Question about Majors in respect to grad school

Graduate School
1

<p>Currently I'm double-majoring in Biology and Government and minoring in Math, and planning on going to Bio/Env. Science grad school, or maybe med-school, after Colby-- I've got my eye set on a few that offer really great programs for what I'm interested in: Duke, Columbia, Stanford, Berkley, and Cornell. The thing is, it's looking like I won't be doing so hotly in Gov. (Colby's particularly rough when it comes to Government, and I'm more of a physical sciences buff than anything else)-- with my demonstrated ability and the difficulty of gov. classes here, I project somewhere around a 3.0 (maybe less) Gov. GPA come the end of my 4-years. I could, most likely, manage around a 3.5 BCPM GPA, but with Gov. making up a substantial part of my overall GPA, this could bring me down to around a 3.1, or so.</p>

<p>The thing is, though, I don't want to just stop taking gov courses because I really love learning them, and, since I'd be taknig most of the classes required for a major, I might as well come out of Colby with a dual degree...right? Well, at the same time, I don't want to be looked down upon by Biology Grad Schools or medical schools, and that's my main predicament.</p>

<p>Would summer research/internships/jobs that in the Bio field I'm interested in really make up for a mediocre BCPM GPA and a lower-end overall GPA?</p>

<p>I'd be forever indebtted to anyone who has some suggestions,</p>

<p>Cheers
=)</p>

<p>Drew</p>

2

<p>Bump,</p>

<p>Any advice as to if I should continue to pursue both Bio and Gov majors?</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

<p>=)</p>

3

<p>I guess I feel like grad schools don't really care one way or another about double majors, but if it's a double-major that would seriously hurt your overall GPA... I don't know, but I wouldn't do it.</p>

<p>Your GPA isn't the most important thing in the world, but it is something at least mostly within your control, and a 3.1 is cutting pretty low.</p>

<p>Of course, it depends on what tier biology programs you want to apply for. I don't think people get into top tier biology programs with a 3.1, unless they went to a top undergrad school; if you just want to get into any biology PhD program, I'm sure you could overcome the GPA with some solid research experience.</p>

<p>My philosophy when applying to grad school was to minimize the number of times the a member of the admissions committee said "Well, but..." with regard to my application. A 3.1 GPA is definitely a "well, but..."</p>

4

<p>Molliebatt, what about a 3.4-3.5 overall? My in-major GPA is higher (3.6-3.7).</p>

5

<p>I had a 3.4, and got into a bunch of biology PhD programs. I had a lot of research experience to offset the GPA, which isn't awful, but is also lower than a lot of other applicants'.</p>

<p>I mean, realistically, if there is something in your field that is important for graduate school admissions, and you do it, it will help offset any "well, but..." factors.</p>

6

<p>
[quote]
I guess I feel like grad schools don't really care one way or another about double majors, but if it's a double-major that would seriously hurt your overall GPA... I don't know, but I wouldn't do it.</p>

<p>Your GPA isn't the most important thing in the world, but it is something at least mostly within your control, and a 3.1 is cutting pretty low.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I agree with mollieb, and I would say that this alludes to the unfortunate fact that graduate school admissions are something of a game. For example, in a perfect world, it shouldn't matter one bit what kinds of grades you get in Government classes if you are applying for a PhD program in biology. After all, they have nothing to do with each other. Sadly, it does sometimes matter. In other words, you are probably better off not taking a optional class or an optional major at all than taking it and getting bad grades. </p>

<p>Personally, I think that grad schools shouldn't even be looking at your grades at all. Rather, they should just have an admissions exam. That, combined with your personal interview, your research experience, and your prof rec's should be enough to determine whether you should be admitted. Who cares if somebody gets bad grades if they can prove that they know the material? Conversely, who cares if somebody has excellent grades if he doesn't actually know the material? </p>

<p>But, it is what it is, and you sometimes have to play the game to make sure you don't get eliminated from contention for stupid reasons.</p>

7

<p>I agree with that, although I'd rather see some sort of "lab practical"-type test or at the very least a test with a strong reasoning component. Graduate school, particularly in the sciences, has nothing to do with what you already know -- anything you need to know, you can look up in a book or on Pubmed. The skills that are important in graduate school are a) stubbornness and tenacity, b) knowing what you don't know, and c) figuring out how to reasonably find out what you don't know.</p>

