|
Agreed with collegealum, and disagree with sakky.
Look at the Harvard and Ivy threads. People are indignant about Marilee Jones' policies because they are extremely silly in the context of what is supposed to be MIT.
Do we ever see people bashing Harvard on affirmative action and other wacked admissions procedures? Probably not nearly as much as what we've seen on the MIT forum here on CC - where threads like this have popped up since the beginning of the admissions season.
That's because places like Harvard used to be about having the right connections and whatnot, and have actually become "better" in their admissions policies by having more middle class/URM admits. In a sense, the Ivies are fulfilling their institutional goals.
MIT used to be about admitting the best of the best. In a sense, they've gotten "worse" since new admissions policies have been anything but meritocratic.
But friends...that is why we have Caltech :-). And I can see where Ben Golub was coming from. MIT is definitely trying to pull off a Harvard - and a lot of people are indignant about that because that's not what we look at when we see the beacon of scientific achievement that used to be MIT.
No doubt though, MIT rejections have been unpleasant for a lot of the rejectees on this board...just look around. I don't think I've seen a single thread on Affirmative Action and whatnot on the Ivy boards - their ways are to be expected. But a "meritocratic" technology institution taking tennis players and "well-rounded" kids over science whizzes? Seriously...that's a big ***.
|