In MIT admissions, race matters in itself (not just as context) -- MIT court filing

Colleges and Universities A-Z Massachusetts Institute of Technology
1

<p>This is a continuation of a long debate over several threads, but I think this is important enough to be split off on its own.</p>

<p>Over the years that I've been watching and thinking about this interesting issue of diversity and affirmative action, I've discerned a theme in comments about race, gender, and the like by MIT admissions. The theme is that context is everything. Unless I've been wildly misinterpreting everything (and I don't think I have, since in a recent thread mootmom seemed to have the same notion), race is important for understanding the context of an application -- essentially, for estimating what a student had to work with and what background he or she came from, and in particular the disadvantages the student suffered. This is an admirable notion, and one which I embrace fully.</p>

<p>In 2003, the Supreme Court considered the case Grutter v. Bollinger, and MIT, along with Stanford, filed an amicus curiae brief in support of certain kinds of affirmative action policies. The following is a quote from the brief (page 25), which is available in its entirety [url="<a href="http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/02-241/02-241.mer.ami.mit.pdf%22%5Dhere%5B/url"&gt;http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/02-241/02-241.mer.ami.mit.pdf"]here[/url&lt;/a&gt;].&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
In the selection process used by MIT and Stanford, which first identifies a group of well-qualified and highly capable applicants and then admits a much smaller number from among them, based on broad evaluation of each individual, consideration of race along with many other factors in making the final decisions is both necessary and entirely appropriate. [49] To require otherwise would both impair their ability to identify the most promising candidates and produce a less diverse educational environment.</p>

<p>[49] The suggestion of some that the concern for diversity would be better or more justly served by focusing instead on economic diversity, or disadvantage, is unsupportable on two levels. First, economic position does not offer any sort of a useful proxy for race or ethnic origin, and thus does not offer a racially neutral means of achieving the goal of racial or cultural diversity. Simply put, in the population of students from low socio-economic groups who also have high enough test scores to qualify for consideration by highly selective schools, white students outnumber African-American students six-to-one. Second, the great majority of successful minority candidates come from middle and upper middle class backgrounds.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So here is the Institute explicitly saying two things: focusing on disadvantage alone wouldn't balance the race ratios, and, for that reason alone, is not an acceptable solution. Second, the people being helped by affirmative action are not, for the most part, minority students from bad nieghborhoods; on the contrary, "the great majority of successful minority candidates come from middle and upper class backgrounds -- backgrounds just like those of most successful Asian-American and Caucasian applicants.</p>

<p>I think this fairly explicit rejection by a high-level institute document of the "disadvantage and opportunity" defense of considering race is, at the very least, an interesting contribution to this debate.</p>

<p>I should add one thing, in the interest of not having this devolve into something ugly. I continue to have immense respect for MIT admissions represenatives and all the work they do. This is not meant to be any sort of indictment -- just an interesting document to discuss.</p>

<p>I do think, however, that more realism on all sides of this debate -- in the spirit of the above quote -- would be beneficial. Let's admit that we sacrifice some measure of "justice" -- that is, taking the most able students -- in order to achieve desirable social goals like racial balance. It would be an absurd world if we could achieve such leaps and bounds in social equality without having to sacrifice at least something, and I don't see how the fiction that no sacrifices are made helps anybody.</p>

2

<p>I won't deny that you have a point, because you do. This is not a rebuttal, and I'm not trying to point fingers elsewhere in lieu of a defense. But I will say that MIT admissions are CLOSER to clean than those of most of the other top schools. Although they do try to pare down the number of Asian males and bump up the Hispanic female population, at least WITHIN those groups, the decisions are made fairly reasonably. This is in comparison to the Ivies who actually BRAG about the number of high stats kids they reject and how many sub-1000 (old)SAT scores are taken. MIT does place arguably unfair emphasis on race/gender, but they don't bend over backward to do favors for people with connections, money, celebrity etc. Largely, this is because they would have to tone down their curriculum a LOT to allow "connections" admits to graduate with decent GPAs.<br>
But still, I do understand the desirability of a diverse class... not least of all because the school will not be seen as forbidding to those outside the favored group. So yes, MIT's decisions are less purely merit-based than Caltech's... but more so than HYPS's. </p>