<p>None of those skills are reflected particularly well in a student's overall GPA.</p>

8

<p>you also hae to take into consideratio that mollieb had that GPA at MIT, which is notoriously more difficult than most top-level undergraduate institutions.</p>

9

<p><personally, i="" think="" that="" grad="" schools="" shouldn't="" even="" be="" looking="" at="" your="" grades="" all.="" rather,="" they="" should="" just="" have="" an="" admissions="" exam.=""></personally,></p>

<p>You mean like the GRE? :)</p>

10

<p>More like a GRE on steroids, tailored to the specific program in question.</p>

<p>Lest anybody think this is a radical idea, back in the old days (i.e. 100-150 years ago), before the SAT was around, most competitive colleges admitted students on the basis of a single admissions exam. Everybody takes the same exam, and the X number of people who score the highest are admitted. No muss, no fuss, no having to worry about different grading standards at different high schools, or trying to weigh the value of different extracurricula activities (i.e. is being captain of a football team "better" than founding a new volunteer organization?), none of that stuff. It's completely clean, it's completely fair, and it's completely transparent. Everybody takes the exact same test. If you don't get in, you know exactly why you didn't get in. You either know the stuff, or you don't, simple as that.</p>

<p>Here is one of MIT's admissions exams from the old days. Note, I don't know what kind of score you would need to get in, or how much time you had to complete the exam.</p>

<p><a href="http://libraries.mit.edu/archives/exhibits/exam/index.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://libraries.mit.edu/archives/exhibits/exam/index.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Even today, many foreign universities rely largely or sometimes even solely on admissions exams. For example, if you want to get into one of the IIT's in India, you have to score highly on the Joint Entrance Exam (the JEE). Hence, you either know the material, or you don't. </p>

<p>The elite US universities, especially the Ivies, moved away from admissions exams basically because they discovered that "too many" Jews were getting in this way. So they began to take account aspects like 'well-roundedness' which were basically just excuses for discriminating against Jews and other minority groups (Catholics, African-Americans, Asians, Hispanics, etc.) in favor of legacy kids and WASPS. It's the ultimate "fallback". If A scores higher than B on an exam, it's really hard to argue it, but you can always just say that B is more well-rounded than A and nobody can really argue with you. Basically, you are then empowered to admit or deny whoever you want, according to whatever arbitrary rules (or no rules at all) that you feel like applying.</p>

11

<p>That doesn't take into account research interests - what if Professor A has 20 people who score well and want to work with him, and only 3 for everyone else? Results of a test aren't the end-all for determining whether someone is a good fit for a program or likely to make it through. Plenty of very smart people aren't cut out for grad school. And while many foreign unis may base admits on an exam, US unis are ranked far higher, and that's partially due to their sustained success at choosing grad students.</p>

<p>Do you, BTW, have any evidence for your claim that the reason they moved away from admissions exams was because of concern about Jews? That sounds like a nice pat racist reason that ultimately doesn't hold up when looking at a wide range of grad programs. And since when did minority groups (most, anyway) do better on exams? And since when did one's religion, esp. Catholic, make a difference in universities?</p>

12

<p>
[quote]
That doesn't take into account research interests - what if Professor A has 20 people who score well and want to work with him, and only 3 for everyone else?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I never said that the undergrad example measured research. Obviously when you're talking about graduate school, you have to look at a person's research ability. But this is poorly captured by grades. That's my main thesis. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Results of a test aren't the end-all for determining whether someone is a good fit for a program or likely to make it through. .

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Neither are grades. That's the point. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Do you, BTW, have any evidence for your claim that the reason they moved away from admissions exams was because of concern about Jews?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>There has been quite a bit of historical literature about this very phenomenom. Here is just a bit of it:</p>

