[496] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Re: Take the Anti-AA Challenge!!!
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher M Cornell)
Thu May 3 14:13:19 2001
Message-Id: <200105031811.OAA00692@mushu.mit.edu>
To: Phife <aca3@MIT.EDU>, mit-talk@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 03 May 2001 13:15:25 EDT."
<200105031715.NAA15244@oedipus.mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 14:11:38 -0400
From: Christopher M Cornell <cornellc@MIT.EDU>
Legacies are very obviously wrong, and IMO, absolutely no different than
AA when applied to MIT admittance.
As far as your "I want to be cool, so I'll talk shit so I can use cool catch
phrases like 'put up or shut up in all caps' as if I were a 12 year old who
just learned how to use AOL" act, I indeed have already talked to about half a
dozen "insiders", who have assured me that the way race is factored into
MIT admissions makes it unreasonable to suggest that someone with lesser
qualifications (and certainly "worthy" qualifications) but more unique racial
demographics would be admitted.
Now that I have addressed my (and everyone else in my position) status at MIT,
why don't you tell about your obvious hypocrisy, that is why an race-blind
need-blind other-not-relevant-issues-blind admissions should not be adopted.
Something like the following could be done: students can be assigned to their
applications by their SSN, or if that's somehow objectionable, some unique,
unrevealing ID provided by third party college-related firm. Race and
nationality specific clubs would be given some universal identifier
(I was the president of one of my highschools special interest groups, which
had n members, etc)
The main two road blocks that I can discern would be the interview, and the
the essay, since its certainly reasonable for someone to want to write that
requires discussion of one's own race or nationality. But these are all ideas
I've thought of in the last hour, surely ones so intent on fairness and
equality could think of something if they put their minds to it.
Further minor topics I remember reading:
Job Networking vs AA
====================
Someone wrote something along the lines of "people get jobs through
contacts all the time, yatta yatta". Usually, or at least, all the cases that
I know of, involve using networking to "get your foot in the door". Meaning,
that through personal contacts or old employment, you now are given the
opportunity to apply for a job that you might not have otherwise known about.
This does not, it would seem in most cases, suggest that you were HIRED because
of your contact. It seems generally assumed that someone can get your resume
to the right place at the right time, but you were still selected amongst
contending applicants, who had their own way of getting their application in
the door.
*This* is completely different from the topic at hand. Anyone has the
capability to apply to MIT. If this is not the case, and somehow minority
students are blocked from applying to higher level education, then I certainly
would call for and support programs that would assist minorities in revealing
their full options to them, including which schools, financial aid, etc.
However, I still do not see the justification for *anything* not related to
activities, personality/character, and academics should carry weight in
admissions.
Unequal opportunities in minority youth, etc
============================================
As far as the "unequal opportunity growing up, etc" argument, that's
complete nonsense. My mother's family (I hate having to use myself or my
family as examples, but they are the only ones that I can speak of with
truth and experience), for the most part are very obviously
hispanic on appearance, and some of them still carry slight accents. ALL
7 children, ages 5-14, knew english "well enough" but carried an obvious
accent. They all graduated American Public Highschools back in the 70's when
anyone could and did publically harrass and degrade immigrants and minorities.
Most of them went to and graduated from college (I doubt the ones who did not
do so would say it had anything to do with being from Columbia). ALL of them
have been very successful. They openly admit going through hardships, and
those were much more prominent and immediate than those that have been thrown
around in this conversation, and also they will openly admit that it did not
stop them from doing what they had to do, which was get themselves through
school and work hard to get what they wanted, and indeed deserved.
And so now you stand before people like them and say that they could
go through highschool with ridicule and mockery, work their asses off to pay
for their college education, and convince late 70's/early 80's employers that
they will add value to their company... all the while struggling with cultural,
social, and language barriers, but others can't do that because some colleges
have 5% minority faculty instead of 10%? Please.
