There is room enough in America for private institutions to have different priorities in selecting a class—especially when there is a bounty of choice. Is Caltech losing on application selection and yield and you don’t like it? What do you want the women of MIT to concede? That applying and attending technical schools that for generations were predominately male is some how easy? What do you want the accepted students to say? That skill sets in addition to demonstrated math and science are not desirable in a campus community?</p>

<p>As many Caltech boosters persuasively demonstrate with their incessant bashing—there is nothing easy about it when everything from admissions qualifications to intelligence is constantly called into question. Your very actions clearly demonstrate what these women, URMs, or any selected student are up against, and it is distasteful. Many of you have been harking your message against MIT on these boards long before the Marilee Jones debacle. What is the obsessive interest in how MIT does admissions? I really do not believe it is from some morally superior position.</p>

<p>I suggest that the primary reason the rhetoric has increased about MIT admissions is not because it is so patently unfair, more because Marilee and her team, including the lively CC posters have been wildly successful in getting out the message about MIT. As I said before, they are in the desirable position of having a bounty of choice among applicants. Their efforts have driven up the desirability and selectivity—hence more disgruntled complaining. It’s getting old. No one is saying anything new. </p>

<p>I’m beginning to think it is one of these obsessive posters decrying the admissions practices of MIT that had the obsessive and compulsive drive to google or background check Marilee Jones and then anonymously call the Dean. "</p>

<hr>

<p>This is ridiculous. Ms. Jones was not the victim of obsessive and compulsive behavior. Her acts were not the product of the imagination of her detractors. She did what she did and there is no getting round the facts.</p>

<p>I agree that her actions and character (or lack thereof) do not necssarily determine the worthiness of her policies. Nonetheless, common sense dictates that a discovery like this warrants that MIT take a careful look at her impact.</p>

[cghen]

<p>

@3ks

Look, I seriously meant no disrespect. I just find it odd that so many Caltech posters camp out in the MIT forums. It is puzzling to me why you care so much about MIT. It appears to be a one-sided obsession, and I don’t see why you need someone from MIT to acknowledge your viewpoint.

Did you read this entire thread? I suggest you take a look at how "one sided" this conversation is before you make claims like that.</p>

<p>I didn't post anything about women admissions in MIT until after this was posted (which directly talked about both MIT and Caltech admissions):

@CalAlum

My daughter chose MIT over Caltech, Yale, Harvard, Princeton, and Stanford. She didn't even apply to Caltech, because it was clear during her tour on the campus, that the students didn't have much of a social life. Given the stories told by many of her female friends going to top universities, I think more girls self-select MIT over Caltech, so the percentages are meaningless in terms of academic qualifications. In sort, Caltech has proportionally fewer girls because proportionally fewer qualified girls apply.

I thought CalAlum was presenting something that's not true, so I corrected in in my first post about women admissions between the two institutions.</p>

<p>Then CalAlum posted an anecdote:

@CalAlum

I'll close with a story. **When my daughter went to visit CalTech, she emailed the one female physics professor in advance, to set up an appointment to discuss physics at CalTech. One question my daughter asked during the conversation was "Why are there so few girls at CalTech?" The physical professor answered, "It's because we don't get enough applicants with top SAT scores in math, or who have top AP scores in BC Calc/Physics." My daughter has those top scores, but she did not end up applying to CalTech. Why not? She didn't want to study undergraduate physics at a school with such small numbers of girls, where even the professors seemed to view the female students as "not quite having the numbers." In contrast, when she visited MIT last year (an overnight stay during her junior year), she managed to have conversations with two MIT physics professors, both male. One said, "We have lots of girls taking physics here; come study physics at MIT." The other said, "Many of my top students this year are girls. Come study physics at MIT." The different degree of attitude, of welcome, were palpable. My daughter ended up applying to MIT, Stanford, Harvard, Princeton, Berkeley, etc., but did not apply to CalTech. She was accepted every place she applied, and chose MIT. There's more. In addition to the math and physics talent, she plays varsity tennis, climbs mountains, and has won national and state awards. She's out buying a dress for the senior prom right now (she also loves to dance). CalTech's loss, MIT's gain.