<p>*The task Karabel sets himself in The Chosen is to trace the evolution of tacit worldviews, each appearing fixed and immutable to its advocates, that over the last century determined who would and would not have access to America's finest universities. It turns out, ironically enough from the point of view of my family trajectory, that the admissions systems at the Big Three were built expressly to keep out people like my father—smart, driven Jewish kids from gigantic New York City public high schools. Until 1920 or so, anyone could gain admission to Harvard, Yale, or Princeton by passing a battery of subject-matter exams; the lunkheads from Andover who couldn't parse a literary paragraph could be admitted with "conditions." Of course this meant the student body was heavily salted with "the stupid sons of rich men," in the memorably pithy phrase of Charles Eliot, Harvard's great Victorian-era president. But for the Harvard man, or, even more, for that paragon known as "the Yale man," intellectual brilliance was a deeply suspect attribute, like speaking French too well. These young men had been bred for "character" and "manliness"—that ineffable mix of deeply heritable qualities prized by the WASP establishment, a mix that worthies like Endicott Peabody, the founder of Groton, the greatest of the "feeder schools," believed could best be demonstrated on the football field. They would have considered my dorm companions less than human, not more.</p>

<p>And then along came the Jews—lots and lots of Jews. By 1920, the Big Three presidents were looking on in horror as Columbia, the Ivy League school situated in the midst of the melting pot, became 40 percent Jewish. These men shared the anti-Semitism almost universal in their class, but because they saw themselves as custodians of ancient and indispensable institutions, they did not simply dislike these uncouth scholars; they felt a deep professional obligation to keep their numbers to a manageable minimum. Karabel unearthed a letter from Harvard president Lawrence Lowell that delineates the issue with admirable, if stomach-turning, clarity: "The summer hotel that is ruined by admitting Jews meets its fate, not because the Jews it admits are of bad character, but because they drive away the Gentiles, and then after the Gentiles have left, they leave also." The problem, in other words, was WASP flight. </p>

<p>The answer was selective admissions. In 1922, Lowell was reckless enough to think that he could solve "the Jew problem," as he was wont to call it, with a straightforward quota. This provoked a mighty uproar among faculty members and outsiders with more tender consciences; instead, Lowell agreed to limit the size of the entering class and to institute recommendation letters and personal interviews. Yale and Princeton followed suit; and soon came the whole panoply familiar to this day: lengthy applications, personal essays, descriptions of extracurricular activities. This cumbersome and expensive process served two central functions. It allowed the universities to select for an attribute the disfavored class was thought to lack—i.e., "character"—and it shrouded the admissions process in impenetrable layers of subjectivity and opacity, thus rendering it effectively impervious to criticism. The swift drop in admission of Jews could thus be explained as the byproduct of the application of neutral principles—just as could the increase of minority students, 60 years later, in institutions seeking greater "diversity."</p>

<p>The willingness of these universities to suffer real harms rather than admit more Jews is astonishing. Having long distinguished itself as a "national" and "democratic" institution, Yale by 1930 had become more insular, more parochial, and less intellectual as a consequence of the new admissions system. During World War II, with the size of the entering class size seriously depleted, Yale turned away qualified Jewish students rather than increase the proportion of Jews. "Yale judged its symbolic capital to be even more precious than its academic capital," as Karabel dryly puts it. Or, to put it more contemporary terms, Yale understood the imperative to protect its brand. *</p>

<p><a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2128377/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.slate.com/id/2128377/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>*The emphasis in college applications on balancing grades and extracurricular activities appears benignly positive at first glance. Yet, as Karabel explains, the top Ivy League schools created this formula in the 1920s because they were uncomfortable with the number of Jewish students accepted when applicants were judged solely on their grades. The search for prospective freshmen with "character" was, with varying explicitness, an effort to maintain the slowly declining Protestant establishment. *</p>

<p><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0618574581/qid=1129746886/102-2608583-9486536?n=283155%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0618574581/qid=1129746886/102-2608583-9486536?n=283155&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

13

<p>
[quote]
And since when did minority groups (most, anyway) do better on exams?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>First off, I never said that 'most' minority groups did better on exams. It is enough to simply show that certain minority groups have done better on exams, and then to see the history of the reactions of the majority group in response to that fact. There have ALWAYS been minority groups that have done better than the average population when it comes to test scores, Jews being the most prominent historical example, along with Asian-Americans now. The fact that certain groups have done better than others has always been a source of jealous ethnic strife and resentment. </p>

