<p>
[quote]
It doesn't come from "hating MIT". It comes from really loving MIT.
The alums I talk to shake their heads sadly at the stuff that comes
out of the admissions office. The two really top girls in math and
science that I know hesitate to apply. Are they really producing a happier,
more lively community? Are they really trying to track satisfaction,
or are they just winging it?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Look, whenever any university changes, some old alums are going to be disgruntled. That's just the nature of the game. For example, Harvard is more meritocratic than it was in the past, and in particular, admits far fewer subpar legacy admits, and that has served to tick off a lot of old Harvard alumni, especially those alumni whose kids now can't get into Harvard. I gather from talking to people that both MIT and Caltech are probably easier schools than they were in the past and that has also served to greatly annoy the alumni of both schools. As MIT has boosted its offerings of 'softer' social sciences, I'm sure that that has annoyed some old alumni who wanted MIT to remain a purely technical school. Heck I once ran into an old alumni who was criticizing why MIT even bothers to teach a soft subject like political science, and even advocated that the department should never have been started and should be shut down, even though the department is now the #10 ranked graduate poli-sci department in the country.</p>
<p>Look, I agree that alumni are stakeholders in a university. The problem is that they are conservative stakeholders by their very nature, and hence tend to be forces that serve to impede change. You have to balance the interests of old stakeholders like the alumni with that of future stakeholders such as the future students. Anytime you ever do anything different, you tend to tick off the old alumni. But what's the alternative? Never changing at all? Always doing exactly the same thing over and over again? </p>
<p>
[quote]
When MIT values someone who dances and writes wonky political essays over someone who is clearly a much smarter mathematician,
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, speaking of preferring somebody who 'writes wonky political essays' over a clearly much smarter mathematician, what's wrong with that? Like I said above, MIT is trying to build up a strong political science department, and has largely succeeded in doing so. But you can't do that solely by bringing in strong poli-sci faculty. Ultimately, you have to also bring in appropriate students who are good at political science. Hence, that inevitably means that you will have to admit some students who, as you say, are good at writing wonky political essays over students who are good at math.</p>
<p>And in fact, MIT already uncontroversially engages in such a policy. Many (probably most) MIT Ph.D. poli-sci students are rather mediocre at math. For example, if I took some random MIT poli-sci Ph.D. students and pitted them against some random MIT undergrads (from any major) in a math competition, I'm quite sure that those Ph.D. students would lose miserably. But MIT admitted them anyway. At the same time, I'm sure the MIT math department rejects plenty of brilliant candidates for their PhD program. Hence, one could argue that perhaps MIT should shift resources such that the poli-sci department will admit fewer graduate students so that the math department can admit more.</p>
<p>The bottom line is, if MIT wants to become a powerhouse in political science, MIT will inevitably have to admit some students who are strong in political science at the expense of other areas. That's inevitable - as many of the best poli-sci students and best poli-sci professors at any of the top programs (Harvard, Stanford, etc.) are probably mediocre at math. That is, of course, presuming that you actually agree that MIT should be trying to become a major political-science school. If you actually believe that MIT shouldn't be trying to do this at all, and perhaps should shut down the poli-sci department entirely, then that's an entirely different discussion. But if that's what you believe, then you should just say so. Then at least we'd all know where you stand. </p>
<p>
[quote]
But there is valuable information in the fact that so much anger is directed at MIT in particular about these things, and not at, say, Harvard, which is more coveted and has admissions policies at least as opaque
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You just gave away the store right there, as you just admitted that Harvard's admissions policies are at least as opaque, * but are also more coveted*. Ask yourself - why exactly is Harvard more coveted? Maybe it is because their admissions policies gives them that added mystique, i.e. that nobody knows exactly what you need to do to get into Harvard, and that mystery adds to the allure? Furthermore, if MIT wants to compete toe-to-toe with Harvard, then maybe MIT feels that they have to match Harvard's admissions policies. Right now, Harvard wins all cross-admit battles with all schools. </p>
<p>Look, the truth is, from a prestige standpoint, all schools (MIT and Caltech included) play second-fiddle to Harvard. MIT and Caltech have played the 'purely meritocratic game' for decades, and Harvard hasn't, and look where it's gotten them. Like it or not, purely meritocratic admissions policies don't get you to #1. Similarly, like it or not, in life, the most meritocratic idea doesn't always win. You can design and develop the best product, and still fail in the market to a worse product that is promoted better or strategically positioned better. You can be the most productive worker in your company, and lose your job anyway because you lost out on some internal political batte. You can have the best ideas, and never have them implemented because somebody else more forcefully argues for a worse idea. Like it or not, that's life. </p>
<p>If MIT wants to make a serious run at Harvard, then MIT will need to make changes from the way it used to operate in the past. You never get better unless you change, yet change inevitably means ticking off people who liked the old ways better. But the alternative is to never change at all.</p>