<p>“A 700Sat kid could do very well in a non-math major at MIT.”</p>
<p>This is what it basically comes down to - a 50 pt/ subtest spread. BTW, because of the “shortage” of high scoring blacks and fact that the highest ranked schools get 1st pick, the spread gets larger the further “down” the rank list you go- for example by the time you get to Columbia it’s more like a 100 pt/ subtest gap. </p>
<p>Apparently 700 SAT kids (and even 8% below 700) can and do do well at MIT - as you say probably not in the most mathematically challenging majors. BUT, is it fair to “spot” one group an automatic 50 pts. based on their skin color (and again, despite all the smoke and mirrors and all the vigorous denial this is essentially what they ARE doing and MUST DO in order to enroll the # of blacks that they seek)?</p>
<p>Do we know that the 700 SAT kids are URMs, women, or whatever? Suppose an applicant expresses an interest in biology, chemistry, linguistics, or some other field in which MIT is very strong, should that applicant be evaluated in the same way as an applicant who declares an interest in math, physics, or computer science?</p>
<p>Has there in fact been a study of the distribution of SAT scores of admitted students at MIT by ethnicity, gender, SES? Or is this sheer speculation?</p>
<p>Speak for yourself. The last time I was at MIT my son introduced me to an African American kid who lives in his dorm; he had only the best to say about him and I doubt very seriously that that thought EVER crossed his mind.</p>
<p>Also, yeah yeah I know I said I’m out of here, but all this comparison with the NBA: sorry, but I don’t buy it. To be selected for the NBA, there is ONE factor involved: the serious ability to play basketball. You have to dribble well, you have to shoot well, you have to be athletic, you have to, yeah, jump high. A parallel could be made between this and being selected for your high school math team: you have to add well, you have to have good mathematical intuition, you have to be quick at answering questions. But comparing the NBA with college admissions? You’re pulling a sheet over all the HUGE distinctions that make college admissions what it is - you’re elminating the factors that are causing us to have this conversation in the first place! Basketball skills for NBA- what is its equivalent in college admissions?? You would clearly like it to be a test, but that’s not the way it is and that will never be the way it is because this current “holistic” approach has made the U.S. education system arguably superior to that of many other countries and I doubt they’re about to give it up soon. I mean, everything else you say is irrelevant, because what it boils down to is that it’s really not “MIT is racially biased” but “MIT is holistic” (as well as every other college) that you have a problem with. Tying it in with race just so you could have some flimsy high moral ground to stand on is kind of crappy. </p>
<p>Is your point this: that holistic admissions is bad because it has ROOM for abuse? Discrimination and racism and the jewish students of the early 1920s, etc? Because that, you could argue.</p>
<p>It’s not easy to get this data. There was an article in the Journal of Blacks in Higher Education (autumn 1994) entitled “What if there was no affirmative action” which listed the gap at MIT at 122 pts (combined math/verbal on the old 1600 pt test). (no weblink unless you have access to Jstor) I don’t know whether this has changed for the better or worse.</p>
<p>“After school cram schools are extremely common in many Asian cultures. While we might dispute the wisdom of doing this to our kids, it’s hard to argue with the results.”</p>
<p>I’ll argue against those results. You end up with a kid who excels at answering multiple choice questions. And that does not impress me. When that kid gets his/her first job and discovers there are no multiple choice questions to answer, what happens next? I’d much prefer a kid who does OK on a multiple choice test and excels at other skills. </p>
<p>What I really dislike about these AA discussions is how the logic plays out. If only SAT scores were used in college applications, a different group of students might be at top schools today: Fewer African Americans, Latinos, poor rural and urban kids would be enrolled. At MIT, there would be fewer girls. MIT could easily become a school that is primarily Asian and white and male. Why would you want this? Do you want this because you don’t want African Americans and Latinos and women to attend these schools? Why are you so eager to close the doors and lock the gates on those kids, who may not have 800 SATs but can still handle the work? People argue that Asians are discriminated against, but if colleges drop holistic admissions and base decisions on SATs, then women and African-Americans and Latinos and first-generation students and low-income kids will be discriminated against. And it’s not like every Asian is getting denied admission. Plenty get in. I find these conversations offensive because while one side of the mouth is arguing against discrimination, the other side is supporting it.</p>
<p>Pebbles, I think you have it exactly backwards - US universities excel despite and not because of their “holistic” admissions policy. Holistic admissions was born in shame as a way of excluding Jews and it continues in shame as a way of favoring other races.</p>
<p>It’s entirely possible to have a holistic system that does not take race and gender expressly into account - the child of restaurant workers (who happened to be Vietnamese) would be given extra consideration over the child of doctors (who happened to be black). But frankly, since the whole purpose of having a holistic system (despite what you think it is) was and is to provide window dressing for some hidden racial agenda, once you get rid of the racial agenda suddenly the impetus for holistic admission would magically dry up and they would “discover” that objective data was really the best predictor after all.</p>
<p>The part that was offensive to Jews that Percy wrote had nothing to do with the statistics of Jewish admissions from that book (all of which are historical facts) but his comments…again…I guess this was lost in there…</p>
<p>I wrote in response to Percey Skivins’ post:
</p>
<p>That would be like refering to an Asian in terms of their slanted eyes out of context or to the shade of skin of an African American out of context, etc. It was offensive and uncalled for to make the point. And to refer to Jews as not being REAL Americans?? Really now.</p>
<p>Percy, your entire premise of who is qualified to be admitted to MIT is so wrapped up in the SAT being the measure. Sorry, not only isn’t that how elite admissions works, but that is also not the main measure as to who is truly qualified and attractive as a candidate to succeed at MIT. Many have the SAT scores. Not all are attractive as students. People are more than the sum of their SATs. There are people who have a 700 math score who might have a lot more going for them than someone with an 800 math score, particularly if not planning to major in math. Luckily, colleges go beyond that one test score to find candidates who they feel will succeed at MIT. </p>
