<p>“At that point, they do attempt to balance the class by gender, race, background, geography, and so on. They value that. So do I. This is NOT the same as saying they select by race or gender.”</p>
<p>This is double talk. Either they take race and gender into consideration or they don’t. They do, period. They used to “value” not taking too many Jews and so did their alumni, but that did not make it right either.</p>
<p>There is an anomaly that I find mildly interesting: Many of the people who get so worked-up about affirmative action – and in this thread about holistic admissions in general – are politically conservative. In other contexts, they have a high regard for markets, and for the autonomous decisionmaking of market participants. In this context, however, they want to dictate what values are right and wrong in college admissions.</p>
<p>Does it not occur to you that elite colleges select their students this way because the market rewards it? The schools provide a richer, more varied educational experience for all their students. The students like the prestige of being picked for their individual qualities – of being “understood”, and plucked out of the mass of unsuccessful applicants because of their wonderfulness, like Cinderella – and value that above any one- or two-factor selection criterion. They also like things like successful sports teams (or, in MIT’s case, having sports teams), good music . . . all of which require admitting classes of kids with a range of SAT scores.</p>
<p>I suspect a college that went to a purely test-centric model would lose prestige very quickly. It would become a safety school for good testers, but they would regularly choose to go to other schools that had recognized their other great qualities, too, and that offered a more enjoyable experience. Cal Tech may do that some, without a decline in prestige, but its small size guarantees that it will be very selective even among those with great numbers. And, in any event, it doesn’t seem to have become vastly more popular than its rival MIT because of this. Berkeley does much the same thing, and it definitely has some erosion of perceived quality – it certainly isn’t gaining ground against Stanford or Harvard.</p>
<p>In his typically sly way, mini has made this point often: Having admissions be a crapshoot enhances the prestige and desirability of these institutions. Plus, people seem to prefer the university experience that system offers compared to a one- or two-factor objective selection system. If doing things the way everyone is doing them is such a disaster, why hasn’t some ambitious college tried to do things differently?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is a good question. But I think one other issue that distorts market decisions (in many markets, not just college admission) is fear of lawsuits.</p>
<p>
On what do you base this generalization? I will admit that this thread has gotten a little too tangential for me to keep up with, but I’ve made comments along the way which support holistic admissions. I’m definitely conservative, but I DO support non-stat based admissions, as do many other conservatives I know personally. Are you basing your opinion on one data point?</p>
<p>JHS - the market also used to reward racial discrimination (the old fashioned kind) but it was banned by law long ago (and rightly so). Because “affirmative action” is just discrimination in reverse, you sound a lot like the segregationists of 50 years ago who used to argue that a restaurant was a private business and so it was not the government’s business who they served or didn’t serve. Didn’t Woolworth’s lose business at first when they were forced to serve blacks? Weren’t they put at a competitive disadvantage vs. restaurants that discriminated? So what - we didn’t care - discrimination was wrong regardless of whether there was money in it or not, whether the majority of customers wanted it or not. I think that argument was settled long ago - the government as the agent of justice and equal protection has every right to interfere with private decision making if that decision making is based on racial discrimination. The solution will be for the government to forbid race and gender discrimination of any kind (including so called “AA”) so that all schools will have to compete on an equal footing. I’m not so sure btw that the students are really crying out for this as much as you think.</p>
<p>sjmom: I wouldn’t claim that all conservatives oppose holistic admission (or even affirmative action) – I know much better than that. But I would claim that it would be very rare to find a non-conservative who opposed BOTH holistic admissions and affirmative action. So I feel comfortable presuming that the people who are opposing both in this thread consider themselves conservatives. Do you disagree?</p>
<p>Percy: Your account is the conventional one, and there’s something to it, but I think it’s not sufficient. I would argue that nondiscrimination has succeeded in many areas precisely because the market stopped rewarding discrimination there, and that there are areas where the market continues to reward discrimination (although not overt, categorical discrimination) and where it persists, e.g., elementary education in much of the South. And as for the students not crying out for it – they seem to like HYPS just fine, and they are leaders in this.</p>
<p>JHS, you can make whatever assumptions you like, of course. I just find it unfortunate that people bring politics into every thread, whether or not it is relevant. I don’t see any benefit to bringing politics into this discussion – I don’t see how it adds anything, or brings clarity. In fact, though it seems to me that those who profess more liberal ideology will voice support for AA or holistic admissions, I’m not sure that they do when it comes to themselves or their own families. Maybe conservatives are just more honest about it. The dominant political ethos on elite college campuses is liberalism – yet these colleges are still overwhelmingly white, wealthy, and filled with high-stat kids. There is some disconnect here.</p>
<p>I am trying to avoid any political discussions on CC – I thought I was safe on this thread, but apparently I was mistaken.</p>
<p>JHS</p>
<p>Have you noticed that people give more “credit” to boys who dance? They expect it of girls, but in boys it’s seen as exceptional. I notice when they start dancing in a recital piece, there’s always a murmer in the crowd, like…“OMG they can really dance!” Kind of funny.</p>
<p>Percy wrote:
</p>
<p>I guess you missed my point. I was responding to your assertion that schools like MIT select by race and gender over ability. I do NOT believe that they do that. I believe that ability comes first. Once they have a pile of applicants that meet the abilities and other strengths they are looking for, they attempt to balance the class by gender, race, background, geography, and so on. That is not the same as selecting by race or gender. I never said they were NOT taken into consideration. But you had said they select by this over abililty. I disagree with that assertion. I believe all who are accepted to MIT have the ability and have met the intellectual standards that MIT seeks. They do not select SOLELY by SATs. For that, I am glad.</p>
