<p>Let me try this again Ramaswami:<br>
I’ll start with an anecdote: What do you think happened when one of my sons got virtually perfect scores on the SAT? Did his classmates congratulate him? Well, not really. He was told - teased really - that now he would get into any college he wanted partly because of his board scores -but mainly because he was black. Damn if you do, damn if you don’t. He found the experience deeply depressing.<br>
What happened here was what happens to many black Americans (and yes, I’m including Barak Obama here!). Even when you excel, your race is somehow brought into the equation. There’s simply no way to get around it. That’s what I found offensive about your message on this board. It’s one thing to say, well, the college admissions system is screwed up. It’s another thing entirely when you give what has become an annoyingly typical anecdote - something like this: a black kid at my son’s school got into Columbia with a 1800, and a Hispanic kid got into MIT with 2100. My son got 2300! He deserved to get in instead of those slackers. This is not a meritocracy! Rage. Rage. Rage.
Now, to get to the point: on this thread, repeatedly - and I think obnoxiously - the canard that blacks and Hispanics are taking away the places of deserving whites and Asians is repeated again and again as if it’s a well-known fact. Asian Quota? Please.<br>
Now, what appears to be happening is the creation of a new excuse -namely, that there are enormous numbers of rich black and Hispanic students who are taking the place of deserving poor and middle class white students. Sad, but simply untrue.<br>
You can look it up, if you dare: my older son was accepted at an Ivy League school from a public school in Southern California. He, like I suppose the rest of my family is, a URM. He is also a legacy. He also is an exceptional scholar.<br>
But how many black students matriculated to son’s college from the L.A. region from a public school? Twenty-five? Ten? Five?
Simple answer: One.<br>
Your son or daughter didn’t get into their first choice school not because undeserving blacks and Hispanics were accepted instead. He or she didn’t get in because the admissions office decided they weren’t competitive in an extremely difficult year. Deal with it.</p>
<p>Nano, please PM me re where you met him.</p>
<p>Zannerina, I doubt I used words like injustice and unfair, Perhaps I did but I was getting at was different: to the poster who said life is unfair I replied, in essence yes, but let’s try to make it fair which is not the same as saying college process is unfair.</p>
<p>Cellar, you and others must get this straight: my son got in last year, MIT was never in his horizon, it was his school counselor’s pressure, she typecast him which is what I found frustrating. Regarding MIT admissions itself, I am quite aware that the adcoms only implement faculty objectives and that they scan for creativity thru multiple ways, that above a certain score the scores are less and less useful to discriminate talent, we should turn to other factors. In short, an 1900 may raise questions about ability to perform but once you are say 2100 or above (I am arbitrarily tossing out nos) a 2150 with a teacher writing about his garage project should merit a second glance whilst a 2350 who grinds out his work has no place, etc.</p>
<p>From a few personal examples we know, and others are offering their own examples, it appears that URMs with low scores and no demonstrated creative work still have an advantage. Sample size of 1 here: Hispanic kid, mediocre scores, few APs, no ECs, no science or math project, strongest school subject Spanish, no sport, is now at MIT. Is this an exception?</p>
<p>The college admissions deans and presidents are making national pronouncements about active recruitment of URMs and those from underprivileged backgrounds. They have eliminated tuition in order to recruit them. The demand characteristics of the environment, as social psychologists might say, requires readers at colleges to tilt ratings in favor of URMs en masse and this will include URMs with privilege and URMs without creative spark. I won’t be surprised to learn in 25 years when records are available that readers were offered bonuses to admit talented URMs and then they went and found them. I don’t care if there are 12 readers, there is subtle pressure to get the URMs in. </p>
<p>If MIT is a meritocracy why change admit policies? When it admitted by nos , it did quite well in science and math and engineering, thank you. The last laugh may well be on them if we find out in 40 years that these admits did ZILCH in science. Because “creativity” is valued now kids are “doing” creative things, churning out garage projects, “researching” at fancy labs.</p>
<p>Kublacloth, fact: by racial background of SAT scores, blacks and Hispancis, for whatever reaon, score lower than whites and Asians. So, if I learn a black got in I am less likely to think of your son and more likely to think he was a race card. It’s called stereotyping. And absolutely nothing wrong with it. That’s how a nervous system organizes lots of information and stereotypes are based on facts, get refined continuosly. As some prominent black put it, if he walked down a street in NY City and saw a tall black and a tall white coming at him he will choose the sidewalk closest to the white. Last night my son said in his University Writing class he reviewed the essay of a black kid that was atrocious but he had to write nicey nice comments because he is fearful of being called racist. You mentioned Obama: what a nice speech on race he gave, made us all collectively feel guilty and see the racist white grandma inside us, so he will get some votes. Please note I am not saying blacks are inherently genetically inferior. I will handsomely concede that for generations the deck has been stacked against them. But the record of black achievement, for whatever reason, is ZILCH. And your son should not have got into those Ivies because based on your socioecon status your family should have been treated and your son rejected like any high achieving Asian. You have run with the hounds and hunted with the hares: got an advantage when scores were low (you) and when scores were high (son).</p>
<p>No rage here, thank you, my son got in last year, so it is not about getting over it, whatever it is.</p>
<p>“But the record of black achievement, for whatever reason, is ZILCH.”</p>
<p>Is this racist? Or, merely what Ramaswami would call reasonable stereotyping.
