<p>Sarcasm abound.</p>
<p>Btw, Ben - what's the racial composition of Caltech?</p>
<p>Student Body Profile, first term 2004</p>
<p>African American 10
Native American 6
Asian/Pacific Islander 279
Hispanic/Latino 62
Caucasian 464
Other 13
Non-resident alien 62</p>
<p>No comment on MIT, but it looks like that distribution probably is a very accurate example of the total population that applied.</p>
<p>
[quote]
had Harvard been overrun by academically deserving Jews in the 1920's, it would probably be Columbia or worse today.)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Huh? This presumes that Columbia didn't also soft-pedal its own meritocracy. From what I've read, Columbia also instituted extensive Jewish quotas, cutting its Jewish population by more than half - an even greater reduction than Harvard's.</p>
<p>"One of the groups affected by these policies was Jewish applicants whose admission to some New England and New York City area liberal arts universities fell significantly between the late 1910s and the mid-1930s. For instance, the admission to Harvard University during that period fell from 27.6% to 17.1% and in Columbia University from 32.7% to 14.6%"</p>
<p>Not to mention that Columbia was one of the few schools outside of the South that used to outright forbid any African-American students At least Harvard had been admitting and graduating African-Americans throughout its history, and while surely it discriminated against African-Americans in the old days just like every school did, it never outright forbid them. Historically important African-American social leaders such as W.E.B. Dubois, Archibald Grimke, Charles Hamilton Houston, and Thomas Sowell are Harvard graduates, all getting admitted to Harvard in the days before affirmative action (when the deck was clearly stacked against African-Americans). However, Columbia, for a number of years, actually outright forbid blacks at the school, acting very much like a Jim-Crow style Southern public university. In fact, I believe this was the time that Langston Hughes, who was admitted into Columbia before the new racial policies, dropped out because of the racial tensions on campus. </p>
<p>So a historic meritocratic comparison of Harvard and Columbia would probably favor Harvard, as Harvard has arguably been more meritocratic, relative to Columbia. Heck, if anything, one might say that if Columbia had been more meritocratic, then Columbia might now be at the level of Harvard. </p>
<p>Not to mention that the golden age of CCNY was during the time when the Ivy League Jewish quotas were enacted such that many of the best Jewish students, especially those in New York City, had little choice but to attend CCNY. CCNY also charged no tuition at the time, which was clearly a boon to the many studious but poverty-stricken Eastern European Jewish immigrants of New York. During that time, CCNY became known as the "poor man's Harvard" and the "Harvard of the working class". Between the 1930's and 1950's, CCNY conferred bachelor's degrees upon 9 students who would later go on to win Nobel Prizes. To this day, that is the most Nobels won by the undergraduate alumni of any public school in the country, an even more amazing feat when you consider that CCNY is actually a relatively small school compared to other public schools, with only 8000 or so undergrads. </p>
<p>CCNY's catastrophic decline in prestige occurred precisely when it instituted open admissions. Hence, CCNY became known as a great school when it was highly meritocratic, and then lost that status when it become unmeritocratic. </p>
<p>
[quote]
The real question is whether greater "general" prestige (which does tend to be improved by a more "balanced" class, in the Harvard style) will make up for the effect of the second paragraph. I think it's a really fascinating experiment.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>See above. I find this line of thought highly questionable. First off, I don't see any evidence that Harvard was any less meritocratic than most of the other Ivies at the time, and it was arguably better (i.e. at least Harvard was still admitting African-Americans). Furthermore, the experience of CCNY seems to indicate that prestige tracks quite closely with meritocracy. CCNY's prestige rose when it started getting many top students who found that they could no longer get into the Ivy League. CCNY's prestige fell off a cliff when it began to admit everybody.</p>
