<p>Thank you Mazewanderer.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You cant use UCs to make your point (I don’t know about Caltech). UCs have a vast majority of in-state students and California is more Asian than Massachusetts.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not the oboes again! More cliche’s!</p>
<p>Violists are the ones getting the affirmative action, so let’s complain about them.</p>
<p>I made two violins and I didn’t get in. This may just be an anecdote but not all people related to violins are getting the nod by admissions!</p>
<p>;)</p>
<p>I blame the fact that 47 percent of admissions were female…</p>
<p>Someone mentioned that MIT was going more towards the Harvard/Yale route, a comprehensive university with a Science/Engineering focus. That is why they would look for oboe players (or violinists or tuba or saxophone or what ever) in addition. The point is that they are looking for a wider diversity in the student population. That is the way MIT wants to go.</p>
<p>Caltech on the other hand has been very focused and are sticking to their core. Yes they will accept the oboe player, the violin player, the basketball player who can shoot 90% from the free throw line, the student who wants to major in economics or literature, but all of them need to show passion for science and math and be willing to do 5 tough courses in math and physics, 2 in chemistry etc as a core requirement. In other words, there is more homogeneity for the literature student would not really prefer Caltech. That is why there is less anguish on the Caltech threads as people know what Caltech likes or does not like. </p>
<p>Many people think that MIT wants one thing, when in reality MIT has now moved on to “we need several things”. MIT may not admit it directly, but that is where I see them going, a tech focused Harvard. You may not think it is fair, right etc. but MIT makes those decisions and applications for the future years need to adjust their MIT strategy accordingly. </p>
<p>And yes that strategy may include actively recruiting females (47% at present) as they think it fits into their strategy.</p>
<p>^^You hit the nail on the head: MIT has been Harvardized. The question is why. What was wrong with MIT the way it was the first 100 years or so?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, I am a violist and I did get in, so maybe you’re right. But I’ve received enough viola-based discrimination. Just because our music is written in alto clef doesn’t mean we’re subhuman!</p>
<p>Because face it, no one, not even the admissions officers, wants a school that is 70% asian. If you want that, just go to UC berkeley or something. Don’t aim for the prestigious schools then complain after you fail because they can’t be like the UCs with their high asian percentages.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m curious what you mean by ‘Harvardized’. That MIT doesn’t want solely math science robots? Oh, the horror.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, for one thing, only about 50 black students graduated from MIT in those 100 years. And around 10% of the living MIT alumni today are women. I can’t imagine it was a very nice place to be, compared to the MIT of today. The student body is going to evolve, and the changes aren’t necessarily bad.</p>
<p>MIT’s being Harvardized? Lol, you CCers come up with the wackiest things.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m clearly not talking about race here. I’m talking about the change of the entire philosophy of the school. I have no opinion about affirmative action per se.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you think the best people at math/science are robotic, that’s your problem and your own lack of understanding of what makes someone good at math/science. And I never said other mental capabilities shouldn’t be considered, such as verbal ability (english,history, etc.), musical, or artistic. In fact, I think these add a dimension to one’s thinking and are indicative of promise in math and science. People who are good at math and science but not english usually don’t make good professors at science. </p>
<p>However, this is a far cry from looking for weird and quirky activities to make the class more interesting or weighting community service, leadership activities, or athletics way too much. </p>
<p>In my opinion, the people who are robotic are those that show up to class and just parrot what the teacher says enough to get a “B” or “A-” and are not engrossed in the material enough to make any creative insights or to challenge the conventional thought. You need to master the material before you can challenge it. That’s why I question whether people will be able to reason creatively if they are getting a bunch of B’s in science. And conversely, I would expect that people at a IMO/MOSP level of math would be highly creative thinkers, not robots. </p>
<p>Instead, people think the interesting people are the ones that are shallow thinkers but keep really busy with a bunch of activities. In my opinion, this is the model for the ivy league student–smart enough to get A’s and in the high test-scoring range, but that’s it. Or if they can’t get all A’s, make sure they are smart enough to “do the work” and get back to the activities that they are on campus to do.</p>
<p>If the selection is merit based, and you get 70% Asians, 10% women and 50 blacks in one hundred years. Then so be it. That means that Asians and boys are discriminated against under current process.</p>