We report; you decide.<br>
(Oh, and he wrote this on the 40th anniversary of Martin Luther King’s assassination)</p>
<p>Yes, I stand by that statement. What is the record of black achievement in math and science and scholarship in economics or archaeology or whatever. Look up Science Citation Index and Fields Medals and other indices. </p>
<p>My basic point was that when scores were low you claim brilliance by other measures but when scores are high you use them to show achievement. You are disingenuous. Please answer that. Yes, it is the 40th anniversary of King’s death, etc and therefore more relevant for blacks to stop playing victims. Nice article on op ed page of WSJ today saying exactly that.</p>
<p>kubakloth: put yourself in an adcom’s shoes and now try to evaluate two black applicants- one brilliant superstar who has near perfect SATs, lots of academic and extracurricular acheivements, and from an affluent, well-connected family. Now evaluate this kid with respect to another brilliant kid from a) the rural deep south, or b) the inner city, who got maybe just OK SAT scores, but clearly overcame great odds to end up with a decent academic record. Now imagine that you are down to the last possible admissions slot in the college. How do you decide? What if the college had not yet found a single qualified black applicant this year? What if the poor kid was white (or asian) and the rich kid was black? Does the race of the two applicants matter? Should it? What do you think does happen in such cases? </p>
<p>On this day I remember the words:</p>
<p>“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”</p>
<p>MLK was of course, right. Content of character. That is what we need to value. </p>
<p>I admire Barack deeply and was moved by his speech. I do not in the slightest share the racist thoughts expressed by some here. But we all need to look beyond color of skin and ethnicity and challenge ourselves to live up to the high standards we claim to have.</p>
<p>If Obama gets elected as president, once he leaves there will be strong pushes to have AA completely eliminated; the key argument would be “a black man has finally reached the ultimate position of power in the united states, which he was previously discriminated against”</p>
<p>Not saying this is my opinion, just what some of my neo-con friends believe.</p>
<p>Well, Ramaswami, it is important to note that the reason other backgrounds other than blacks have had more distingiushments in the Science category is not because of their inability to do so, but because, well, in the past 4 centuries (lets start with Newton’s revolations) of incredible scientific discovery, blacks were being oppressed. While high class white citizens who were wealthy like Newton could spend their time pursuing academia and research, Blacks really couldn’t because they were: </p>
<p>1) oppressed via slavery and other methods
2) If they didn’t comply with this oppression, they were beaten and often killed. See as one of many examples: Hangings prevalent in the South in the early 19th century.</p>
<p>Even after slavery was abolished, Blacks were still oppressed so much that they couldn’t have the same opportunities to pursue academia. Through plantation crops and trappings in debt, blacks were in many ways still slaves, subject to the control of white property owners, as they were immediatly thrust into inescapable debt an submission to them.</p>
<p>Even in the mid 20th century, things were still bad for blacks and oppression was incredibley high, and rampant racism through out the country further prevented blacks from getting access to higher and prestigious levels of education. Only now are we BEGINNING to give blacks equal oppurtunity to education and success. </p>
<p>Why do we need to AA? Because socioeconomic status is a repetitive cycle; poor people have children that become poor people later in their lives, by the mere nature of their economic situation, as the children will have similiar jobs and end up being poor themselves, and the cycle repeats. The point of AA is to encourage social mobility and give an oppressed people the chance to rise from a terrible socioeconomic situation they were unjustly thrusted and forced into.</p>
<p>It’s little wonder their acedemic accomplishments might seem scarce compared to that of other races; they couldn’t do as much, because society wasn’t letting them.</p>
<p>And on rich URM unfairly getting URM admissions treatment: While I admit this situation may occur once here and there, on the big picture this is hardly the case; if you look at financial aid information of different ethnic backgrounds, hispanics and blacks get the most aid. By far. If you want to see an in depth report and evidence on this, please see: </p>
<p>[Welcome</a> to the Missouri Department of Higher Education Website (MDHE)](<a href=“http://www.dhe.mo.gov/accessaffordability.shtml]Welcome”>http://www.dhe.mo.gov/accessaffordability.shtml)</p>
<p>For the record, I am not black
(not that it should matter, just that it might be more meaningful argument to people who judge/have something against blacks)</p>
<p>Ramaswami:</p>
<p>I’ll ask you again. What is your idea of a “fair” college application process? How would you “make it fair”? Admission based strictly on “nos” ? </p>
<p>By your own scarily frank analysis that would eliminate “blacks and Hispanics” from elite colleges since your extensive research shows that “for whatever reason” it is a 'fact" that they “score lower than whites and Asians.”</p>