<p>I find a lot of what you are writing to wreak of racism…a lot of assumptions that a Black student who is at MIT is not “as good as” or “as smart as” or “as qualified” as the white students admitted there. I beg to differ. It is an insult to the amazing Black students succeeding and graduating from MIT. Thankfully MIT had more faith in them than you do.</p>
<p>I cross posted with sly_VT and I just want to say I totally agree with all that she wrote. Indeed, I would much rather a student who did not spend all their time cramming for the SATs to get a perfect score but had much less other things going for them than the student who had a 700 SAT and had lots else going for him/her. </p>
<p>Also, if SATs were all that mattered in admissions, who would want a college of all white and Asian males? </p>
<p>Holistic admissions doesn’t cut out SAT scores but simply uses SATs and other academic measures as one important criteria that the student is capable of the work. Luckily, they look at the whole person because they accepting whole people and individuals to boot.</p>
<p>Someone can have a perfect SAT and be an underachiever. Someone else can have a 1400 and do amazing things. I would accept the latter person over the former.</p>
<p>Percy…college admissions is not just about what is the “best predictor.” It is also about buidling a learning community of students who will bring life to the classroom, outside the classroom, and after graduation. SATs are not the only and best predictor of that.</p>
<p>Percy, you surely are not required to answer this, but I am curious. Are you a student? Do you go to Penn? Another college? Were you rejected at MIT? Might you be Asian? If you are willing to share a little about yourself, it would help to understand, um, your perspectives better. Again, no obligation to share anything about yourself if you do not wish to. Thank you.</p>
<p>To be fair, I’ll give you mine so you can put my perspective in context.</p>
<p>I am a woman. I am 50. I went to Tufts undergrad and Harvard for grad school. I have two daughters currently in college, at Brown and at NYU. I have been married nearly 30 years. I live in rural Vermont. I am Jewish. I work as a college counselor helping students with their college selection and admissions process and have worked in the field of education for my entire adult life, including teaching college.</p>
<p>I don’t know Percy, and I’m not defending his views, since I haven’t read all of his posts, even the ones on his thread, but I think he used the big nose and real American adjectives to point out how some elite college admissions people viewed Jewish candidates in previous eras. That was my reading of it.</p>
<p>On the other hand, I think this discussion has gotten ridiculous. There are plenty of decent colleges where even math majors can get an excellent education other than MIT. MIT students/graduates are not Gods. Sheesh.</p>
<p>The more important question is why more African Americans aren’t attending college in larger numbers–any college, especially affordable state schools. And they should have left the analogy section in the verbal, which actually does show intelligence, and on which African Americans did very well, according to reports I’ve read.</p>
<p>"And it’s not like every Asian is getting denied admission. Plenty get in. "</p>
<p>Gosh. I thought that the right not to be discriminated against belonged to individuals. It is the individual Asian kid who is the subject of discrimination–regardless of the group results. Have we gone so far down the path of thinking of rights as belonging to groups rather than peopkle that the sentence above can be used to deny that there is discrimination against an individual. Rights are individual-based, not group based. (And btw I’n not anti-AA. I just think that the psot from which this sentence was taken is telling.)</p>
<p>Anyhow, American universities are really a crock in terms of their admissions policies, esp. as regards athletes in Ivy and prestigious D3 schools. Why doesn’t anyone get worked up about preferred admissions for crew? How many inner city (or even non-tippytop public) schools even have crew? What about the bogus “service” junkets: an industry in themselves. Or (dare I say) the colelgecounseling biz. Why not (if we had the instrument) some more meritocratic thing, and let the holistic stuff sort itself out in real life. Colleges are,a fter all, academies. They are not supposed to be training grounds for brew or laterlife business alliances. (How sick i am of reading that Harvard “opens doors” in these posts. Honestly. This is supposed to eb about education, not getting an i-banking job.
Rant over. But I think that percy was getting attacked too much in the recent string above.</p>
<p>Yeah, even though I always agree with soozie and sly–and still do–I thought the big nose thing was tongue-in-chekk. If not–oh, man!! Anyway, my kid got in everywhere and he’s proud to have a Dad who’s Jewish. It would have been REALLY easy for his schools to figure this out.</p>
<p>Wheretogo…the point is, that all who get into elite colleges HAVE the academics. But many more have the academics than slots available in the class. Therefore, other strengths and characteristics are considered. It is not as if someone who is athletic or plays music, or comes from the inner city or has a certain skin color or whatever is LESS qualified to get in. Elite colleges FIRST and foremost, take applicants whom they believe are academically talented. But they also want people who have a lot of offer besides ONLY being smart. That is why they are looked at as individuals and holistically. Further, part of what makes an elite institution great, is the make up of a diverse community of learners (and I surely don’t mean diversity only in the sense of race at all). That is also part of the educational experience. It is not as if they are taking people with certain attributes or talents OVER academics. Those whom they admit have the ACADEMICS AND other things to offer. It is not an either/or proposition.</p>
<p>Bethie, I do agree with all you have written as well. But I don’t find it that tongue in cheek to have expressed the point in the way that it was. The point could have been easily made that they had a nose in their books. Adding “big” was a stereotype. I would never think to say Asians had their slanted eyes in a book. That’s all. </p>
<p>Bethie, it is hard to tell on the internet, but given the context of other posts from the same person that come across with a racist tone to me, I interpretted it as I did. Actually, I hope I was wrong!</p>