<p>I think I’ll throw in my $0.02 here: So I’m currently a freshman at MIT and after being here for 1 semester, I have to say there are two (for the most part) types of people here that I’ve met. There are those who are naturally very intelligent and grasp the material presented at a much deeper, nuanced level of understanding…and then there are those who are just very hard workers who don’t quite get the entire picture, they are “plug-and-chuggers” if you will. Not to be stereotypical, but a sizable percentage of the many URMs that I’ve met here at MIT have exhibited behavior closer to the “plug-and-chugger” end of the spectrum. Now I’m not saying that every non-URM here is naturally very intelligent, in fact I’ve met quite a few who belong to the “plug-and-chugger” category as well. I’m also not saying that every URM here at MIT is like this, as I have met a few who are naturally very intelligent. Just my observations from my interactions with students at MIT thus far, take them as you will.</p>
<p>Okay. Jashper. You are an MIT student, so I know you can think critically. Let’s look at this critically.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>You’ve set up a false dichotomy. Your two types of students are actually points on a spectrum.</p></li>
<li><p>The people who grasp things easily at a deep, nuanced level during freshman year tend to be people who have had the best grade school preparation. You get some exceptions, but not, in my experience, very many. The people with the best grade school preparation tend to be from high-socioeconomic-level backgrounds (and also to have very educated parents). URMs, as a group, tend to be from lower-socioeconomic-level backgrounds. Which makes them likely to be less-well-prepared.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>I suspect that if you looked at the white kids from Appalachia (which is overwhelmingly white), for instance, most of them would also fall into your “plug-and-chug” category. Not because they are actually less intelligent, but because not many Appalachian students have very good preparation by MIT standards, or educated parents. But you don’t notice this, partly because they <em>are</em> white and thus you lump them in with the rest of the white kids.</p>
<p>Fortunately, most of the students, whatever their race or ethnicity, from less advantaged backgrounds, manage to overcome their initial disadvantage, to a large degree through that hard work that you seem to be slightly putting down. I know many people who struggled to get through freshman year who are now in top PhD programs, or working at prestigious companies, or what have you.</p>
<p>The vast majority (essentially all) of the people that I have interacted with thus far have not come from the “high-socioeconomic-level backgrounds” that you speak of, and have in fact come from poor to middle class backgrounds (both URMs and non-URMs). I myself am Caucasian and come from a below average economic background, and I like to think of myself as one of those who can grasp things deeply and easily. Also, both of my parents only completed high school, and I am the first in my family to go to college. Lastly, I’m in all sophomore and above classes at MIT to begin with, as I passed out of all of the math and science GIRs except Bio (taking the ASE for it later), so my academic interactions have been primarily with upperclassmen at MIT. My school provided me with absolutely nothing, everything I learned was exclusively from my own exploration and curiosity…so it is very possible for those with motivation to achieve the same level of competency as those from “high-socioeconomic-level backgrounds” if they possess the talent.</p>
<p>Edit: Also, I understand that it is a spectrum, I acknowledged that in my first post…and how exactly does setting up a limited spectrum with two extremes based on my interactions put down the work of those who were disadvantaged such as myself? I fail to see the logic in that…</p>
<p>My finding, in regards to the Jashper discussion – I assume to some mild degree, when one writes of a generalization, acknowledging it to have some holes of course, it’s with the aim of presenting a unique way of thinking (or perhaps just one that you think important to repeat), to help influence someone’s way of thinking. Whatever the nature of the student population (say for sake of argument your dichotomy is largely true, which who knows, it may be for all I know), would one really benefit from keeping in mind that those URMs are supposedly on average poorly trained? Because in the end, if you’re going to choose a partner to talk to about things of interest to you, the only real way is to evaluate that sort of thing on an individual basis. As an outsider to this discussion, I can see you’re not aiming to disrespect any given group of people.</p>
<p>Also, cellardweller is correct in the assessment – many top scholars and minds never participated in a competition, though there are plenty who enjoyed them too. It really depends on taste. Having deep ideas isn’t easy, and graduate students who’ve done very well at competitions like the Putnam seem to acknowledge they struggle at it about as much as other extremely strong students.</p>
<p>And one last thing (sorry, can’t edit my post any more), I never once mentioned “white” kids anywhere in my first post, so I fail to see how I was lumping them together. Now I must return to studying for my finals haha :P</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You were talking about URMs as a category, and contrasting them with non-URMs, which sets up non-URMs (including white people) as a category as well.</p>
<p>I think you are misunderstanding what I mean by high socioeconomic status. I’m not just talking about “rich people”. A lot of the middle class falls into that approximate category as well (though I suppose that now I’m the one who has presented the false dichotomy).</p>
<p>Of course you get people who are way ahead despite having come from a place of disadvantage. You might be one of those people. I have no idea, because I don’t actually know you. If you are actually one of the top students despite overcoming major disadvantages, good for you. Surely you realize, though, that disadvantages are called that because they <em>disadvantage</em> people, even if you, being exceptional, overcame that before you hit college. And that there are degrees of disadvantage.</p>