<p>Why do you abhor “stereotyping” of Asian applicants, but find “nothing wrong” with stereotyping black and Hispanic students? You attribute stereotyping to your “nervous system” as if racial prejudice was a biological function over which you have no control. The “nervous system” doesn’t have a conscience and no interest in fairness. So, I ask you once again, what would be fair?</p>
<p>Since I have been called racists I submit that a) I never said the reason for black lack of achievement is race, genetics etc. I merely stated it as a fact. b) Blacks in Africa except Egypt have not contributed too much by way of civilization. Again, I am not saying this is to do with race, could be social/geographical factors. c) It is fairly obvious that black underachievement in the US is largely the result of the brutality of slavery d) As dispassionate scientists we need to be open to all possible explanations, however repugnant, for the lack of achievement. One possibility, one only, perhaps a slim one, is genetic influences. e) criticism of any minority group is not racism. f) I am not going to prove my AA credentials by endorsing Obama. With national audiences he makes a soft unifying appeal. With black audiences, like at his church, he panders to the lowest common denominator.</p>
<p>zannerina, I am working toward what would be fair. Certainly numbers. Certainly beyond numbers, certainly GPA which gives true performance over 4 years incl. course rigor, usual jazz, teacher letters. I would discount counselor letters and essays. Eliminate legacy, athletes. Certainly factor in musical talent, journalistic talent, etc, eliminate all questions of race on the forms, scrutinize parental/family income, occupation and credentials, perhaps even zip code for socioecon status. My son’s SAT is not as impressive when you take in such factors. </p>
<p>Let me clarify on stereotyping: when I am reading in a library, not a day passes when someone does not approach me for help with computer problems. I am probably the only Indian west of Suez who knows nothing about computers beyond typing. The ones who hail me made a reasonable guess that as an Indian I am more likely to be in the computer occupation. And that is based on the fact of the no of Indians who are IT professionals. Nothing wrong with this at all.</p>
<p>My son’s guidance counselor would have been correct, good stereotyping, had she taken one look at him, his name, his math/sci scores and recommended MIT. But she totally ignored his talents in Latin and French, etc. Stereotyping gives certain filters at first glance, then you add/eliminate information, and look for confirming/disconfirming knowledge.</p>
<p>One other example: if, say, my son is mum in class, and teacher writes, another silent Indian kid, good at math/sci and not verbal, that would be fine but if he is mum in class but is the only 800 scorer in Crit R and Writing it would be incorrect to say he is poor in verbal, would be correct to say, although highly fluent, does not participate in expressing this fluency in class discussions. Hope this helps.</p>
<p>Nato, one more thing: I am aware of the cycle of poverty, also that URMs get most aid and so it is not the rich ones getting in, etc. I am trying to refine my thinking thru these posts and I think I am against AA at the college admissions level. There must be a national commitment to tackle poverty and poor scholastic achievement, etc in childhood, in elementary schools , etc but the compensating lift must be reduced by the time URMs apply to college and eliminated by the time they graduate. Unfortunately, in grad school and prof school admissions and in jobs AA continues to be used.</p>
<p>I agree .</p>
<p>Affirmative action probably hurts blacks and hispanics in the long run. The image of lower achieving groups hurts them when looking for job. In the real world, only merit, drive and capability matter. That is the reason why foreign students, particularly those from Asian countries, are so attractive. They always give you an extra mile. As an employer myself, my lab is full of students and post-doctoral fellows from foreign countries. This is not because I have not tried to hire Americans. I did try. Their output is simply not up to par. This is sad. Many posts in CC think of choosing colleges with easy classes and less cut-throat competition. Unfortunately, this does not reflect what happens in the real world. I have seen quite a few undergraduate students from great schools coming to the lab not able to do math competently. Probably the freedom of choosing courses plays a role. We do not practice super scoring of GRE in graduate student committee. That sounds like a misconduct for me from a scientific view: Picking and choosing the best data from 4 or 5 experiments, instead of averaging the data and obtaining the mean. Somebody will get fired from doing this. If K12 and undergraduate education get screwed up because we want to be politically correct, we still have sources of foreign students to save us. That is exactly what is happening now!</p>
