<p>Ben does have a point that its pretty ironic that the purpose of AA (at least for MIT) has little to do with context in that context alone does not the ratio make.</p>
<p>His point is that MIT is doing some admissions on race for race's sake instead of for its intended purpose -- to help disadvantaged. So instead of actually FINDING or FIXING the root source of the problem creating the "gap" they're just recoating it with a different color and saying that its now "fixed"</p>
<p>Okay. I guess the question is, why <em>shouldn't</em> admission be done based "on race for race's sake"? Shouldn't it be the case that the racial breakdown of MIT's freshman class--or any school's, for that matter--should reasonably mirror the racial breakdown of the population at large? Isn't that simply not true as of right now?</p>
<p>Hmm... certainly many people would not accept as obvious the premise that the racial breakdown of MIT should reflect the racial breakdown of the general population. An argument would have to be made to dismiss the fairly reasonable null hypothesis that some activities could legitimately be undertaken by demographically unrepresentative slices of the population.</p>
<p>I accept that it's possible that there might be disincentives for some kids in certain minority groups to undertake the activities that make them attractive to tech schools. But I think it's also true that economic situation plays a part --inner-city kids may go to schools that don't offer Calc BC--and that economic situation correlates well with race. I guess if the goal is racial equity, why wouldn't accepting more African-Americans have the side-effect of letting in people from lower economic strata? Which is sort of the opposite of the argument you were initially making, I know.</p>
<p>Not I so much as the MIT document. I am fine with using race as even a rough proxy for disadvantage, and what's interesting is that this notion is explicitly rejected by MIT. For what it's worth, I went to school with a lot of rich, very lucky kids, and the minorities among them certainly benefitted from race-based AA. If we accept the notion that the balance of race ratios is desirable, then it was quite legitimate to give a bump to these rich minorities for the reason of their color alone; but maybe the preference would have been more justly exercised in favor of some poor inner city kid from Singapore?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Okay. I guess the question is, why <em>shouldn't</em> admission be done based "on race for race's sake"? Shouldn't it be the case that the racial breakdown of MIT's freshman class--or any school's, for that matter--should reasonably mirror the racial breakdown of the population at large? Isn't that simply not true as of right now?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Becuase IMO it ignores a larger problem that causes the imbalance in race ratios. Yes a campus NEEDS to be diverse, but if you are not fixing the root problem then what are you as a school really fixxing at all?</p>
<p>Just throwing in another idea, but this comes from talking to the admittedly few very affluent black students that I know. As much as females are discouraged from science and math (and you'll find that most have been, and the ones you meet at tech schools are simply those who did not pay much heed to these sentiments), in certain cultural groups scholastic success in general is discouraged. As fun as it may or may not be to be the only black kid in your group of friends, the sentiment I have heard complaints about is that "trying to succeed in school is trying to be white". Now THAT is not influenced by wealth or the quality of your school - it can be argued that SOME minority parents (Asians don't count here :)) place significantly less emphasis on education and on science/math than others. It isn't really seen as cool for anybody to be a geek, but I would point out that black, mexican, etc students get the "you sold out" angle worse than others. I do agree that race for its own sake does not adequately account for disadvantage, but there's a point of view from which it's not unreasonable to account for it. It has less to do with affluence than it does with stigma.</p>
<p>Yes. Economists Roland Fryer and Steve Levitt have a paper about how trying to succeed academically if you're black or Hispanic is stigmatized as "acting white".</p>
<p>I think this is the strongest argument for affirmative action. To open the gates of achievement, it needs to be culturally acceptable, as opposed to just theoretically feasible, to excel academically as a young black man, for example. Creating MIT-educated role-models of such achievement is one way to do this.</p>
<p>But I think it's an open question whether such a stigma really exists for those (predominantly middle and upper class) black and Hispanic students who make it to MIT. It would be odd if parents who were the first in their families to get an education (during the civil rights era, no less) were now stigmatizing scholastic success as "acting white".</p>
<p>So the worry is kind of the same as before. What if the benefits of this nobly-intentioned program are accruing to those who don't really suffer from any of the ills its meant to cure?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Okay. I guess the question is, why <em>shouldn't</em> admission be done based "on race for race's sake"? Shouldn't it be the case that the racial breakdown of MIT's freshman class--or any school's, for that matter--should reasonably mirror the racial breakdown of the population at large? Isn't that simply not true as of right now?
[/quote] MITs policy of nondiscrimination:
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology is committed to the principle of equal opportunity in education and employment. The Institute does not discriminate against individuals on the basis of race, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender, identity, religion, disability, age, veteran status, ancestry, or national or ethnic origin in the administration of its educational policies, admissions policies, employment policies, scholarship and loan programs, and other Institute administered programs and activities...</p>
<p>Now, let's look at the definition of discriminate...