<p>Take the Jewish quotas. Jewish quotas were something that have been instituted with great gusto not only by US universities, but even more vigorously, by many of the great European universities, especially during the periodic paroxysms of anti-Semitism that would grip Europe from time to time. The major problem of the Jews is not just that they were of a different ethnicity and religion, but also because they have basically been "too good" - in the sense that they were pointedly and markedly more economically and academically successful than the European population around them, engendering massive resentment at their success. For example, Jews have won about 30% of all science Nobels in history, despite being a tiny 0.25% of the world's population. But most of the great European universities have had period of history where they have removed Jewish students and Jewish profs for racist reasons, again most notably in Nazi Germany when all Jews were banned from universities, either as students or as profs, and the best Jewish professors fled continental Europe, with most winding up in the US (ultimately turning the US into a science powerhouse, when formerly, it was Germany that was the world's science powerhouse). </p>

<p><a href="http://www.jinfo.org/Nobel_Prizes.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.jinfo.org/Nobel_Prizes.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Jews are also extremely highly represented amongst the professional classes, to the point that the image of the Jewish lawyer, the Jewish banker, and the Jewish doctor have become stereotypes. </p>

<p>I could also talk about the Asian-Americans, specifically the Chinese-Americans and Indian-Americans. Surely we all know that Chinese-Americans and Indian-Americans are among the the highest scoring of the SAT of any ethnic group in the US - far higher than the US average- as well as the extreme academic success of Chinese-Americans and Indian-Americans. Walk around any of the top schools in the US - Harvard, MIT, Stanford, Berkeley, Yale, Caltech, etc. - and you will notice that extremely high proportion of Chinese-American students and Indian-American students. It's gotten to the point that people joke that MIT stands for "Made in Taiwan". One might say that this has to do with the peculiar nature of those particular Chinese and Indians who wanted to come to the US, or to peculiarities of US immigration policy with regards to the Chinese or Indians. That notion holds far far less water when you realize that ethnic Chinese and ethnic Indians are also heavily overrepresented in the top schools in Canada, the UK, Australia, and many countries of SouthEast Asia. In fact, many Southeast Asian countries justified affirmative action policies that discriminated against both the Chinese and the Indians on the grounds that they are simply "too good" such that their native populations are destined to lose in a fair fight, which is why the fight has to be 'unfair'.</p>

<p>Take the country of Malaysia. The Chinese have never held political power in Malaysia, and in fact, have suffered repeatedly from race riots that have killed tens of thousands of Chinese every few decades. Yet the fact is, the ethnic Chinese dominate the Malaysian economy and the Malaysian academic sphere. In fact, Mohammad Mahathir, the famous Malay nationalist and patriot once candidly wrote the following in his book "The Malay Dilemma" the following quote</p>

<p>"Whatever the Malays could do, the Chinese could do better and more cheaply." - p. 25, The Malay Dilemma</p>

<p>The context in which he was writing was, simply put, the Chinese in Malaysia simply worked harder and studied harder than the Malays did, and that is why Malaysia must have affirmative action against the Chinese, because otherwise the Malays would never be able to get anything - in a fair competition, the Chinese would win everything.</p>

14

<p>
[quote]
And since when did one's religion, esp. Catholic, make a difference in universities?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Boy, you've gotta be kidding me. Even a simple cursory examination of the history of US higher education would reveal the deep influence that religion has had. After all, many of the top US schools are private, with most of them having been been founded for explicitly religious reasons. To wit:</p>

<p>Harvard was originally founded as a school to educate new Puritan ministers and missionaries. Yale was in turn founded and developed by a number of dissident Harvard faculty who thought that Harvard was no longer "pure" enough in its Puritan piety. Princeton was founded by clergymen of the Presbyterian Church (the Church of Scotland). Columbia was founded in response to the founding of Princeton by a number of Episcopalians (the Church of England). Surely I don't need to tell you about the contentious history between England and Scotland, including the conflict between their "national" styles of Protestantism.</p>

<p>But that's not all. The Catholics built their own system of universities partially in response to the anti-Catholicism of the Ivy League. One of the most prominent of these Catholic universities is Boston College. </p>

<p>"Founded in part as a response to discriminatory policies against immigrants and Catholics at Harvard University in the 19th century, Boston College acquired the nickname "Jesuit Ivy" in a 1956 commencement address by then-US Senator John F. Kennedy.[5]"</p>