<p>I assume you've read The Chosen. While Columbia really cracked down when they realized how bad the Jewish problem was, they waited way too long, and Jews comprised about 30% of the student body before Columbia woke up. When they did wake up, they instituted crude and obvious quotas.</p>
<p>Harvard addressed the problem much earlier, before the numbers got that high, and did so subtly. Harvard wasn't more meritocratic; it discriminated earlier and more carefully, and lied about it more blatantly. Yale and Princeton took very similar measures. That's the big reason that New York's elite abandoned Columbia for Harvard, Yale, and Princeton.</p>
<p>Karabel makes this argument with such profuse documentation and care that you will have a hard time contravening it.</p>
<p>I don't dispute that Harvard may have performed their discrimination earlier. But I don't see what the timing has to do with anything. So what if Columbia cracked down later? The fact is, they still cracked down, and hence became less of a meritocracy. If they had not done so, then maybe Columbia would have been the one to pick up all of those CCNY future Nobel winners. Not to mention the extremely racist policies that Columbia instituted against African-Americans. Columbia might as well have been a Jim Crow-style Southern public university. What's the difference between all of those Southern public universities that refused to admit blacks and Columbia that (for awhile) also refused to admit blacks? In fact, I believe a small mini-scandal erupted at Columbia when they admitted a guy only to find out when he showed up that he was black. </p>
<p>The point is, from what I see in history, the schools that stepped away from meritocratic principles tended to decline in prestige, and vice versa. Harvard may have been the first to institute anti-Jewish quotas. But so what? The other Ivies followed. So at the end of the day, they were all practicing the same kind of discrimination. CCNY, on the other hand, took all of those top Jews who could no longer get in the Ivies, and those Jews burnished the reputation of CCNY.</p>
<p>my dear sakky, why can't you see? Today, Harvard is far more prestigious than Columbia. The reason is that it stole from Columbia the children of New York's upper class by taking advantage of Columbia's failure to exclude Jews before the damage (to the WASP social environment at Columbia) was done. The rich WASPs fled Columbia *en masse<a href="which%20is%20why%20it%20had%20to%20take%20such%20drastic%20countermeasures">/i</a> to schools that had more carefully managed their proportion of Jews.</p>
<p>For the crucial moment when it lost the prestige battle, Columbia did so by being more meritocratic toward Jews (a crucial minority at the time) while Harvard (and Yale and Princeton) was less. What happened after the tipping point isn't relevant -- Columbia had lost the game.</p>
<p>Do you understand now?</p>
<p>(By the way, what I said about Columbia was never intended to imply that they were a shining beacon of meritocracy in general. Just that it lost by being too meritocratic for ten minutes.)</p>
<p>I'm afraid I still don't see it. For that to be true, I would have to see that Harvard GAINED prestige on the other Ivies during the time when it was discriminating against Jews, and the other Ivies were not discriminating against Jews, but then lost those gains (or stopped gaining) when those other Ivies also started discriminating against Jews. </p>
<p>As my 2 counterpoints, I would point, once again, to the CCNY example, where CCNY prestige rose and fell almost like clockwork as it became more and then less meritocratic. I would also look at places like Berkeley. Did Berkeley become less prestigious after Proposition 209 that banned affirmative action in all public schools in California? I'm afraid I don't see it.</p>
<p>First,
[quote]
Harvard GAINED prestige on the other Ivies during the time when it was discriminating against Jews, and the other Ivies were not discriminating against Jews, but then ... stopped gaining ... when those other Ivies also started discriminating against Jews.