<p>"I don't see how the fiction that no sacrifices are made helps anybody.” </p>

<p>I do. Making it widely known that admissions standards are relaxed somewhat for females and URMs would give individuals from said groups rather bitter beginnings in the school. The work will obviously be very difficult, and the last message the school wants to send is "We believe in you – just not as much as we do in the white and Asian males." Meanwhile even the most highly qualified women and minorities are confronted with the accusation that they got in on the basis of gender or race alone. It just leaves a bitter taste in the mouths of extremely well-qualified woman and minorities to state (and leave open to misinterpretation and exaggeration) that “sacrifices ARE made… (followed by the implicit) and there is a white male somewhere who deserves YOUR place in this class”.</p>

3

<p>I am probably going to regret posting in this thread but I must note, BenG, that you sure do put a lot of effort into attempting to prove something about MIT in this regard. May I ask why?</p>

<p>Some schools operate more on the India Institutes of Technology model and don't try to be better rounded in terms of their student population. That's fine for those that prefer such a place, but it's not for everyone. You seem to be operating from an assumption that "taking [only] the most able students" (definition left to the reader) is the preferred method of selection and that there's something demeaning about anything less, am I right? I guess that's why there are two very different yet equally strong Institutes of Technology in the US (well, only two that matter in this discussion, that is ;) ).</p>

<p>Oh, I see kcastelle has posted while I was writing this. I agree, the implicit assumption I hear continually in this argument also has the "... white[/Asian] male who deserves your place..." tone to it. I guess that's what is so distasteful to me about these discussions.</p>

<p>/me dons Kevlar suit and hunkers down....</p>

4

<p>kcastelle -- Good points all. I agree that MIT's admissions probably beats Harvard and Princeton for cleanliness -- people don't get in because they're rich or well-connected, and alumni preferences are minimal compared to Ivies.</p>

<p>And you have a good point; knowing the truth -- that race or gender played a role -- would have a demotivating effect. On the other hand, in an institution dedicated to the pursuit of truth and knowledge, doesn't patronizing an entire group by softly misleading them about the circumstances of their admission seem out of place? And isn't it patronizing to suggest they need this help in the first place?</p>

5

<p>BenG--why would you post such a thread in the MIT discussion forum in the first place, if you didn't, on some subconscious level, want to generate controversy?</p>

6

<p>mootmom -- you look at the "Location" below the username and assume things about my goals ;-)</p>

<p>As I said up top, for me this isn't about affirmative action. I support, wholeheartedly, MIT's efforts to have a gender- and race-balanced community.</p>

<p>It's about honesty. It took some mental effort to tamp down my initial attitude of outrage when I read the brief. What makes me mad is the dishonest effort to have your cake and eat it too. After all the explicit and implicit statements by MIT admissions that race is context, etc., it turns out not to be the truth, or at least not the whole truth. MIT explicitly considers and rejects the notion that its attention to race is about disadvantage or socio-economic justice. It isn't -- as the brief says, that kind of concern wouldn't accomplish the goal of balancing the ratios.</p>

<p>I believe that institutional policies founded on explicit or implicit deception, or even intentional vagueness, even for good reasons, are dangerous.</p>

<p>I think truth is good, knowledge is good, and holding people and institutions accountable for their choices is good. I think this documentary find shines a lot of light on an issue that is rarely talked about that honestly. And that issue, rightly or wrongly, matters to a lot of people.</p>

<p>I merely offer the information and leave people to think about it what they will.</p>

<p>P.S. no need to fear flames. I promise I am fairly tame.</p>

7

<p>rheasilvia -- I never said I didn't want to generate controversy. I said I didn't want this to devolve into something ugly. Those things are different, though in a way Bill O'Reilly doesn't understand.</p>

8

<p>Ben, the implication of your post, as I see it--the logical extension of your observations--is that females and underrepresented minority candidates who are accepted to MIT are not necessarily the most deserving candidates.</p>