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_College%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_College&lt;/a> </p>

<p>And of course, most prominently, there were the Jewish quotas (the numerus clausus) that the Ivy Leagues and other schools. </p>

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerus_clausus#Numerus_clausus_in_the_United_States%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerus_clausus#Numerus_clausus_in_the_United_States&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>It got to the point that the Jews themselves decided to found their own universities because so many of them were being discriminated against by the Ivies.</p>

<p>"[Brandeis University's] founding was, in part, a response to the Jewish quotas then in place at elite institutions such as the Big Three, and its student body is, even today, about 50% Jewish.</p>

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandeis_University%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandeis_University&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Nor was this an issue only at private schools. Many US public schools also discriminated on the basis of religion. The best example would be almost all of the public universities of the Southern United States until about 40 years ago. Surely we know that almost all of them refused to admit blacks until they were forced to integrate during the Civil Rights movement. However, less known was that almost all of them deeply discriminated against Jews and Catholics as well. Basically, anybody who wasn't a white Protestant would have found it quite difficult to get admitted to a Southern public university before the 1960's. </p>

<p>The point is, throughout most of US history, university admissions have been deeply affected by religion. Only in the last few decades has this not been true.</p>

15

<p>Interesting arguments, but I think they're poor.</p>

<ol>
<li> I never said that the undergrad example measured research. Obviously when you're talking about graduate school, you have to look at a person's research ability. But this is poorly captured by grades. That's my main thesis.</li>
</ol>

<p>Aren't we talking about graduate school? And while undergraduate grades may not measure research ability, they certainly measure a person's background knowledge - somethig vital to succeeding in grad school.</p>

<ol>
<li> Re your evidence for the Jewish quotas in colleges.</li>
</ol>

<p>I love Slate. However, as they put history into bite-sized packages, their credilibility in describing a large complex issue is, at times, also bite sized. They're more a jumping off point for further research - not a reseource. And your one scholarly rsource deal only with HYP - not any other grad schools. While I'm not saying that Jews were not discriminated against for graduate schools, I don't necessarily believe that it was the main/only reason ALL grad schools went to the lengthy application, not the reason they keep it today.</p>

<ol>
<li>First off, I never said that 'most' minority groups did better on exams.</li>
</ol>

<p>What you said specifically was, "So they began to take account aspects like 'well-roundedness' which were basically just excuses for discriminating against Jews and other minority groups (Catholics, African-Americans, Asians, Hispanics, etc.) in favor of legacy kids and WASPS."</p>

<p>I believe your inclusion of African-Americans and Hispanics is the point I'm making. 2 of the four groups you mentioned do not follow this argument.</p>

<ol>
<li> Your argument on other religions, esp. Catholicism, goes back entirely too far to be valid to the initial argument. What I meant was that it is not an issue today or anytime in the recent past. And to bolster your argument more, you went back to Jews in universities when my question clearly identified Catholics and not anyone else. Quakers were discriminated againt in the early 18th century too - but come on. And where did African-Americans fit into an argment about religion?<br></li>
</ol>

<p>My ultimate point is that the lengthy appliction process today has nothing to do with anything but universities wanting the best, most well-balanced graduate programs and students. This issue of personality becomes especially important when one consoders that these graduate students are now taking on teaching roles, for which pure "brilliance" can be negated by a terrible personality. The further limit on graduate students today has nothing to do with anything but the desire to fully fund graduate studies and to limit the number of PhDs flooding the academic job market. As a history major and a former teacher, I appreciate the complexities of discrimination, but I think you took it in directions it wasn't meant to be taken in. You stated yourself that in the last few decades these discriminatory policies have not been present in grad admissions, yet in that time period, applications have gotten even longer. This goes directly against your agrument as well.</p>

<p>Hey, to make sure - this is all taken in the spriit of intellectual discussion and not meant to be personal :)</p>

16

<p>DespSeekPhD,</p>

<p>If it helps any, it's one of those "common knowledge" things in the Jewish community that Jews were discriminated against at major universities for being "too good."</p>

<p>Hell, schools like UCLA that admitted more on merit were derided by USC and other privates. UCLA was called "JewCLA" in decades past.</p>