<p>well put, straight talk.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t believe MIT ever admitted by nos, not when I attended 25 years ago and I don’t believe 25 years before that. Feynman may not have been admitted to MIT by numbers only. He was obviously brilliant in math but just average academically and failed getting in to Columbia his first choice at the time. He even recognized his IQ was only slightly above average. MIT was smart enough to pick him for his talent. Even CalTech which is more nos driven uses a holistic approach to admission and even increasingly so. </p>
<p>If you look at one major area of progress for MIT has been the admission of women and the very positive impact on the school. In 1980, when I was at MIT (as a grad student), women represented 16% of undergrad admits, now they are 48%, or near parity. They represent nearly 40% of engineers at MIT up from 10%. At MIT, they perform actually better than men on average with higher GPAs. Some departments like math and physics are still largely male dominated while in most others, males and females are often equally represented. Has it hurt MIT in any way? Actually, in many areas, particularly the life sciences, where women are in the majority, MIT has improved its standing significantly. In traditional areas like math and engineering, MIT is as dominating as ever, winning more Putnams and engineering competitions that at any time in its history. The increase in women attendance has also increased the interest in MIT among top male and female applicants who may not have applied to a mostly male school. The president at MIT is now a woman and nobody is suggesting she got the job because of her gender. Nobody at MIT seriously believes female students are less qualified than male students. The yield is now approaching 70% among both males and females, about double what is was 30 years ago. Same thing with URMs. MIT has one of the highest yields among the most qualified african american applicants interested in pursuing a career in science, medicine or engineering, a highly sought after group. That is because nobody at MIT will question the fact you got in on merit, and not because of the color of your skin. As far as job offers, they get as many from the Goldmans and Microsoft as any other ethnic group. Nobody has ever suggested that they were somehow less qualified. If anything, they are often twice as driven as the average MIT student. </p>
<p>The faculty also reports a much more engaged student body, stronger at problem solving. Employers are lining up to grab MIT grads at top salaries and seem very happy with the results.</p>
<p>Cellar, you are conflating several different matters. MIT always valued creativity but numbers had greater weight along with teacher recommendations than ECs, race, gender, disadvantaged background etc once upon a time. </p>
<p>The culture demands feminization, so more female faculty, female presidents, perhaps even better grades for women, etc. All this is not to say women are not deserving. All this is to say the pendulum has swung violently toward females and URMs and in that process, a well deserved correction in the history of male chauvinism, many talented white men and Asian will fall by the roadside and perhaps quite a few undeserving URMs will be inside MIT.</p>
<p>That MIT has better and better yield proves nothing except it is a congenial place to be.</p>
<p>ramaswami: What is your definition of an undeserving URM? Actually, what is your definition of a deserving student in general?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>MIT thinks their admitted kids deserve it, and I’m pretty sure a school of that caliber knows what it’s doing.</p>
<p>“He was obviously brilliant in math but just average academically and failed getting in to Columbia his first choice at the time.”</p>
<p>Feynman attributed this to the fact that Columbia had a quota for Jews; that is, Columbia refused to admit more than a certain number of them. No one knows his high school grades, but likely he was stellar at math and science classes. He won the school award for every subject, even english. (Actually, he tells a funny story in his book about how he won the last one. There was an essay exam to determine who won the award, and he used a flowery writing style that the so-called good english students used with success but that he thought was stupid.) </p>
<p>To ramaswami: it is practically impossible for MIT to assign higher grades to women. I assume you meant this in jest.</p>
<p>“Actually, years ago, Harvard was not interested in a well rounded student body. It was very happy to have a school primarily filled by the wealthy elite who were smart enough to get in, and the intelligence requirements years ago were much less than exists today.”</p>
<p>Weren’t there wealthy elite Jews that were smart enough to get in but were rejected anyway?
Until you walk a mile in Asian kids’ shoes, you will not appreciate how much hard work and dedication Asian kids put out, only to be rejected by HYP to make room for someone else who is more “well rounded.”</p>
<p>“Those who think that nonURMs must all have stellar stats should read this thread in which a poster says that their sister, white, middle class, nonlegacy, nonathlete, Californian, “with 1980 SAT, 14 out of 245 rank, A genuinely nice, down-to-earth girl” got into Harvard, Yale, Stanford, and Columbia. Rejected from Princeton.
Miracles DO happen!”
That’s why it’s indeed a miracle. If a black kid got into HYP with that stats, that’s a different story. The girl obviously went through a lot and still pulled it together so kudos to her.</p>