I took great issue with the bolded section because she's basing this claim (that Caltech doesn't attract top female applicants) on the fact that MIT has success in matriculating a largely female class. All I'm pointing out is that, well, no, Caltech does attract top female applicants (both to apply and enroll), and the difference between the two schools has to do with admissions.</p>

<p>Then pebbles posts wonderful things like:

@pebbles

. Well, if this website is any indication I'm even afraid there might be discrimination against women at Caltech for all the constant questioning of their abilities. I hear Caltech is a very collaborative culture but you guys have exuded nothing but unhealthy, unsupportive vibes. I mean you could be right or you could be wrong, but why so hung up on it? That's what scares me. I had a friend deciding between MIT and Caltech visit the campus come back shaking his head and said "they're just so uptight there, it seems." What's up with that? Is it an unfortunate side-effect from being around just not enough girls??

There is no data suggesting what she is insinuating about Caltech guys - this is ridiculous, and again, she's making this claim on the claim that MIT attracts more females to enroll so it must be more supportive than Caltech. But, as I've said many times, that's because of admissions policies, not because we're sexist. </p>

<p>This is not some minor distinction - I'm not doing this for my own personal edification; I want people to stop claiming stereotypical falsehoods about why Caltech doesn't matriculate that many females.</p>

[3Ks]

<p>I seem to have touched a nerve here. Yes, I have read all these threads. And my observation about the obsession is a result of a number of tedious threads over time on the MIT boards. </p>

<p>To be clear, there is no doubt that what Marilee Jones did was astoundingly wrong. In fact, I have little sympathy for her fate in being asked to resign. What I do have sympathy for is the tragedy felt by the students and the entire MIT community to whom she dealt a terrible blow. That is where my interest lies.</p>

<p>Whether or not you agree with the institutional priorities for diversity set further up the chain, we on CC have all benefited from MIT’s emphasis on transparency and their attempt to de-mystify the admissions process. Ben Jones, Matt McGann, Bryan Nance, and the dedicated bloggers and lively CC posters who flesh out the MIT culture and experience have been wildly successful. Their accessibility has created a much needed dialogue, and it is profoundly sad that Marilee’s actions have undermined those efforts. </p>

<p>Have a heart. I will repeat the sentiment I posted on another thread. I personally feel the profound loss of the story that could have been told had Marilee Jones lived up to her message and not created the current doubt troubling those rejected and those accepted. </p>

<p>(I swore I was not going to be a public poster, I don’t know where you all have so much time. Don’t you have p-sets or something to do?)</p>

[pebbles]

<p>cghen- No, silly. I'm not saying MIT DOESN'T at all exhibit preference toward females (it could, or it couldn't. that doesn't really concern me), just saying if they do, then likely Caltech does it too, to a slightly lesser extent. You've shown no evidence to the contrary other than "WE PROMISE WE DON'T THAT'S WHY WE'RE SO ANGRY AND DEFENSIVE".</p>

<p>And no, I don't believe Caltech men are all sexist (no matter how many times you copy and paste that particular passage), I was hinting at the fact that maybe your constant harping (and by constant I mean constant) about the women who get into MIT is giving Caltech a bad image. Get it?</p>

[Joe_Caltech_04]

<p>Hi pebbles--I've served on the Caltech admissions committee, as has Ben Golub. (That can probably be confirmed pretty easily somewhere on a webpage.) I can conclusively tell you that Caltech, for admissions, does not use any form of race or gender preferences as a factor. For scholarships, they certainly do. There are 25 scholarships a year for which only women and minorities are eligible. The reason these scholarships exist is that Caltech really does want to encourage those women and minorities who have achieved admission on the same criteria as "the guys" to attend.</p>