<p>I guess I'm having trouble understanding how that is not ugly on the face of it. I think that it's also interesting that you posted this thread right before Caltech's prospective freshman weekend--is this perhaps a not-so-subtle attempt to woo cross-admits? If I'm any indication, such tactics are extraordinarily counterproductive.</p>

9

<p>“On the other hand, in an institution dedicated to the pursuit of truth and knowledge, doesn't patronizing an entire group by softly misleading them about the circumstances of their admission seem out of place? And isn't it patronizing in the first place to suggest they need this help in the first place?”</p>

<p>Haha, BenG, it would be more out of place to tell a large number of them very prematurely (on the heels of an admission letter) that they aren't entirely qualified to seek truth and knowledge! Nobody has ever point-blank said that the circumstances of admission are utterly equal, as is soundly proven by all the details fine people such as you go to great lengths to dig up. As a female MIT admit myself (and not a socioeconomically disadvantaged one, but every bit as qualified as most male admits I've met, although I've not cured any form of cancer just yet :p), I have every understanding that I was judged in a slightly less competitive pool than my white/Asian male counterpart. That does not translate directly to "I am a less competitive applicant than said counterpart", nor should it. You seem to think that we the females and URMs are cushioned from any knowledge of the sort. Rather, I've heard it from several of my fellow high school students (most friends of an Asian male rejectee, as it so happens - take that for what it's worth) and implicitly in every discussion of this type, including the current one. </p>

<p>The reason I continue to post in these is because I myself have wondered this, and I've reached the conclusion that there is an erroneous assumption in there somewhere - that the white/Asian male pool is HUGELY, UTTERLY, SIGNIFICANTLY and ABSOLUTELY better than the female/URM one. There is little indication this is true, and if it is, the graduation stats disprove it's validity. </p>

<p>The fact is that if MIT were suddenly swarmed by a whole host of amazing Hispanic female applicants next year, it would suddenly be very difficult for one to be admitted as such.</p>

10

<p>Perhaps you could also cite the statements by MIT admissions that you find untruthful in this regard.</p>

<p>I realize that your purpose is to somehow place Caltech on a purer footing that MIT does not match, in an attempt to persuade prospective students. I presume your belief that Caltech is "more honest" in this regard is one reason you attend the western Institute. I'm happy my son is attending the eastern one, personally (and I'm among the most honest people you'd ever meet). I don't find your arguments persuasive nor particularly relevant to most admissions decisions, but I assume you believe it will be important to some and hence have posted. The timing right before the Caltech admitted students weekend is noteworthy. Perhaps you'll sway some with this line of reasoning; that's one use of these public boards, after all. Have a good time!</p>

<p>I'll give in to the urge to be pedantic and point out that the correct phrase is to "eat your cake and have it, too".</p>

11

<p>Oh and to qualify the "Asian male rejectee at my school", he was ALSO rejected from a certain other California-based Institute of Technology (against which I cannot measure myself since I did not actually apply to it). So the Asian male whose place I took was likely not specifically him. :p</p>

12

<p>rhea and others -- If this thread were pre-prefrosh weekend PR, then I would be a terrible PR agent. These things tend to stir up more bad feelings than good in general, in unpredictable directions. Competing over yield bores me.</p>

<p>If you want to know why I posted it today, it's because a remark someone made in a class reminded me of the amicus brief I read three years ago and I decided it was appropriate in view of the recent thread about "reverse discrimination".</p>

<p>Oh, and by the way -- the document and my comments about it relate to race, not gender.</p>

13

<p>kcastelle --</p>

<p>
[quote]
there is an erroneous assumption in there somewhere - that the white/Asian male pool is HUGELY, UTTERLY, SIGNIFICANTLY and ABSOLUTELY better than the female/URM one.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't know where this assumption lives. I haven't met it.</p>

14

<p>mootmom -- I think the insinuations in #10 are kind of below you.</p>

<p>Anyway, why the hostility, mootmom? Have I touched some kind of nerve? I think this is an interesting question from the perspective of public and university policy... and an interesting economic question. Note also that I haven't been trying to persuade, per se -- just posting a document, highlighting an interesting section, and recording some of my reactions to it.</p>