<p>I think you misunderstand what I mean by high SES - a lot of the middle class would fall into that too. Most MIT students would fall into it. Though now I guess I’m the one presenting a false dichotomy. :)</p>
<p>Another thought: It is possible that some URMs suffer from a lack of confidence, which hurts their performance. Because, well, they have been told so much that they are underqualified charity cases. This sort of thing isn’t just a theoretical debate; the rhetoric does real harm to real people. I have spent hours trying to convince URM friends who got a bad grade on a test or something that this doesn’t mean that actually they don’t deserve to be at MIT and they only got in because they were URMs and maybe they should just leave and blah blah blah.</p>
<p>Good luck on your finals. That goes for all you undergrads (and grad students too, I suppose). :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I feel really bad for such folks, and am glad you’re looking after them, but to be perfectly honest, I think a large factor to be “blamed” which I am not sure myself how to fix is that people aren’t sure what was positive enough about them to have a wonderful school accept them, and if things aren’t going well, that would only naturally lead to unhappiness. It can be really hard to know sometimes, too, and I myself don’t feel that’s healthy either for the fortunate student or those around him/her.</p>
<p>lol cellardweller you spent so much time typing that up (most of which I don’t feel like reading ^_^).</p>
<p>all your stuff about foreign girls doesn’t even apply, I’m simply saying in the US females with math oriented apps have a much easier time getting in than males with the same quals.</p>
<p>Is gonna interrupt this heated debate but anybody know what is the overlap between MIT and Caltech applicants. Like if you got accepted or rejected from Caltech, how are the prospects looking for MIT?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This sort of thing makes me want to pick you out of cyberspace to give you a hug :).</p>
<p>^^ I’m not aware of any statistical data that would be helpful. CalTech and MIT are both highly selective. CalTech doesn’t practice any form of affirmative action, which simply means there’s no boost to the application if the candidate is female, from Kansas, or a member of an under-represented minority. On the other hand, CalTech receives far fewer applications than MIT and thus proportionally admits more students. For instance, in the fall of 2007, MIT admitted around 12% of applicants and CalTech admitted around 17% (this data comes from each institutions Common Data Set for this year, available online).</p>
<p>Re: “It is possible that some URMs suffer from a lack of confidence, which hurts their performance. Because, well, they have been told so much that they are underqualified charity cases.”</p>
<p>Stanford researcher Claude Steele calls this “stereotype threat.” If anyone is interested in learning about the research in this area, just enter the term into the Google Scholar search engine.</p>
<p>Psssst. I got a 6! That is all. :)</p>
<p>Wow, these are some passionate posts/people. I personally feel that race should be eliminated from the decision making. However, the situation of the application should be considered. If an applicant is from a low-income family, lower educated, or disadvantaged family, then they should be given a boost. I have seen many URM’s with everything served to them on a silver plater, while non-URM’s had to struggle greatly. I know that colleges are looking for diversity. But, not all whites are the same, and not all asians are the same. There is some much diversity within the groups, as well. That being said, your socioeconomic situation should be the only factor that gives you a boost or not.
Agree/Disagree?
What the hell is with the random number website?!</p>
<p>I agree with Lola. ^</p>
<p>Assuming taking socioeconomic status into account would do the same thing as taking race into account, I don’t think it would matter. But if disregarding race drastically reduced minority numbers, I’d be concerned. I don’t want to go to college where everyone is a majority.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree that equating race with socioeconomic status is faulty and wish that was more involved in the admissions process. I’m sure plenty of people would become paranoid at the thought, though. “Need blind but they want to see how much my family makes? They’re clearly not as need-blind as they say!” </p>
<p>Also, I think you’re overlooking that in a case of economic equality, two people of different races aren’t necessarily treated the same.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Don’t know what specifically you’re alluding to here, but this doesn’t fit in with MIT admissions. MIT does not admit underqualified people. If the URMs were underqualified, they’d all flunk out first term :)</p>
<p>^ </p>
<p>But that doesn’t account for the higher admissions rates for URM (unless I’m wrong about this actually being the case).</p>
<p>I suppose you could argue that these URMs aren’t “underqualified” but it certainly prohibits some more qualified students from attending.</p>
<p>You’re either academically qualified or you’re not. Getting into MIT is so much more than just that.</p>
<p>
[quote]
…but it certainly prohibits some MORE QUALIFIED STUDENTS from attending<a href=“caps%20added”>/quote</a></p>
<p>PiperXP is right, as per usual. There are so many qualified students applying that MIT discards the unqualified candidates from the pool and then still can fill the class multiple times over. NOBODY gets in who isn’t qualified. NOBODY gets in who cannot do the work.</p>
<p>After that it is difficult to identify “MORE” when it comes to qualifications.
Which candidate is most qualified?:
Candidate A with a 2340 SAT who has participated in the band for 4 years and made all state
Candidate B with a 2240 SAT who has 3 patents, a solo article in a major journal but no significant non-academic extravehicular activities nor it appears, any friends
Candidate C with a 2150 SAT who has no EC’s because he has to work 32 hours per week in addition to his schooling to support his family</p>
<p>The correct answer is that none of us can know, none of us have read the files (one of the reasons that Chances threads suck), but there isn’t any of them that is OBVIOUSLY more qualified.</p>