17

<p>
[quote]
Aren't we talking about graduate school? And while undergraduate grades may not measure research ability, they certainly measure a person's background knowledge - somethig vital to succeeding in grad school.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>My point is simple - grades are not as an effective measure of pure academic ability as a well-designed and fair test would be, simply because different schools have different grading standards. Hence, a 'B' at one school may be better than an 'A' in another school. Hence, I think the grade portion of admissions ought to be replaced by a comprehensive test. Who cares if you have "poor" grades if you can prove that you know the material.</p>

<p>That doesn't mean that you should replace the interview or the research component of grad-school admissions. Just the part that cares about grades. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I love Slate. However, as they put history into bite-sized packages, their credilibility in describing a large complex issue is, at times, also bite sized. They're more a jumping off point for further research - not a reseource. And your one scholarly rsource deal only with HYP - not any other grad schools. While I'm not saying that Jews were not discriminated against for graduate schools, I don't necessarily believe that it was the main/only reason ALL grad schools went to the lengthy application, not the reason they keep it today.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Actually, that scholarly article deals with almost ALL of the Ivy League, not just HYP. For example, Columbia and Dartmouth also instituted strong anti-Jewish quotas. Many of these Jewish quotas were then later copied by many of the other leading private universities of the time, often times in an effort to keep up with HYP. And then of course there were some of the public schools, especially the ones in the Southern states, that maintained deeply discriminatory admissions policies well into the 1960's. </p>

<p>Just look it up. Many scholarly articles on political science and history have dealt with religious and ethnic discrimination of world universities throughout history. </p>

<p>Nobody is saying that this was the SOLE reason for schools moving to more comprehensive admissions policies. But any serious student of history cannot deny that it was an important reason. I doubt that any serious scholarly work would argue otherwise. </p>

<p>
[quote]
What you said specifically was, "So they began to take account aspects like 'well-roundedness' which were basically just excuses for discriminating against Jews and other minority groups (Catholics, African-Americans, Asians, Hispanics, etc.) in favor of legacy kids and WASPS."</p>

<p>I believe your inclusion of African-Americans and Hispanics is the point I'm making. 2 of the four groups you mentioned do not follow this argument.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But it has nothing to do with the point that I am making - which is that certain minority groups have been targeted for simply being "too good". Jews in particular have been a perennial target throughout world history for just being "too good", whether in the US, in Europe, or wherever they happen to be. The Chinese immigrants throughout SouthEast Asia have similarly been targeted for being "too good", which is why Malaysia used to run (and still does run) strong affirmative action policies against the Chinese who just work too hard. Indonesia for a while actually specifically barred any ethnic Chinese from attending Indonesian public universities, again under the notion that they are "too good". The same happened to the Germans in Eastern Europe who were castigated as being "too skilled" and "too hard-working". </p>

<p>
[quote]
Your argument on other religions, esp. Catholicism, goes back entirely too far to be valid to the initial argument. What I meant was that it is not an issue today or anytime in the recent past. And to bolster your argument more, you went back to Jews in universities when my question clearly identified Catholics and not anyone else. Quakers were discriminated againt in the early 18th century too - but come on. And where did African-Americans fit into an argment about religion?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, first we have to define the "recent past". What is meant by that? My point is, up until only 40 years ago, many universities repeatedly discriminated against religion, including against Catholics. 40 years ago seems pretty recent to me when you consider that the country itself is about 220 years old (since the ratification of the Constitution). There is a long-standing history between religion and higher education within this country. </p>

<p>I invoke the example of African-Americans simply because it is the best-known example of deep discrimination fostered by universities. Many people don't know about Jewish quotas, many people don't know about anti-Catholic sentiment but I think everybody knows about the struggle for racial desegregation of higher education during the Civil Rights Movement. The point is, the battle for desegregatio was not solely a racial issue, but for fairness for ALL groups, including religious groups. Jews and the Catholic Church, for example, were important supporters of the Civil Rights movement because they too wanted fairness for their people. </p>

<p>
[quote]
My ultimate point is that the lengthy appliction process today has nothing to do with anything but universities wanting the best, most well-balanced graduate programs and students.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I still take this as questionable, as you will see below. </p>

