|
sakky, I'm sure Caltech isn't even "pure" today. But no doubt about it, it seemingly has the most philosophically pleasing admissions policies. Look at the Caltech board. Do you see any huge "injustice" debates going on like this one? Yeah probably...and they're probably mostly directed at MIT as well.
"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)?"
Because sakky, it's quite the commendable improvement to go from a psychopathic killer to a law abiding citizen - not so much the other way around. The proof is right on these forums. People are not so much indignant about Harvard's admissions policies, because URM admissions are expected from it. Well-rounded admits are expected from it, and recruited athletes are expected as well. Do you ever see bashing threads such as this on the Ivy boards? Think about that.
MIT is perceived to be that beacon of higher achievement in education. To change that view so that it becomes something more of an Ivy League, is clearly going in the wrong direction from the earlier days of meritocratic admissions. We already have 8 schools that admit balanced classes. Why do we need another?
|