[360] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
big rant thing ;P
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Thomas G Cadwell)
Mon Apr 30 21:33:37 2001
Message-Id: <200105010132.VAA02899@home-on-the-dome.mit.edu>
To: anneh@MIT.EDU, mit-talk@MIT.EDU, spa-discuss@MIT.EDU
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 21:32:53 -0400
From: Thomas G Cadwell <tcadwell@MIT.EDU>
>I've read freshman applications for the Admissions office quite a few
>times in the past, and we were *never* instructed to raise our
>assessment of the student if the candidate was a woman or
>under-represented minority. There were many times when I wrote
>"there's nothing of distinction or excellence here" without regard to
>the applicant's gender or ethnicity. The first year I did it I kept a
>list of my ~100 applicants and how qualified I thought they were. I
>checked once the lists were out and none of the ones I thought were
>less than top students had been admitted, even if they were female
>or underrepresented minorities.
I'm pleasantly surprised to hear this. It was my understanding reading
spa-discuss.. an email by Jimmy Wu I think (I cant find the email I mustve
deleted it -- anyone want to provide?) that admissions used some sort of
2 part system, where first they rated students on 6 categories, half "soft"
half analytical, got a composite score, then ranked them. This was 100%
independant of race, sex, etc. From there, broke them into a top,
second, third group, and then admitted everyone from the top group, and then
went through and admitted underqualified minorities from the 2nd and third
then went back to admit students from teh second group if slots were left.
It was also my understanding this was an undergraduate thing...
I'll be THRILLED to know if this is not in fact the case --
as you can see from my email I'm very much opposed to that being the case.
If its not the case, then obviously, I retract some of my comments, though
I'm still opposed to affirmative action for the reasons
I mentioned.
I took that information to be reliable because it didnt get flamebaited.
I'd like some confirmaton on that -- anyone know? Im not on MIT talk so
could you cc me if you respond to it?
>I've been at MIT for 27 years, and I can tell you that the students
>who don't do well here are those who have personal problems that
>prevent them from performing to their ability. I've only seen a
>couple of students whom I believe really didn't have the ability to
>succeed here. Instead the ones who do poorly have family, emotional,
>or other problems that just get in the way.
>It sounds like this belief is part of the culture here, which is not good
>at all.
I couldnt agree with you more there Anne -- and that's why I'm so opposed
to affirmative action. It isn't beneficial to the culture in that it
artificially introduces notion by "confirming" it if a suspicion if it
exists. It ends up casting shadow of doubt on those that don't deserve it,
and well... I already went down this path.
Anyway thanks for the lengthy reply Anne -- I really appreciate hearing
your thoughts on this, and it seems like we mostly agree on some things
even though you think my facts are bad (and I sincerely hope they are!) :)
I hope someone can clarify that email I read previously and the whole aff
action thing. As I said, I still stand behind my comments -- I oppose aff
action for precisely these sorts of negative "cultural" reasons.
Tom