<p>You thought you were safe in this thread? This thread has been political from Day 1! For days, there were jeremiads about all those liberals who were supporting Jones notwithstanding her crimes (when not a single person had posted any kind of defense of what Jones did). </p>
<p>This thread is over a hundred pages long precisely because the policies that Jones supported and symbolized are the subject of political debate. It’s not completely simplistic political debate, and it doesn’t break out into clean red vs. blue lines.</p>
<p>Bethie…my girls have been lifelong dancers from preschool. It has been disconcerting that at our dance studio in Vermont, that there are no boys in their dance classes. It is truly too bad. They have had a few boys in hip hop but that is it. However, males are prominently represented in the world of dance. Just not here :(. It has been refreshing for my younger D to have plenty of males now in her dance classes in her program at college, and also when she attended out of state programs in the performing arts every summer. </p>
<p>I agree with you about the gender bias and expectations as to what many perceive are what girls or what boys can do well. Actually we are seeing that very point on this thread. Like OMG…my D had a 780 on the Math SAT and girls aren’t supposed to be that good in math and MIT is taking lesser able people such as girls into its ranks! (she didn’t apply to MIT but could very well opt to do so for grad school)</p>
<p>By the way, I think all this emphasis on the SAT and particularly in math is beside the point. Not everyone who is entering MIT is seeking the same majors. For certain fields, certain attributes will be important and for other majors, other strengths may be preferred.</p>
<p>(Boys who dance: In my kid’s school, it’s hard to tell. There have been very few boys over the years – it’s mainly a ballet school, and not the most prestigious one in the area – but the boys who have danced there as teens have tended to be very, very good. Two of the last three are members of brand-name companies now. My son is the exception – it took him years to be able to keep time. He’s pretty good now, and he sure attracts a crowd of girls when he warms up, but I don’t think anyone overvalues his dancing.)</p>
<p>Soozie - in the old days certain employers (mostly in the North) did not expressly prohibit blacks from working in their factories. What they would do though, is sort thru the application piles and reject all job applicants who were completely unqualified. Then they would match up the applications with the available positions and if they had two equally qualified applicants for the job and one was white and one was black they’d choose the white applicant. Hell, even if the black guy was a little more qualified, they’d STILL choose the white candidate - being white was in and of itself a “plus factor”. Today everyone realizes that this is a form of prohibited racial discrimination. MIT is doing exactly the same thing (in reverse) and the fact that this happens to be a form of racial discrimination you LIKE adds no weight to the fact that is is morally wrong to do so.</p>
<p>“But I would claim that it would be very rare to find a non-conservative who opposed BOTH holistic admissions and affirmative action.”</p>
<p>I would turn this around - I think it would be very rare to find a “liberal” who gave a hoot about holistic admissions if it did not have the effect of promoting racial and gender “balance” - if all “holistic” admissions did was separate the nerdy Asian males from the “well rounded” Asian males, would you really care - tell the truth? Holistic admission/ character/ etc. has always been “code” for race discrimination of some sort and if it isn’t it’s not worth the bother.</p>
<p>
I disagree. I was involved in this thread from the beginning. I will admit to losing interest about 10 pages ago, but I do not recall a post which was clearly political until this page. A variety of people objected to Jones’ deception, and several are more conservative (as I know from other threads.) Those who supported Jones seem to either be affiliated with MIT – and are understandably upset and confused – or current/recent students. Politics has no place in this thread, imo.</p>
<p>
I think this point has been made over and over, but if the students who were admitted to MIT were selected strictly by race or gender, without regard for ability, it would show up in graduation rates or GPA. Since performance doesn’t seem to be related to these issues – it’s not like girls are flunking out – then race/gender seems to be used as a tip factor, once certain thresholds are met.</p>
<p>“the fact that this happens to be a form of racial discrimination you LIKE adds no weight to the fact that i[t] is morally wrong . . .”</p>
<p>What a contemptuous little statement that is! For me, and I bet for others who support affirmative action, we like it because we believe it is morally right, not the other way around. The issue is whether discrimination in favor of the less powerful, less privileged is that same as discrimination to maintain power and privilege. It’s a complicated set of issues, and I’m not going to question your SAT scores if you don’t see a difference. But don’t wag your finger at me because I do.</p>
<p>EDIT: Percy, your statement about liberals and holistic admissions has no recognizable connection to reality. Do you know any liberals? Have you read a book other than Karabell’s?</p>
<p>
Sure, I’ll raise my hand here. There are tons of niches at MIT (and any other college) that I was happy to see filled – there are dorms whose residents like to play beer pong, and dorms whose residents like to build computers. There are kids who play sports and kids who play video games. I like that, and I appreciated having kids like me as well as kids who brought other perspectives to the table.</p>
<p>
I totally agree – there’s clearly enough moral high ground to go around on this issue.</p>
<p>But who is the “less powerful and privileged” in our society? Is the the “URM” community backed by a vocal and politically powerful “civil rights establishment” or is it the voiceless Asian immigrant trying to gain a foothold in this country by educating his children? Who is trying to maintain the status quo? I think that ironically, affirmative action is really the “conservative”, or even reactionary force at this point. I think it’s a shame that was once a noble movement that had right on its side has lost its moral compass.</p>
<p>Percy, last time I looked the “voiceless Asian immigrants” (strange image!) were doing pretty well overall, just like the vocal Russian immigrants. I am happy to see them succeed.</p>
<p>The other ironic thing about this debate is that the “WASP”, who was once supposed to be the very picture of power and privilege, the one you were fighting against, the MAN, has almost disappeared from the picture - at a place like MIT, once you subtract out all the blacks, Latinos, Asians, women, Jews, foreign students, etc. you’re hard pressed to find any male WASPs left - they are the true minority at this point. Sorta ironic, isn’t - for a group that 's supposed to be the epitome of power and privilege, they sure don’t seem to be carrying much weight?</p>