|
The last time we all gathered together to have a pointless, flame-filled argument like this one (well, maybe not the last time -- it's hard to keep track), I made the point that it would be nice to be able to stick a thermometer in everybody's head and measure exactly how much merit is in there, but unfortunately, it's not possible.
I understand that an SAT score is made of numbers and therefore looks concrete and objective, but it's not possible to make a culture-neutral test. Basing admission solely on SAT scores may look terribly meritocratic, but you're going to be missing people who don't test well but have a lot of merit in their brains anyway. By decreasing emphasis on a test in an already talented applicant pool, the admissions office is trying to pick up those people who would be falsely passed over in a test-only system.
Here's my question: If MIT is truly admitting less-qualified women and minorities, then why do those "unqualified" students succeed at MIT? Why do the women graduate at higher rates than the men, who are supposedly more qualified? Why do minority students choose to major in more difficult departments than other groups at MIT?
|