<p>three3: I think the referral to census data was meant to help us figure out what percentage of the overall US population is Asian, which is an important fact to put the argument into context. No one is suggesting that MIT (or any school) make admissions decisions based on census data.</p>
<p>To the OP: do you feel sympathy for white males, or black females, or gay Pakistanis, or purple dinosaurs that also don’t get in? If your main complaint is that MIT has too few spaces for the number of students who deserve the opportunities it offers, I will completely agree with you. But I don’t see what on earth race or gender would have to do with that.</p>
<p>I think that’s the point of having other terrific schools. I feel sympathy for students whose hopes are crushed, but really, I think the resounding message has to be that there are a <em>ton</em> of places with amazing education out there, that a lot of students might realize fit their needs very well, after they get older.</p>
<p>I am quite on the side of those who would like more of what is ‘traditionally’ considered meritocratic (in all admissions systems for undergrad). I think our minimum standardized tests, classes, etc should be at a higher level, and should be taken more seriously than the numbers indicate (nowadays, it appears that for elite schools, the only way for basic academics to give you a really good boost is by doing well at competitions and things like that, and I think the baseline level for ‘qualified’ should come from better measures than our current education provides). I don’t mind if there are other factors considered in undergraduate admissions. </p>
<p>I think that’s what you really want too, if you think about it (OP). If the baseline academic level expected were higher, then it probably would be less frustrating. The higher score wins mentality is probably not something that will be favored by most, and I don’t think it makes much sense either, because that encourages feeding tons and tons of money into test preparation and things like that.</p>
<p>@oasis - I guess OP is a proud mom of her son who was waitlisted by top colleges including MIT and Stanford. Maybe her sons stat was as good as yours when you got an admission to MIT several years ago. I do not think you have to be so harsh to OP unreasonably.</p>
<p>@mathboy98 - Your argument confuses me. What makes you think that standardized tests and such prove better indicators of undergraduate performance? I’m under the impression that MIT has decided their weighting of the application from decades of seeing what applicants tend to be better students/beyond.</p>
<p>I don’t think admissions is as rational, or at least systematic, as you think it is. Also, there may be other priorities at work. I think the rash of undergrad suicides at MIT in the 90’s, combined with Marilee Jones’ personal philosophies, may have precipitated a change in the admissions criteria. I think the personal background of admissions committee people also affects their judgement. MIT still doesn’t recruit like the ivies, but I think that the weight of athletic achievement has increased in the past 10 years, something which may be related to the fact it is run by the former rowing coach. I think MIT is recruiting better athletes these days (every time I read the Tech it seems some record is being broken,) and while I think part of the better recruiting has to do with an improved marketing campaign (it’s not marketed as much as intellectual bootcamp these days,) I think the bar may have been lowered somewhat for athletes compared to yesteryear. I already mentioned Marilee Jones, but she had a lot of unconventional ideas. Some of these ideas I agreed with, like selecting for creativity, but I disagreed with how they measured them.
