Quote:
Perhaps Caltech was discriminatory against Jews in the past, just like other universities. Today, such comments would be so politically incorrect that they would never be made.
Leverett Davis, Jr., 1914-2003
Thomas Hunt Morgan (September 25, 1866 ? December 4, 1945)
|
It doesn't matter that these things happened in the past. Ben Golub brought up the notion of 'principles', which I take to mean standards of behavior that supposedly stand the test of time. I am simply pointing out that Caltech is not quite as pure, historically speaking, as he seems to think it is. Whatever Caltech's principles are, looks like they were violated in the past.
Look, ALL US schools have had issues with meritocracy at some time or another. No school can claim to be 'pure'. I'm sure that MIT probably also exhibited streaks of anti-Semitism in its past.
Quote:
|
Even so, these statements are purely statements of faculty members (who can have whatever political views that they're entitled to). They do not say anything about the admissions office itself.
|
Nah, looks like from the context of the text, I gather that those views did indeed influence admissions decisions. For example, Davis specifically said that he served on an admissions committee (perhaps a graduate adcom) who was basically attempting to discriminate against Jews. Hence, here is a case of political views seeping into the admissions process.
Quote:
|
It's fairly simple, as Big Brother 1984 explained above. MIT is perceived as becoming less "meritocratic" (one quote I had from soneone: "MIT is losing its roots") than it was in the past, whereas the Ivies never had to encounter such an accusation - since they always had legacy and athlete admissions. From the viewpoint of a random person who knows a little bit about admissions, "if Bush got into Yale in the past, well, you can't complain about admissions standards of Ivies declining...." (note that I'm talking about the popular conception of Ivies and MIT, not stating my own views)
|
OF COURSE I understand the argument - I just completely disagree with it. What that basically means is that the Ivies get a free pass because, because if they were "bad" before, and they are less bad now (but still bad), that's still OK. Why should you get a free pass just because you were less bad in the past (but still bad)? Bad is bad. It's like saying that I murdered 5 people last year, but this year if I only murder 4, that somehow makes me a good person? Yeah, I am not as bad as I was in the past, but so what? Instead, you choose to ignore that person and instead single out for criticism somebody who murdered nobody last year, but who murdered 1 person this year? Shouldn't the correct logic be to concentrate on the person who is committing the larger absolute level of crime?