<p>
[quote]
This issue of personality becomes especially important when one consoders that these graduate students are now taking on teaching roles, for which pure "brilliance" can be negated by a terrible personality.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Another rather questionable assertion given all of the snarling and unfriendly, albeit admittedly brilliant graduate students that I have encountered. </p>

<p>
[quote]
You stated yourself that in the last few decades these discriminatory policies have not been present in grad admissions, yet in that time period, applications have gotten even longer. This goes directly against your agrument as well.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Interesting, because I had written another blurb about just this topic but I decided to delete it for I thought it was irrelevant. But now I see that it is indeed relevant. I would argue that discrimination indeed still occurs, and it is still targeted against students who are "too good", but now it falls under the rubric of 'affirmative action'. I am talking specifically about the application of affirmative action that would serve to discriminate against present-day Asian-American students. Anybody who has visited any of the top US schools will note the extremely high proportion of Asian-Americans. It's gotten to the point that schools like MIT are said to stand for "Made in Taiwan".</p>

<p>The problem is that a strict application of affirmative action serves to discriminate against Asian-Americans because they are the ones who are just "too good" now, and affirmative action often times simply serves to punish them for being too good. It is a perennial irony that affirmative action, a policy that was specifically designed to improve the chances of African-Americans, has been used to deny admissions to Asian-Americans in favor of white students, which would happen in the University of California before Prop 209 and still happens today at the top private schools like Stanford that have lots of Asians applying to it. Whatever historical wrongs were inflicted on African-Americans, certainly Asian-Americans had nothing to do with it. You talk about how the length application process has to do with getting the best and most well-balanced graduate programs and students. I think it's rather hard to square this with the notion of denying admissions to highly qualified Asian-Americans, especially when doing so means admitting a less qualified white student. </p>

<p>Legacy admissions are also harmful, in particular, as they have to do mostly with admitting less qualified students of any race or religion that just happen to be descendents of former alumni. And yes, this happens in graduate admissions also, particularly in the professional schools. I.e. Harvard Law specifically asks whether you have a parent who graduated from Harvard Law. I strongly suspect that there are some PhD programs that are also influenced by legacy admissions. </p>

<p>The point is, we are still not at a perfect state of merit-based admissions. Plenty of 'pull', influence, and politics (racial or otherwise) affects who will get admitted and who won't.</p>

18

<p>I think your reasoning is fallacious, especially since you keep steering the arguments away from my points (which for the most part have still been unanswered). In fact, at times you have contradicted yourself in a roundabout way.</p>

<p>No one is saying there hasn't been discrimination in the past. That's a given. I would argue that bringing up discrimination that occurred a the time of the nation's founding is rather irrelevant at this point in time. I would also argue that 40 years, while still recent, is also irrelevent in the context of the argument if said discrimination is no longer playing a part in choosing admissions criteria.</p>

<p>I would point out that your initial assertion was that the reason grad schools do not currently use a sole admissions test is because of discriminatory policies. However, as I responded, the discrimination is disappearing (I won't say disappeared), yet the applications have only increased in length.</p>

<p>Let me address your argument in another way (stay with me on this one). As some of you know from reading my posts, I was a public high school teacher on the south side of Chicago (which is why I have to laugh when people ask me if I can handle the rigors of grad school). The school I taught in was 100% black. I was the Snow White of the school (in a Caucasion way, not a poisoned apple way). I had several complaints from parents, which I will summarize:
1. My son/daughter is failing.
2. We are black and she is white.
3. My son/daughter says that she is much too hard on her.
4. Racism has been a problem in this country for hundreds of years.
5. Ergo, the teacher is a racist.</p>

<p>Now, I have to say I was quite taken aback by these arguments. After all, I am well aware I am not a racist. After looking deeper at the issue, you can spot the fallacy.
1. I taught at a school where every single student was over age, because all had been held back at least once and then failed again to meet the criteria for advancement to the next grade. Therefore, all had significant academic struggles before they ever got to me. And for most of them, I was the first white teacher they had ever encountered.
2. My job, according to the program which runs those schools, is to catch the students up to the point where they can be academically successful in the schools.
3. When the students complained that I was "hard" on them, they weren't referring to my yelling or name calling or anything of that nature. They meant that the work was too hard. Given their lack of work ethic and woeful preparation in elementary school, this was a given.
4. Yes, I had students fail. But as 100% of them failed at least twice previous to ever entering my class, I felt it was a success when 75% passed my class. Incidentally, all but 6 students that failed me failed due to lack of attendance (they missed 20% or more of classes). The others, believe you me, I did everything I possibly could.</p>