[/quote]
Exactly right. This is precisely what Karabel painstakingly documents in The Chosen.</p>
<p>Second, Berkeley still practices affirmative action almost exactly as before, just by a different name and justification.</p>
<p>Third, your CCNY example sucks. For a time, it probably was among the top 5 in the country for talent, but could never hold a candle to the power commanded by a Harvard or Princeton, which fairly blatantly excluded talanted but socially undesirable students.</p>
<p>What Berkeley is doing is highly controversial and has been called a willful attempt to break the law. </p>
<p>Nobody is saying that CCNY can ever hold a candle to Harvard and Princeton. That's not the point. The point is to ask when were the glory days of CCNY? The answer is easy - it was when CCNY was at its most meritocratic. I don't find this to be a coincidence in the least. </p>
<p>I'll give you another shining example from world history. It wasn't that long ago when the most of the best science in the world was being done not in the US, but in Europe. The vast majority of science Nobels won in the first half of the 1900's were won by Europeans. What changed was simple. Naziism. The Nazis killed or drove out many of the best scientists in Europe, especially the Jewish scientists. Many of those Jewish scientists ended up on the faculties of American universities. </p>
<p>I would say this. Before WW2, places like Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and even MIT and Caltech were not the most highly respected science schools compared to universities in the rest of the world. They were tops in the US, but the very best science universities of the world were places like Oxford and Cambridge in the UK, Berlin, Munich, Cologne, Gotteingen, Wuzburg, Heidelberg, Strasbourg in Germany the Sorbonne of France (because of Marie Curie)
Leiden and Amsterdam in the Netherlands, University of Vienna in Austria, University of Prague in the (now) Czech Republic, University of Copenhagen in Denmark, and several others. These were the "real" science universities back in those days. The vast majority of the best science research was coming out of Europe. Many of the best American scientists wanted to study or teach in European universities. In fact many American science PhD programs required that their students learn foreign languages, especially German, because so much of the best science articles were written in German at the time. </p>
<p>Think of it this way. Ben, you're a mathematician. Quick - name me 5 important American-born mathematicians in history that made their discoveries before WW2. Can't do it, right? That's because until just recently, almost all of the important math discoveries in the world were made in Europe. Gauss, Weierstrauss were German. Lobachevsky was a Russian. Galois, Descartes, and Cauchy were French. Godel was a Czech of German ethnicity. Euler was Swiss. The Bourbaki Group was mostly Frenchmen, with a few Germans and Poles. </p>
<p>The reason why American universities, and in particular places like Harvard, Princeton, and so forth are considered to be world-class science universities today is because they got many of the best scientists of the world working for them. In other words, while Europe became far less meritocratic, especially with the Deutsche Physik movement that is deeply associated with Naziism that attempted to discredit the "Jewish Physics" of Einstein and other Jewish scientists on racial and ideological grounds. That is how the American universities surpassed the grand European universities in overall prominence. </p>
<p>Harvard is now the most prestigious university in the world, and the US does the bet science in the world. But it wasn't always this way. It wasn't that long ago when Oxford or Cambridge were the most prestigious universities in the world. It wasn't that long ago when Germany or the UK were seen to be doing the best science in the world. In other words, seems to me that prestige tracked fairly closely to meritocracy. The Germans badly hurt their science reputation by persecuting the Jews. I highly doubt that too many people would argue that German universities became more prominent when they drove out their Jewish students and faculty under Naziism.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Exactly right. This is precisely what Karabel painstakingly documents in The Chosen.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm sorry, I still don't buy it. Perhaps in the cossetted little world of the Ivies, Harvard may have gained in social prestige. However, from a larger social context, I doubt that they did. Even back in those days, the Ivy Leagues were not the only schools in the world. For example, I see no evidence that the Southern public universities, which used to exclude all African-Americans, somehow became less prominent when they were forced to racially integrate. If anything, they probably became more prominent. For example, we consider Georgia Tech or the University of Virginia to be quite decent schools. What would we think of them if they still excluded African-Americans, the way they used to do? Would they be more prominent in our eyes?</p>
<p>Ben, I think either Krabel or you make too much of one tiny little example while ignoring the larger currents of history. Just because it rains one day in the desert doesn't mean that it always rains in the desert. In general, the more meritocratic schools have tended to rise in prominence.</p>
<p>You're too idealistic. Maybe in the grand long-term scheme of things, meritocracy leads to success -- especially in pure science (and surely in pure mathematics). But locally, day to day, being more aristocratic in the early 1900's, or being more "diverse" today, is often a way to increase social prestige even as some absolute measures of quality slip. Being affiliated with the right SOCIAL movement is more important than being academically great. (This explains your observation that we don't respect segregationist schools today -- they've just fallen out of fashion, and the extreme other direction is in.)</p>
<p>I'd love to live in the world you describe, where prestige tracks meritocracy, but that's not the world we live in.</p>