<p>I also am not going to go dig up dozens of blog posts or anything like that. Suffice it to say that the document was very surprising to me. If others think it's not surprising, then that's totally fine with me. As I say above, I don't really have an argument to push. That's tiring and detracts from homework.</p>

15

<p>BenG - okay, perhaps you and this assumption have not been introduced. Then expound, if you will, on how (to paraphrase) an entire group has been misled about the circumstances of their admissions? You did not mean to imply they should have been told "Race and gender were factors in your admission, but since no significant difference in quality existed in the pool with regard to race or gender, we have no actual point." </p>

<p>Also, everything I've said in this thread is in good humor, I promise. I'm just enjoying the debate.</p>

16

<p>"the document and my comments about it relate to race, not gender"</p>

<p><em>re-reads</em> </p>

<p>This is true. Okay, ignore the references to gender in my previous posts and heed only the racial ones. The two factors (with Tech schools) tend to be mentioned together. My point remains.</p>

17

<p>Well, I think I can remain agnostic about whether the URM or female or male or Asian pool is better or whether they are all equal. And students can be left for themselves to decide whether the explicit consideration of race, beyond just information about opportunity and socioeconomic background, reflects anything about the strength of the pools. Maybe the statement you have in quotation remarks is exactly right!</p>

18

<p>rheasilvia--</p>

<p>
[quote]
Ben, the implication of your post, as I see it--the logical extension of your observations--is that females and underrepresented minority candidates who are accepted to MIT are not necessarily the most deserving candidates.</p>

<p>I guess I'm having trouble understanding how that is not ugly on the face of it.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No, the "extension" of my argument that you propose has nothing to do with what I said or meant to say. I think they are deserving under a certain definition of desert. My only problem is that the ways in which MIT considers some factors aren't discussed as honestly as they could be, except in obscure footnotes of legal briefs. I think this debate is better to have in the sunshine.</p>

19

<p>BenG, it's disingenuous to say that you haven't been trying to persuade--were you merely trying to record your own reactions, you could have posted this on your own blog or something. As it is, you posted it in a discussion forum where prospies will see it and be influenced by it. </p>

<p>Also, to try and divert attention away from gender is misleading. If URM students are being patronized and misled about their true merits at MIT, so are female students. I know you do believe the latter; you've said as much many times.</p>

<p>Edit: I'm sorry, I didn't see the post above. Okay, sure, as it says in the Bible in John somewhere, "The truth shall make ye free." I buy that; I'm a student just like most people on this board. </p>

<p>So what would you have MIT do? Seriously? What course of action would you want them to take with regards to this issue?</p>

20

<p>That's the kind of thing I wanted to talk about -- and a question that stumps me.</p>

<p>I am sympathetic to kcastelle's points about how talking about affirmative action will hurt feelings and be counterproductive. So, in truth, if I were the one in charge, I wouldn't just turn on the light and say to everyone, loud and clear, exactly how the preferences work.</p>

<p>One "constructive" thought I had is the following. MIT's lawyers complain that switching to any socioeconomic measurement of disadvantage would make it impossible to admit sufficient numbers of minority students. But I don't actually think that's true. Black and Hispanic students continue to underperform woefully in high school -- at pretty much all socioeconomic levels -- and its surely not because they're "intrinsically" any different.</p>

<p>There must be some real, measurable factor out there other than race that makes them underperform relative to their non-minority counterparts, and if we could only find it, then considering it would be fair (just like considering that you're from an inner city school with no textbooks is fair). I think one such factor might be the number of college-educated people in a family, for example. </p>

<p>But I guess the point is, if it were harder to get away with pure race-based preferences due to the light shining on those things, then universities would find better and fairer ways of judging merit and compensating for real disadvantage; (rather than continuing to operate on the insulting fiction that being Black in itself makes you disadvantaged in a way that requires compensating for). Wouldn't that be a positive outcome?</p>