<p>My point? The argument they made was drawn from anectdotal information and generalizing previous historical issues to the present day. Similar to your argument in many ways. Point again being, just because there was previous discrimination does not mean that the admissions criteria today is still based on that. To be honest, I think adcoms would welcome the opportunity to simplify it if they could, but they have found value in the process by today's standards.</p>

<p>I strongly believe that we as a country are completely unable to accurately assess the impact of race and religion on relations within pour country. We as a naiton are simply too young and don't have the distance or perspective. Brilliant people who are sticklers for logic at all other times lose their minds when they talk about race. Look at other countries that are far older, and they tend to have much more perspective on these issues and be able to deal with it more accurately and effectively.</p>

19

<p>
[quote]
Point again being, just because there was previous discrimination does not mean that the admissions criteria today is still based on that. To be honest, I think adcoms would welcome the opportunity to simplify it if they could, but they have found value in the process by today's standards.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't deny that there may be some value to the current admissions standard, and I am not proposing that we go back to the way it was in the past. I myself stated that it is important to assess Phd candidates for research ability. </p>

<p>My points are twofold:</p>

<h1>1) Grades are a rather poor measure of a person's academic ability for the simple reason that different schools and different majors have different grading standards. There are certain college courses in which almost no A's are given out. This seems to be especially prominent in engineering courses. Similarly, there are other courses in which you can do almost no work, have no idea of what is going on, and barely even show up...and get an A anyway. I have to admit that I have been in classes like that.</h1>

<h1>2) It is indisputable that the top US universities moved away from sole admissions tests in response to the large influx of Jews, which was seen as an undesirable thing. I think no serious historian would dispute this point. Now, whether they may have then accidentally discovered some later value through a longer admissions process may indeed be the case, but that doesn't take away from how this all got started.</h1>

<p>
[quote]
To be honest, I think adcoms would welcome the opportunity to simplify it if they could, but they have found value in the process by today's standards.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Actually, I have my doubts on this as well. I actually think that having a long and drawn-out admissions process is in some ways a "make-work" scheme for admissions officers. If the process was simpler, that would ultimately mean fewer jobs for adcom officers. I therefore believe that adcoms have a vested interest in making the admissions process as complicated as possible. </p>

<p>Now, do I think that ALL adcom officers feel this way? No. In particular, those officers who are actually tenured faculty have, I agree, little motivation to behave in this manner, because their tenure guarantees them a job regardless. However, when we're talking about regular admissions office staffers, I think that they indeed have a vested interest in making the process more and more complicated. The longer the process, the more job security they have. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Look at other countries that are far older, and they tend to have much more perspective on these issues and be able to deal with it more accurately and effectively.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Oh? And which countries would that be? India? India has a history that stretches back for many millenia - and also an extremely long and painful history with regards to race and religion, especially as it has to do with the caste system and untouchability. Or the East Asian societies like Japan, Korea, or China? Their histories also stretch back for millenia, including long histories of group solidarity and simple unwillingness to accept people of other races. This is especially true of the Japanese, whose culture is inordinately unwilling to accept outsiders. </p>

<p>Seems to me that these older societies really have not developed much of a perspective on race at all, nor are they able to deal with it accurately or effectively. Again, India has wrestled with the issues of the caste system for as long as there has been recorded history, culminating in modern history with the social movements of B.R. Ambedkar. Heck, it was only about 20 years ago when Sikh agitators assassinated Indira Gandhi and the country was engulfed in anti-Sikh riots that killed more Sikhs than the total number of African-Americans that were lynched in all of US history. Or how about Russia, a people with a glorious history that spans hundreds of years, and also an equally dark history of strong anti-Semitism. The word "pogrom" is a Russian word that has to do with peasant mob violence directed against the Jews. Even to this day, Russian culture is noted for its distrust of Jews and a general distrust of anybody non-Russian. </p>

<p>So I'd really like to know about what are these older countries that have so much perspective on racial and religious issues.</p>

20

<p>Don't argue too much, sakky; we know you're right.</p>