<p>Finally, all your examples relate to science. I love science for precisely the reasons you outline, but you forget that scientific strength and achievement isn't what equals broad socioeconomic prestige in this country. If that were the case, MIT and Caltech would be considered by everyone to be better, pound for pound than the Ivies, but you know that most people still think more of Yale than of MIT and certainly more than they think of Caltech, even though (IIRC) Caltech trounces Yale in Nobels, even without adjusting for size.</p>
<p>I'm pretty sure at IIT prestige follows merit. I'm pretty confident you can't buy your way into IIT, although you can pay for expensive coaching.</p>
<p>*Yeah, last time I said IIT the entire thread deviated :p</p>
<p>Americans who could never get into IIT in the Indian system can get in because they pay a lot more, in American dollars. Even IIT has its limits. End of IIT discussion. :P</p>
<p>Are you sure? Last I checked you still have to take the IIT-JEE and still meet their standards. I've also heard its horrible there to go as a non-indian because you get ragged on(hazed) a lot because they think you are taking the slot of a deserving Indian.</p>
<p>ok ben so you knew you were going to get an argument from me sooner or later. I have no intention of winning or perpetuating this argument, but I've gotta at least stick my neck into it.</p>
<p>I'm curious as to what god of scientific achievement past and pending came to you in a dream with the notion that SAT scores is a good indication of a person's potential contribution to the world. "OH BUT BLAHBLABHLAH I DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT SAT SCORES". OK then what do people cite first when they rant and rave about someone who should have gotten into XYZ but didn't due to some catastrophic breach of justice and all that is right with the world? What is the first thing your eyes dart to when you open a decision thread about accepted/deferred/denied? What is really the one statistic that always comes up in discussions about affirmative action? It's not the hardships endured by the student or their love of learning, that's for sure.</p>
<p>I apologize for drudging up an overused kind of reference but Einstein probably would not have gotten into a top college by today's standards. I doubt he was too worried about doing well on some standardized test or national math competition or getting published this and that. But you can bet your house he liked science. Maybe in some errant way MIT admissions is trying to go after those kinds of people, cause god knows the strength of your institution is contingent on the sheer number of Nobel Laureates it churns out. Which actually leads me to a remark or two about the attitude of research institutions in general. Maybe we're all a little too focused on the cream of the crop, the one in a million kid that passes through god's green earth with some unbelievable talent that will alter the path of mankind. Maybe we're all living vicariously through these people a little too much. Maybe we should worry more about churning out the rest of us who aren't GREAT but are pretty damn good and deserve as much a patch of this bubblegum world as the best and the brightest. Maybe what they can do as one we can do as 10, or 10,000 or, altogether everybody now. Maybe what we're trying to do here is just simply create that community. A microcosm of the world that everyone can learn from and grow into. Diversity is a part of that. That you're really not all that big a deal because you got into this here institution and published this here stack of papers and got an A on that there test because the kid sitting next to you has seen more of the world than you ever will in your life time.</p>
<p>I mean yeah sure, universities are a well-run business. They gotta do what they gotta do. But you and me, minor differences in intellect and experience aside, we're not the next legend of humanity, we're just as ordinary as the next person. So what are we so worried about the wooing of the best of the best for? We're here for an education and an experience, we're not here to make history.</p>
<p>Think clearly now what you're insinuating about minorities and women, patronizing them as if they're something to be pitied. If you look back in history do you see much ground made in the field of science by minorites and women? No? Maybe that has something to do with it. Maybe a man is being chosen before an equally qualified woman by an institution looking to build a reputation simply because hey, who was the last woman who won the nobel prize? Same for blacks, hispanics, whatever. Maybe they've been discouraged so often that they don't believe it themselves. Maybe the rare woman/minority who has been told on the contrary that they can make it is the only one applying to places like MIT and Caltech. Obviously, you hold that notion, too. To some extent, so do I. How can you help it when left and right it's "oh she/he only got in cuz she/he's a girl/minority". You can only have it pounded in your face so many times til you start believing it's true yourself. How can anyone be repeating these things to girls/minorities while at the same time claiming the social pressures are not overwhelming?</p>
<p>Do you really believe the brain matter of the white male to be superior to that of any other race/gender combination? Because god only knows WHY ELSE women/minorities would be admitted in their stead but an affront on meritocracy. Or, rather, do you believe the low average achievement of those demographics to be societal in nature? If so, how can you deny them the opportunity to break free from that? If we don't actively start fixing the imbalance now, then when? Ok, so minorities today aren't achieving at the same rate as whites, but maybe their children will. Some colleges are trying to do their share. Ok, yeah, maybe society is pushing them to, but there's no shame in that. There is shame in clinging onto some kind of intellectual snobbery that says only those born with access to a good education can continue to receive it. Let's remind ourselves that it's never MIT/Caltech or bust, especially if you're deserving of a spot in the first place.</p>