To make distinctions on the basis of class or category without regard to individual merit; show preference or prejudice.</p>
<p>Isn't discrimination exactly what occurs when MIT admissions ignores, to a certain degree the individual merit of an applicant, and shows preference for a particular under represented minority?</p>
<p>Well the implicit argument is that outside forces discriminate and MIT takes that into account in its own decisions. So it's not so much the definition of discrimination and is it a question of when it occurs. Are under-represented groups under-represented BECAUSE of some outside force? Assuming that all people (in a broad, overall sense and not in any particular case) would be equally interested in science and math, have equal opportunities, and be of equal intelligence, why wouldN'T they all show up equally in the applicant pool? The answer adcoms have for this, I assume, is that there is an (or many) x-factor(s) present in the world accounting for the disparity. They attempt to correct for this. </p>
<p>What I'm saying is that rather than being a direct lie as it may seem, the statement MIT makes may in fact be EXACTLY their thought process and as far as they are concerned, a direct truth. </p>
<p>Though kcastelle is playing devil's advocate, the position she outlines is probably similar to the one MIT is taking and the one that made sense in my head, though I wasn't able to vocalize it so well.</p>
<p>It's quite true that you get a bit more sway if you are an URM ... there's no hiding from it ! I think thats all benG is trying to say. All things equal (or even not) a black student may be admitted for NO other factor other than race, skin color, ethnic back ground. I think colleges should just admit they have quotias in order to develop diversity. It's not a bad thing! diversity is important. But don't twist the truth by saying it's "context" only. Be honest: a black high income student from a good high school has had the same oppurtunities as a white one
and will be admitted solely for the sake of having a more well rounded campus. Just admit that diversity is an important trait and sacrifices have to be made for it.</p>
<p>If that means an applicant gets more detailed look past the standard admittance rubric so as might identify talents not shown on standardized tests for example, I might agree with you. If that means there is " special" treatment I do not, and resent the implication.</p>
<p>AKGIRL -- whether any of us like the implication or not, the amicus brief written by MIT is pretty darn clear -- race, in itself, beyond context and disadvantage, is taken into account and tips decisions. How I wish that resenting unfortunate facts made them go away. (i resent that i do not have a million dollars. <em>repeats rhythmically</em>)</p>
<p>JLP -- we have a professional cleaning staff 24 hours a day, so you are welcome at the Caltech boards. ;-)</p>
<p>i agree that it is quite possible to have the policy MIT currently has and do it with a "pure heart" -- maybe some tricky doublethink, but no outright lying.</p>
<p>i think we should remember though, that some policies undertaken with equally pure a heart, with the same goals, would be considered out of hand racist and wrong. imagine a professor teaching a large class, deciding that there is no good reason -- beyond social inequalities and injustices -- for the A grades not to be proportionally distributed among the various demographics at the institute. if the Hispanic students had a lower mean on the test, then their tests would be graded more holistically, taking account of disadvantages and correcting injustices. (the test must have been designed with some subtle anti-minority bias, our professor thinks.)</p>
<p>the point is, sometimes there is a genuine problem (uneven performance), a fairly simple solution (changing the evaluation method for some groups), an honest and plausible justification for the fix (this underperformance must be due to disadvantage or bias) -- and despite all this, it's a terrible idea that sacrifices other things that are too important.</p>
<p>what has been said by Slak quite well is that this kind of crude adjustment doesn't really get at the root of the problem and just tries to mask it -- too little, too late, at too high a cost.</p>
<p>oh, by the way, i expect someone to say that the professor situation isn't the same AT ALL. i hope we don't make it that simplistic. i realize that whether the analogy fits is a question. in fact, it's exactly THE question -- whether the admissions policy is different from syntactically similar situations which we consider quite unfair.</p>
<p>Without directly addressing the professor situation since even BenG admits it's a flawed comparison, the admissions policy IS different than a situation that directly awards higher value to similar work done by a minority. The reason is that applicants to a college are not directly given a ranking or a grade, they are given a yes, a no or a 'pat on the back' no (waitlist). The mystical x-factor of "fit" is what gives colleges all the leeway in the world. Between two similar students, the deciding factor could be race or gender... or it could be an interviewer's reservations, too many applicants all in one major, or even an essay or scores that when considered together indicate a student would not handle being among other smart students well. They are not assessing a person on a scale of 1 to 10 with points allotted for every stat accumulated; they are looking at a body of applicants and picking which ones they WANT. A seemingly perfect student who is deserving of admission in every way has still been done a favor by the adcom - they were not bound in any way to take him, but they WANT him for their own reasons. </p>
<p>The adcom may people in the door with race in mind, but it is done in the hopes that once within the school, there will be no stigma to success and the person will reach their full potential, as will the white males also. I daresay there is no more coddling given beyond admission that would not be given to any other student there. Any difference in educational opportunities in the past will obviously no longer be a factor, and (I'm making this part up as I go) in grad school admissions, there is not so much in the way of AA. </p>
<p>My point is that the admissions policy is not like assigning higher value to the same thing, but rather giving a chance to a person who may not have had an entirely fair one in the first place. They take a possibly disadvantaged person (and let's be honest, at a top school, the difference in quality is minimal at most because ALL students are very very bright people) and give them the opportunity to learn. I would say most are grateful for this chance and work eagerly to make the most of it. Admission is not the end of a student's career by any means; it is the beginning - it is not too little, too late, or at too high a cost at all.</p>
<p>um. can I post a reminder that they're private universities? they can do whatever the goddamn they want. hell, there are schools out there that do not admit outside a certain religion, a certain sex (hmm...), a certain ethnicity/nationality, whatever. private universities can set the bar anywhere they want for max advantage. if you're a guy and you really want to go to wellesley, you're out of luck, but see, that's ok, cause there are plenty of other fish in the sea. I think this problem really only exists for those who have their eye on one or two schools when there are thousands out there and no fewer than 20 that would be a 'perfect fit' if you just looked hard enough (I mean, hell, how many do you need? you can only GO TO one school.) This issue only strikes a nerve because 'race' is all of a sudden brought into it and frankly, whites and asians have been spoiled rotten in every other aspect of life that they adhere themselves to this 'cause' in the name of martyrdom and complain about just HOW HARD THEIR LIVES ARE because in essence, they didn't win the lottery. And that's what it is to some extent, a lottery. If you're really still holding onto some college-admission bitterness X or Y years out of the process then really you haven't been through enough hardship in life to actually make a sound judgment about what anyone else deserves. Do you hear out-of-state applicants to public universities throwing hissy fits because their admission criteria is ACTUALLY and undeniably more stringent than that of in-state applicants? Don't answer that. Whatever.</p>