|
I think we're getting somewhere too sakky.
But you do agree that the class that matriculates to Caltech each year is indeed, highly meritocratic? It's not like Caltech students are dumb, which is what your tone suggests. Infact, they're probably even smarter than MIT students overall (based on grad school placement figures). I'd also say that the smartest individuals from Caltech could also compete on the level of the smartest undergrads from MIT.
That said, we could probably just debate on the sole issue at hand: meritocratic admissions - with respect to elite institutions.
For some reason, Caltech has been able to maintain consistently high undergraduate standards - which means their method of admissions/school promotion is succeeding. Dan Golden's book has also actually praised Caltech on this, and on the fact that Caltech is one of those "few" elite colleges that practise meritocratic standards.
Some here have already attempted to answer my question as to why people overall are highly dissatisfied with MIT admissions, and not with Caltech's/the Ivies'. sakky, I'll take your explanation about the Ivies "brainwashing" with the emotions of rejectees, but I'm going to say that CAdream's explanation of MIT admissions trying to be more profound, and highly overblown - trying to be a something to everybody; even the rejectees, when in their minds, MIT is only of a something to the acceptees - is more likely.
|