<p>I would never "harp" on MIT women (how could I? They're incredibly talented as a group), but that doesn't mean that I don't have special respect for what Caltech women as a group accomplished by gaining admission under a gender-blind system to an institution which has made a conscious choice that enrolling the academically strongest freshman class possible (regardless of skin color or sex) is the ultimate concern.</p>

<p>Just as I appreciate what MIT is trying to do in creating a group of talented students that is racially and gender-balanced--I'll bet it makes certain aspects of life a lot easier for the guys--I appreciate what Caltech is trying to do in assembling the "most talented" group they can, without regard to race and gender. Acknowledging that the two approaches materially differ does not prima facie insult one or the other, nor does it represent "harping".</p>

[mootmom]

<p>

@3Ks

Look, I seriously meant no disrespect. I just find it odd that so many Caltech posters camp out in the MIT forums. It is puzzling to me why you care so much about MIT. It appears to be a one-sided obsession, and I don’t see why you need someone from MIT to acknowledge your viewpoint.

Right on. I've been wondering that for a long time now. MIT students don't camp out in the Caltech forums and stir things up there. It's weird, isn't it.</p>

<p>OK back to your discussions, folks, sorry for the aside.</p>

[pebbles]

<p>Yeah, but on the other hand I believe MIT (though practicing affirmative action) has also said they do not give preference to women (I'm making no assumption of whether it is true). They don't brag about it the way Caltech does, but that may just be institutional differences. If you can buy into the argument that women are 2x more qualified than men in the Caltech pool, which is a really hazy and weird thing, why can you not buy into the possibility that a lot of other factors at MIT (short of bias) may result in an even more gender-balanced pool/class. Why can we not just agree to be uncertain about it and let it go until anyone says for sure?</p>

<p>Also, I posted something (that got deleted cause i hit back) about institute scholarships given on a gender/racial basis and how saying it is "less" offensive to the concept of fairness in the college admissions and selection process doesn't make it fair. Yada yada yada something about practicing AA based on socioeconomic disadvantage and how that is supposedly fairer but why not financial awards, I don't remember, I will post it again if I have time. bye</p>

[tech_fan]

<p>cghen (#170) and Joe -- you guys are a class act. Your points are cogently argued and unanswered (except for "Why do you care so much?").</p>

<p>Short answer: MIT uses its gender balanced class as a major marketing tool and also wants to pretend that it's achieved without gender-based admissions preferences. Since I know a lot about these issues, I call BS. You can have one or the other, and you don't currently have both. It's not so bad if someone says it. (Especially in response to people like CalAlum.)</p>

<p>And if you don't like us saying it, too bad for you. Discussion boards are for people to find out opinions that don't have PR departments (like MIT Admissions) to push them. This is not a snuggles-only zone, and the fact some of you want it to be doesn't speak very strongly of the arguments behind your position.</p>

[lizzardfire]

<p>mootmom: feel free to check posts by my name in this forum. Other than this thread and the other Marilee Jones thread I haven't made posts (or spent time lol) in this forum. I came here because a) the issue of meritocratic admissions is one of interest to me and b) I felt like Caltech was misrepresented. I apologize if my presence here inconveniences you in some way.</p>

[molliebatmit]

<p>
[quote]
This is not a snuggles-only zone, and the fact some of you want it to be doesn't speak very strongly of the arguments behind your position.

[/quote]

Nobody is advocating making CC a little paradise devoid of hard questions and snark. </p>

<p>It's just that this thread is 12 pages long, and the other recent one is also very long, and the one in the Parents Forum is 50-ish pages long, and perhaps the MIT students are getting slightly tired of hearing the same arguments over and over again. It is wearying.</p>

[hazmat]

<p>How tired can you be.......you are still posting. Racking up the counts.</p>

[molliebatmit]

<p>?</p>

<p>...well, people are still talking, so I'm still talking too.</p>