She also mentioned once that 15% of the students admitted wouldn’t have been admitted under previous policies, but that the committee took a chance on them based on something they saw in them. </p>
<p>It’s not an exact science, it’s a human-driven process that evolves over time. Sometimes the changes made are instituted due to the fervor of their proponent rather than superior logic.</p>
<p>Piper - it isn’t so much that I think standardized tests are everything; in fact, far from it. I’m a mediocre test-taker myself, so I’m in fact slightly biased against them if anything. And my point, which I’ll now clarify, is quite different from saying standardized tests and such provide better indicators of undergraduate performance.</p>
<p>It is, rather, related to the fact that such indicators ARE used by admissions to an extent, and that the quality of these indicators can be improved. Admissions makes the best decision based on the indicators it has available and values. For instance, beyond clearing a 700 on certain portions of the SAT exam, admissions doesn’t seem to care much, at least for MIT, as differences beyond there don’t seem to matter - but up to that point, it matters some. What I would say is not very controversial, is that such measures are not terrific in many ways (which I believe admissions fully recognizes), and that if there were better measures, it would help those who have no choice but to make some decision based on the data given.</p>
<p>If that sounded like gibberish, the simple version is: admissions does make the best decision it can (based on its own values!) from the data given, but the data it has comes from some source, which can be refined to produce better data.</p>
<p>It is a very different argument to start talking about what admissions should and shouldn’t value.</p>
<p>And in case it was confusing, when I suggested some of what may be considered old-school meritocratic probably should be taken more seriously, I didn’t mean it should necessarily be weighted more in the admissions process. Rather, I meant the actual measures being improved results in their contribution being more definitive in what it means, so that the measures themselves become less of a laughing matter.</p>
<p>The Asian students like the OP really come across as elitist, arrogant and pompous smarty pants when a college admissions office choose any candidate other than themselves. Only the HYPSM are good enough to have them, and if they don’t get in; then the system is broken, flawed, or their ‘spot’ was taken by AA, because there is no way another minority group had better SATs, grades, or deemed a viable candidate in the eyes of the admissions board.</p>
<p>Ah! Then what you say makes perfect sense to me, and I agree. It’d be nice if things like SATs did their job better and could be of better use to Admissions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think your view of logic might be too narrow. Has the school’s values changed over time? From the 1800s, hopefully! My argument is that the school has its values and does the best it can to admit students that match those values.</p>
<p>I simply fail to see why there is a need to provide sympathy when I, as a Asian male, also get rejected in life. I just pick it up and move on, and don’t assign blame to my race+gender.</p>
<p>It doesn’t really matter to me, but these kind of “whining” posts just irritates me a bit personally, because if you want to put the blame on race+gender, there’s thousands of us that’s out there too, you’re not the only one. </p>
<p>I have heard the ‘pick it up and move on’ advice given in many situations - would you not say it tends to be a bit overused? The argument ‘life is unfair’ doesn’t help anyone, and I think we can all agree that a lot of people spend a whole heck of a lot of time trying to make it a little more on the fair side anyway, an endeavor which hasn’t gone unappreciated in history (which you know more about than I, as a history…minor?)</p>
<p>Now I understand why posting on a forum about this stuff when a lot of people have had the same issue can ruffle some feathers, but really as long as the policy affects a lot of people, it’s going to be debated.</p>
<p>I think what is perhaps a bit more fair is to ask the OP - what should we do instead? And why? He/she probably knows reasonably well what the argument of those who implement the given policy is (or if not, should go find out). Then what? I think that’s the real question.</p>
<p>@Piper - glad it was clarified. I’m a bit too unfamiliar with MIT’s actual values to debate effectively on whether they’re appropriate or not. I fully imagine the school is doing quite a good job in many ways, and has some stellar students and people - that’s about all my knowledge.</p>
<p>Simple solution: STOP BICKERING AND DO SOMETHING SIGNIFICANT WITH YOUR LIFE!</p>
<p>Exhibit A: A Chinese Male from my high school went to IMO (International Math Olympiad) and won a silver medal last year. He also represented the US at the International Linguistics Olympiad. He’s going to Harvard.
Exhibit B: A Chinese Girl from went IBO last summer and got silver. She’s only a junior right now, she will most likely get into MIT since she is going to RSI.
Exhibit C: I know a Chinese eighth grader who finished all the math classes and has represented Canada at IMO and won bronze!
Exhibit D: An Asian boy from my school has published two article in academic journals and has been a finalist at Siemens. He is going to Stanford.
Exhibit E, Exhibit F, Exhibit G: Asian guys and girls from my school going to ISEF and ending up at Harvard, Stanford, MIT.
Exhibit H: Asian guy receiving 3rd at a national piano contest –> MIT</p>
<p>So rather than bickering, why don’t you just make yourself hard to turn down? MIT doesn’t turn people down because they are Asian, its because they are all the same. Many of them try math competitions, many try science competitions. Only a few succeed. Those who do are the ones that MIT want, not the ones who do everything but don’t do well.</p>
<p>As usual, admission officers from MIT who participate in this MIT Forum can comment on specifics of the situation at MIT. The current FAQ and discussion thread on the general issue in the College Admissions Forum </p>
<p>links to official regulations and definitions, and is the place for discussing this issue as it pertains to all colleges in the United States during the 2012-2013 admission season.</p>