<p>MIT hasn’t changed much at all in 100 years. If you have any doubts, I recommend a great book, recently published:</p>
<p>A. J. Angulo, *William Barton Rogers and the Idea of MIT<a href=“Baltimore%20MD:%20John%20Hopkins%20University%20Press,%202008”>/I</a>.</p>
<p>Personally, having known some women back in the late 1960s who attended MIT to study architecture, I find it rather ridiculous that some here are suggesting MIT has only recently switched to a philosophy that emphasizes areas besides “pure” math and science.</p>
<p>I’m a rejected regular MIT guy too and I’ve been reading this and I just want to give my quick two cents on the issue. </p>
<p>I have no problem with affirmative action as MIT uses it. One thing that definitely attracted me to MIT is the ethnic diversity of campus. My high school is predominately Caucasian and I wanted to expand my knowledge of other cultures by going to a school with a diverse population. </p>
<p>However, I would like to see MIT edit the anti-discrimination clause it puts on its application. I believe it’s misleading and contradicts the affirmative action statement on its website. </p>
<p>MIT admissions officers that may see this, I just want to thank you for being very upfront and “cool” about everything on both CC and the admissions blogs. I know it’s a hard job with so many great applicants but MIT would not be the MIT we all wanted/want to desperately attend if you guys didn’t do such a great job admitting the people you guys do. Bravo!</p>
<p>@bigjay - </p>
<ul>
<li><p>Which clause? </p></li>
<li><p>Thanks! </p></li>
</ul>
<p>(an MIT admissions officer)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am not suggesting this. I am suggesting that only recently has MIT moved to a philosophy that wouldn’t expect a future architecture major to excel in all academic areas and especially math and science, at least enough to get A’s. Basically, the philosophy was to take the best students across the board and assume they would have a variety of interests to fill out the different majors. If a student was given a little leeway in terms of grades, it might be in the humanities area. This is not what the ivies do. How much this has really changed I am not sure, but the rhetoric sure seems to have changed.</p>
<p>As for metapod’s post, I find it hard to believe someone will be able to reason creatively in a field if they haven’t even mastered it well enough to get an “A” in a high school class (assuming they don’t drastically change their priorities in college.)</p>
<p>I am actually convinced the average student at MIT is more talented today than a generation ago when I attended. That includes fields such as math and physics. You just need to look at the number of Putnam Fellows as an indicator. Over the past decade, MIT has captured approximately 40% of all Putnam Fellow awards or about 2 per year out of 5 total. The next school is not even at half that level. The depth is also incredible as nearly 40% of the top 50 are also from MIT. </p>
<p>MIT has vastly increased its outreach, especially internationally and is attracting the very best from around the world not just from the US. The number of academic superstars, Intel Finalists, IMO medalists is increasing every year. At the same time, MIT has broadened its appeal to students interested in other areas than its traditional strongholds such as EECS which used to be its principal strength. The life sciences now generate more research funding than all other areas combined: biology, biochemistry, neuroscience are growing by leaps and bounds. This is helping to attract students and faculty who would never have considered MIT as a destination a decade ago. A few years ago, it established a whole new field, biological engineering as a true engineering discipline, just as it had established chemical engineering a century earlier. MIT doesn’t follow anybody: it sets its own path. </p>
<p>We can always look back nostalgically at an image of MIT which bears little relevance to current needs or circumstances. MIT went through a massive transformation from essentially a regional vocational school into one the top research universities in the US after WWII. It is now going through a second revolution where it is a focal point for world leaders in science and engineering. All of its courses are available to students from Africa to the Philippines. You can’t open a magazine without reading how one more country is trying to emulate the MIT model by creating a new technical institute. I don’t hear clamors for another Harvard or Stanford. MIT remains the reference because it has focused on fields where it can be a leader and make a difference. </p>
<p>I don’t see the Harvardization of MIT. I see just the opposite: The “MITzation” of Harvard and Yale with attempts at creating new science and engineering centers, giving equal status to applied science and engineering and courting the more lopsided candidates as opposed to just the valedictorians. With over 75% of its prospective engineers changing majors before graduation, Harvard still have a long way to go before it will provide serious competition in MIT’s the core areas of competency. At Yale, science and engineering is still an afterthought, perched far away from central campus up on Science Hill. </p>
<p>I am not worried for MIT. It is doing just fine.</p>
<p>^ Thank you, cellardweller. I logged on to reply and just saw that your post has saved me the trouble of making the same points.</p>