Quote:
|
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.
|
But like I said in the post I just wrote above - people vote with their feet. If Caltech's admissions policies are really so 'philosophically pleasing', then why do the majority of Caltech admittees, and in particular, the majority of Caltech scholarship awardees (who are presumably among the strongest of the admit pool), choose to go elsewhere? Seems to me that whatever the merits of Caltech's policies, it doesn't seem to help in drawing more students. It doesn't really matter who you
admit . It only matters who you
matriculate . You can admit all of the meritocratic people you want, but if they don't actually come, who cares?
Quote:
|
Because sakky, it's quite the commendable improvement to go from a psychopathic killer to a law abiding citizen
|
But they're
not law-abiding citizens, at least, not in the context of this thread. Like I said, whatever you might say about MIT's admissions policies, I would say that they are still more meritocratic than the Ivies are. Yes, maybe the Ivies are more meritocratic than they were in the past, but
they are still less meritocratic than MIT .
Quote:
|
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.
|
And that's
precisely what I disagree with. In other words, what you are saying is that the Ivies should get a free pass because they "set an expectation" of unmeritocratic behavior in the past. Just because you were bad in the past doesn't mean that you get a free pass now. If anything, I would argue that that actually makes it
worse and that you have
more sins to expiate.
I think it is far more fair to hold
all schools to the same current standards, regardless of how those schools might have behaved in the past. Who cares about the past? What matters is now.
Quote:
|
MIT is perceived to be that beacon of higher achievement in education.
|
But is it? So then why is it that HYPS all have higher yields than MIT does? After all, you would think that if MIT was really perceived to be a beacon of higher achivement, then you would think that very few people who get into MIT would turn it down. Or, again,I would point to Caltech and say that if meritocratic admissions policies are really so desirable, then why is Caltech's yield rate so low, especially for best admittees (i.e. its scholarship winners)?
I said it before, I'll say it again. It doesn't matter who you
admit. What matters is who you
matriculate . It seems to me that even a lot of meritocratic people (i.e. Caltech scholarship winners) don't really want to be at a meritocratic school. Hence, the logical conclusion is that a lot of students simply aren't that interested in meritocratic principles. They may SAY they are, but actions speak louder than words.