<p>And now I'm going to go claim the education that is mine. end schpiel.</p>
<p>hi pebbles. i hope having no intention of winning or perpetuating the argument doesn't equal not being willing to consider some honest thoughts in response. (i wouldn't insult you by implying you're the kind of person who argues like that.) but i too would hate to see this devolve into a stupid fight. hence my recent breakfast of sedatives and buddhist chanting. let us hope they work.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm curious as to what god of scientific achievement past and pending came to you in a dream with the notion that SAT scores is a good indication of a person's potential contribution to the world.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>as you point out, this is a "when did you stop beating your wife?" question. i don't accept the premise. the reason others (not i!) point first to SAT's is because they're concrete, and large score gaps seem temptingly like a more solid argument than: "i KNOW both A and B, and it is overwhelmingly clear that -- context, hardship, and everything taken into account -- A has more promise as a creative scientist or engineer or leader than B, but they took B over A." even as you read that sentence, you realize why nobody says that. they would immediately get hit with eight versions of "who appointed you arbiter of scientific promise with judgment more reliable than that of the diligent, professional and caring MIT admissions officers? you're just bitter/angry/racist/sexist/a duck."</p>
<p>(the only reason i finally have the guts to say it that way is because it would be harder than average to dismiss me as an ignorant watcher-from-the-sidelines who has no clue what he is talking about.)</p>
<p>so if you must know, that subjective observation, repeated dozens of times, is what convinces me. i'm not crazy, so i don't pass off my judgment as absolute certainty and i can't "prove" it to you, but after enough glaring examples, the pendulum has swung from believing i'm a racist, sexist duck to believing that i see what my eyes tell me i see. at some point, you have to actually look at the emperor and see if you can reconcile what you see with the exclamations of his courtiers. here, i can't, no matter how hard i try. (and i promse you, pebbles, i've tried really hard.)</p>
<p>that's one data point, one honest opinion -- for what it's worth.</p>
<p>the rest of your argument is a much more subtle piece of work. you implicitly stay agnostic about whether MIT is a meritocracy and ask, "what does it matter?" </p>
<p>this is a question that i am totally willing to entertain. i, too, don't think that taking the best young scientists is necessarily the best medicine for the world today. that's a philosophical and political debate perhaps even a little large for the likes of you and me (but small enough for whom?)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Think clearly now what you're insinuating about minorities and women, patronizing them as if they're something to be pitied.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>when, when when when when did i ever do this, pebbles? i think patronizing women and minorities is when you give them a boost and then pretend you didn't so that you don't hurt their feelings. we do that to little kids, and even that isn't good pedagogy. i think you can accuse me of lots, but the accusation of being patronizing lies squarely with the other side here.</p>
<p>
[quote]
How can you help it when left and right it's "oh she/he only got in cuz she/he's a girl/minority".
[/quote]
and this, I think, is the most insidious effect of affirmative action. it's an old argument. i feel terribly unoriginal. but note that here the little controlled study our two little institutions have is actually telling (more so than "we took him and you didn't!"). at caltech i've never once heard "she only got in because she's black/hispanic/female/a duck" -- from students, bitter rejectees, anyone. especially when the people in question are minorities. more like, "daaaang, that kid is smart." i'm not lying. i invite you to go find the bitter rejectees and ask. </p>
<p>that fact should give us all a little pause. it can't be only the bitterness of rejection and the spectre of past discrimation in the broader society that does the talking, because those factors are controlled for. so when people at mit say things that hurt you about women and minorities, it probably isn't solely bitterness and -isms. i think if you're honest with yourself about this, you have to admit that much, at least in your heart of hearts.</p>
<p>so the people who suffer perhaps the most from these policies aren't the rejected asian males, but people like, i suspect, you. profoundly talented women and minorities who would shine even in the dark gloom, but whose achievements are always tainted with questions of fairness and desert and "should you be here in the first place", which they probably wouldn't be if the admissions policy were different.</p>
<p>you argue in a deeply inspiring way about our responsibility to help the disadvantaged achieve. maybe you're very right. but we'll never get people to stop looking at statistics and saying "that looks unfair" until we poke out their eyes or inject them with distilled buddha-like transcendence.</p>
<p>so i'm genuinely curious about your opinion: until we do one of those things, do you think the costs you pay for MIT's little part in making the world a more equal place are worth it?</p>
<p>
[Quote]
and this, I think, is the most insidious effect of affirmative action. it's an old argument. i feel terribly unoriginal. but note that here the little controlled study our two little institutions have is actually telling (more so than "we took him and you didn't!"). at caltech i've never once heard "she only got in because she's black/hispanic/female/a duck" -- from students, bitter rejectees, anyone. especially when the people in question are minorities. more like, "daaaang, that kid is smart." i'm not lying. i invite you to go find the bitter rejectees and ask.
