[362] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Re: big rant thing ;P
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Aisha D Stroman)
Mon Apr 30 21:59:11 2001
Message-Id: <200105010158.VAA12847@w20-575-82.mit.edu>
To: Thomas G Cadwell <tcadwell@MIT.EDU>
cc: anneh@MIT.EDU, mit-talk@MIT.EDU, spa-discuss@MIT.EDU, adstrom@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 30 Apr 2001 21:32:53 EDT."
<200105010132.VAA02899@home-on-the-dome.mit.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 21:58:46 -0400
From: Aisha D Stroman <adstrom@MIT.EDU>
The Institute policy on affirmative action is that
ALL *QUALIFIED* UNDER-REPRESENTED MINORITY STUDENTS ARE ADMITTED.
That's it. No underqualified students, period, are admitted to MIT. However,
there are some qualified non-under-represented minority students who are not
admitted.
Aisha Stroman
>> >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
>>
>>
>>
Aisha Stroman
MIT
Computer Science and Engineering
------------------------------------
It's not our responsibility to prove to people who we are.
Our job and responsibility is to "be."
What you do is proof of who you are; manifestation is realization.
People have a right to think whatever they choose to think.
Just because they think it does not make it right.
--Iyanla Vanzant
