<p>oh ok thanks!</p>
<p>I'd hate to go off on a tangent here, but I have a question to pose to Ben: earlier on this thread, you mentioned that affirmative action, specifically MIT's admissions policy, is unfair.
What would you consider to be a "fair" system of admissions, in this case, referring specifically to MIT?</p>
<p>It's a good way to reframe the debate. Of course I don't have a full recipe for a fair process, and if I did, it would be too long to post.</p>
<p>But when being a certain color gives you a few extra points, over and above any identifiable disadvantage, that's definitely unfair, and removing that race-based boost would make the process more fair. I'm not peddling perfection, just advocating a simple improvement.</p>
<p>A fair system of admissions would be merit-based. While statistically a greater percentage of minorities than whites live in poverty, there are still numerically more whites than minorities living below the poverty line in the US simply due to population proportion. Basically, attempting to design a system that "corrects" for either of these imbalances basically by randomly applying racially-based stereotypes to admissions is inefficient at best. If a student has really come from a very disadvantaged background and maybe has some marks on his record because of that, a letter from a teacher, parent, etc. can explain that to admissions officials and they can take it into account on a case-by-case basis. I'm not convinced that assuming that all racial minorities come from disadvantaged backgrounds has solid grounding in reality.</p>
<p>Hear hear. Superb post.</p>
<p>And I hope that by posting here, you are merely responding to the above comments and not somehow implying that the MIT admissions office does anything other than consider an applicant on a "case-by-case basis".</p>
<p>Actually, MIT itself has said that race, all on its own, is a plus factor that helps in admissions, over and above any identifiable disadvantage. While technically this kind of process may be seen as "case-by-case" process, it still looks at people as members of groups based on what color they are.</p>
<p>Call that whatever buzzword you like, but it's not truly individualistic in any real sense. And it's still obviously wrong and obviously unfair, which I think was the point being made above.</p>
<p>
A fair system of admissions would be merit-based.
How fair-minded.</p>
<p>And how, precisely, would one go about defining merit in a way that wasn't affected by social factors?</p>
<p>Of course a system is needed that defines merit in a manner affected by social factors. I think what master0fbalances is trying to say is (and i agree) that *only *social factors should be factored into merit. </p>
<p>There should be no double standards in which all URM candidates (even if wealthy) benefit from "social factors" while non-URM candidates get no benefit from "social factors" regardless of their family and socioeconomic situations. In other words, for most universities, the term "social factor" is basically a more acceptable way of saying "racial factor".</p>
<p>But social factors are considered for non-URM candidates -- the admissions committee considers a student's high school background (did he/she go to a tiny school in the sticks? to a well-respected private? to a big public in the 'burbs?), family background, and socioeconomic background (did he/she have to work all through high school to help out the family?).</p>
<p>As an example, an applicant from Montana isn't expected to have the same EC/award profile that an applicant from an East Coast prep school would have. That's taking social factors into consideration without even mentioning race.</p>
<p>EDIT: And Ben, I don't see how MIT saying "We like diversity" is any different from them saying "We like high test scores," nor does it imply any less individual attention to applications -- students with high test scores who don't bring anything else to the table are still booted, and students with lower scores who have a strong overall profile are admitted.</p>
<p>It does</a> imply less individual consideration and no amount of wiggling is going to help you.</p>
<p>
[quote]
MIT also has an active commitment to affirmative action. "We do have affirmative action at MIT which means that we will admit every qualified African American, Mexican American, Puerto Rican and Native American student in our pool," [Marilee] Jones said.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Note it doesn't say "disadvantaged" anywhere, or actually anything that would suggest this big boost depends on anything other than ethnicity. No such blanket statement is made for poor people, or people from rural towns in New Jersey, or people who have overcome a disability. </p>
<p>There is an entire group of people for whom, based only on their color, MIT changes its standards from the usual "qualified and a perfect fit for MIT" to just "qualified". Marilee Jones tells me so. If you can still say with a straight face that this is "individualized consideration" just the same as for anyone else, then may I offer you a spot in the Bush administration communications office?</p>