[/Quote]
</p>
<p>So what exactly does that tell us? That people are only willing to accept intelligence in women and minorities if they've managed to climb so far as to gain acceptance to Caltech? Any other minority of "above-average" but below "genius-level" intelligence gets shoved aside.</p>
<p>
[Quote]
that fact should give us all a little pause. it can't be only the bitterness of rejection and the spectre of past discrimation in the broader society that does the talking, because those factors are controlled for.
[/Quote]
</p>
<p>What? How? First, I can tell you from personal experience that male students admitted to engineering schools without affirmative action policies (my high school, in case you were wondering) are definitely not above the "only because you're a girl" arguement. Second, I'd love to hear how Caltech controls the factor of discrimination in its student body. </p>
<p>
[Quote]
so when people at mit say things that hurt you about women and minorities, it probably isn't solely bitterness and -isms. i think if you're honest with yourself about this, you have to admit that much, at least in your heart of hearts.
[/Quote]
</p>
<p>No I don't. =(</p>
<p>i'm sorry if i was confusing. here is my best try at making this argument explicit:</p>
<p>MIT and Caltech both have bitter rejectees, and both are embedded in an American and scientific society rife with past discrimination. At MIT, women and minorities are sometimes hurt by insinuations that they are affirmative action beneficiaries. At Caltech, I've never seen this happen. It isn't the case (trust me) that the average Caltech student is overwhelmingly better than the average MIT student, so it can't just be that all Caltech women and minorities are obviously geniuses. Some remaining difference between the two schools must account for the discrepancy in attitudes. </p>
<p>So what is it? Can't be bitterness and -isms, because both schools have both. So perhaps it's worth thinking on a little more.</p>
<p>(So "controlled" was meant in the experimental sense, sorry if that wasn't clear.)</p>
<p>Without really getting involved in any sort of argument, I was thinking the other night about most of the stuff pebbles said (spooky brain-reading...) -- about how the SAT is something of a crude indicator of actual ability, particularly when you get to the upper percentiles, and how it would be kind of nice if there were a way to stick some sort of meter into peoples' brains to determine how "smart" they really are.</p>
<p>But in the end, I just don't think it's possible to have a true meritocracy, if only because merit isn't something that lends itself to be easily tested. Brilliant people get crappy SAT scores all the time. And there are people who just can't work on high school busy work -- they'll get straight A's in anything impossibly difficult you throw them, but they just can't get A's in grudge work. And there are people (like the smartest MIT engineering graduate I know) who are brilliant engineers but can't write for beans, and therefore write awful admissions essays.</p>
<p>I think graduate school admissions comes closer to being meritocratic, if only because it's not as numbers-driven as undergraduate admissions. But of course it's unfair in other ways; nepotism, in particular, abounds. (That is to say, it's easier to get into top schools if you did your undergrad research in the lab of somebody who's at the top -- somebody for whom everybody in the field wants to do a favor.)</p>
<p>Still, I don't think MIT is unmeritocratic for promoting social equality -- a little idealistic, maybe, but not unmeritocratic. I think there are more women and minorities today who are qualified to be at MIT than there were twenty years ago, because there are more women and minorities who dreamed of MIT when they were kids. There are more women and minorities who believed it was possible for them to get to MIT. And if, as Ben J. likes to say, seventy percent of the applicant pool has the basic qualifications to be at MIT, and the admitted class is filled with people from that seventy percent, then merit wins. I don't know how possible it is to really find the actual "top 1300" people in that pool, so in the final analysis, how do we know MIT isn't a pure meritocracy? I don't think it's possible to know.</p>