<p>The article you reference is from 1999. Before I would take it as current gospel, I would want to see more modern proof that this policy is still in effect.</p>
<p>After the 2003 SCOTUS decision, nobody would ever again say anything so honest. But 1999 is recent enough for me (and I imagine most other reasonable people). I'm pretty sure you'd ask for more recent evidence if the article I cited was from the day before yesterday.</p>
<p>Oh right Ben, that's likely. You aren't "pretty sure", you're looking to sound clever. You don't need to say silly things like that, it makes you look desperate or ill-informed.</p>
<p>To me, an eight year old pronouncement from any Admissions Officer is suspect. Much changes in that many years; most of us recognize that the admissions climate today is far different than it was even a decade ago.</p>
<p>:). I was just saying that I think you are religious about this issue. You've made up your mind about the surpassing goodness of every aspect of MIT admissions, and facts don't appear likely to sway you. </p>
<p>Isn't it disturbing enough that the person still in charge of selecting every class said something so blatantly antithetical to the ideal of considering every applicant on an equal footing? Now we're debating whether Marilee Jones still thinks you should get a different process based on what color you are, or whether she's changed her mind. But at least that's closer to the right debate to be having.</p>
<p>My post was directed at colleges as a whole, not MIT in particular.</p>
<p>I agree that social factors need to be taken into consideration when determining merit, for admissions or anything else. However, I'm not convinced that the generalizations of affirmative action constitute an accurate portrayal of how social factors actually affect merit.</p>
<p>Ben, everybody's religious about this issue, and you're being unfair and a little bratty today.</p>
<p>I think I can comfortably speak for mootmom and say that she believes in affirmative action not because MIT practices it, but because she thinks it's the socially just thing to do.</p>
<p>Well, I think that confuses the issue a little. This most recent set of posts is not exactly about the goodness of affirmative action (or whether mootmom or anyone else believes in it) but whether affirmative action means that consideration is "less individualized" in some important respect. The quote above shows that at MIT, it is, at least as of 1999. You only have to be qualified and of a certain color.</p>
<p>We can agree to disagree about the basic normative question of affirmative action -- the question of whether it is, on balance, good. But at least we can put to rest the bizarre Orwellian claim -- a claim reasonably popular on this forum -- that affirmative action brings all the virtues of diversity without paying any cost in the fairness or academic quality of the process. Let's at least be honest about the costs, instead of religiously insisting that it is all good, no bad.</p>
<p>(By the way -- mootmom is more religious than I am, with all due respect. I have often admitted that a pure "academic meritocracy" like Caltech involves real sacrifices -- a bad male/female ratio, few minority students, more general homogeneity -- in exchange for a fairer admissions process that, e.g., pays no attention to color for the sake of color alone. I'm reasonably honest about the minuses on my side. In contrast, my opponents, the true faithful, will never admit that affirmative action involves any sacrifices. Because that's what it means to believe. And if I'm wrong about that, I would be very grateful for evidence to the contrary.)</p>
<p>Warmest regards to all, as always.</p>
<p>Ben, of course there are minuses to AA . Thank you for pointing out some of the ones on the anti AA side. As I have said before the two extream positions are likely not the best solution to the problem.</p>
<p>Well, I think it's idealism more than religion. I consider myself to be very socially liberal, and I have a strong avocational interest in the sociology of science*, but I don't think affirmative action is something that will, or ought to, be in place permanently. And of course it involves sacrifices -- any admissions policy involves sacrifices, since admissions is basically one big signal detection problem.</p>
<p>At any rate, I'm taking a course this semester called Social Issues in Biology, and we'll be discussing "the 'science' of behavior, ethnicity and race" on February 8. I'm hoping to pick up some interesting discussion points from the class. (I am also hoping that I do not have to utter the words "On this college discussion board I frequent..." during the in-class discussion. But I think it may be unavoidable. :))</p>
<p>(Actually, it is avocational if it's *about my vocation? A mystery for the ages.)</p>