By Ayn Honymous Rivers of ink have been spilled analyzing the recent Supreme Court ruling ending overt race-based affirmative action for college admissions. It begs the question; will this precedent also apply to overt gender discrimination? The Massachusetts Institute of Technology offers a potentially interesting case. MIT prides itself on having gender-balanced its entering freshman classes for at least the past two decades. How could anyone have a problem with that? And yet, a recent mean-spirited Tweet by Jordan Peterson points to an interesting issue:
"Not only do female MIT applicants have more than double the acceptance rate compared to males, but the mathematical consistency over the years suggests the clear use of a gender quota system."
The SAT graphs would seal the conclusion, but that quote really is sufficient. Says it all.
“ We do not admit students who are not prepared to attend MIT. Period. No one benefits. Not MIT, when the student fails out. Not the student, when they could have succeeded somewhere else. Everybody loses. And I hate to lose.”
🙄🤣🤣 How disingenuous. 🤡🤨
MIT benefits from every goddamn dollar it takes in, especially from drop outs who obviously no longer use resources that have already been paid for. 🤦♂️But what do I know, I’m a high school dropout with a GED😘😇
Okay, I'm pretty mixed on this. I'll try to explain.
First off, this is an obvious preferential policy. It's actually worse than that, though, because the original idea behind preferential policies was that if we put our thumb on the scale "for a time", the policy would eventually no longer be necessary because the gap would close, and then stay closed without the need for continued manipulation.
That's clearly not the case here. They've apparently been doing it for fifty years, but the table only covers the past two decades so we can only talk about that. But in those twenty years the gap hasn't really closed at all, so that in the 2021 they've needed to put just as much of a thumb on the scale as they did back in 2000. So, as always, there doesn't seem to be any end point in sight.
So that's bad...
...on the other hand, we must always ask ourselves, "compared to what?" Is this bad compared to the sorts of preferential policies that have been going on in the ivy league for decades? Probably not. Honestly, if all the other top schools had the same General Institute Requirements as MIT, I think it would be a massive blow to "Studies" departments all across the country, and while there might still be discrimination going on, I don't think one could seriously argue that our current situation would be worse than it is right now. So yeah, MIT is discriminating against men, but at least they still have a tool to weed out students who are truly unprepared. AND they reinstated the SAT.
For those reasons I find it hard to pick on MIT. If everyone was "discriminating" in the way MIT was, that would be better than what most top schools are actually doing.
As for the Peterson tweet, he's generally right but it wouldn't apply to this case. MIT is definitely socially engineering a specific outcome, but they're not doing it in a way that will cause the bridges to collapse. (Note that Peterson DIDN'T apply it specifically to MIT, but this author did)
There is a shortage of women capable of STEM math at a high level. The top universities have to compete for this small pool. The yield from this pool is necessarily low, thus MIT has to admit them at double the rate, to fulfill their (secret) quota of women.
The other effect of this is that after MIT scoops up the few women capable of the STEM disciplines, it's slim pickings for downstream universities, like the UC, etc. And they end up designing pedestrian overpasses in Florida.
When I went to MIT, the gender ratios were lopsided. The bus to Wellesley was called the f-ck truck. The social structure was broken. The goal of admissions shouldn't be to pick out "the best," whatever that means, but to make MIT into a healthy environment. If you pick 10,000 people who are qualified to go by picking the top 20% of applicants, and make decisions within that pool to get an interesting mix of people, you'll get a much better Institute than if you try to pick the top 2% of applicants.
The class should have interesting people, quirky people, and diverse people, in all the ways diversity can be measured:
- Political left, right, and even more so, oddball corners (libertarians, communists, anarchists, etc.).
- All regions and cultures of the world
- Different disciplines, hobbies, and interests
It'd just be a very, very boring place if all it had were valedictorians with 1600 SATs. The problem with "best," as measured on tests, is it doesn't pick for things which matter like creativity or social dynamic.
The SCOTUS decision doesn't prevent all affirmative action. It prevents a very specific type: Looking just based on surface characteristics like skin color. The logic is very clear: Why should an African American student who grew up in a white community in white culture have a leg up on their white neighbor? They don't contribute much to (meaningful) diversity, in the way an African American student from an African American community might. Why is a Chinese student and an Iranian one the same? I don't think the same logic applies to gender, and even within race, a slightly modified affirmative action which does look at deeper diversity would pass SCOTUS scrutiny (and be much more effective).
MIT Grad here.... long ago. I'd ike to believe by now I've picked much more life wisdom than I ever did at MIT.
The root problem here is that there there are more qualified applicants than room for them. Somebody is left out and sad.
Should the final class...
1) have diversity in proportion to the applicant pool?
2) have diversity in proportion to world (or US) populations?
3) have diversity in proportion to the engineering community?
4) have diversity in proportion to some social engineering goal, like encouraging more "xxx" (pick your favorite under represented minority in engineering) ?
Bottom line: Not everyone will be happy with the admissions strategy.
This is actually a metaphor for life. Just because you weren't accepted at MIT doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't have a happy fulfilling successful life.
SOOO if you still feel damaged because you didn't get in.... let me state the obvious.... that I've met amazing engineers from many schools. Get over the MIT envy and stop blaming that for your low self esteem. The sooner you put it in the rear view mirror the sooner you'll realize are just as good as any MIT grad and you will be just fine!
Does MIT accept self-identification of gender? If so, sounds like there is a 2.2 times better chance of being admitted for those who avail themselves of that route.
"Not only do female MIT applicants have more than double the acceptance rate compared to males, but the mathematical consistency over the years suggests the clear use of a gender quota system."
The SAT graphs would seal the conclusion, but that quote really is sufficient. Says it all.
“ We do not admit students who are not prepared to attend MIT. Period. No one benefits. Not MIT, when the student fails out. Not the student, when they could have succeeded somewhere else. Everybody loses. And I hate to lose.”
🙄🤣🤣 How disingenuous. 🤡🤨
MIT benefits from every goddamn dollar it takes in, especially from drop outs who obviously no longer use resources that have already been paid for. 🤦♂️But what do I know, I’m a high school dropout with a GED😘😇
"We are all equal and identical in ever way, comrade. Some of us are more equal and identical than others, though."
Okay, I'm pretty mixed on this. I'll try to explain.
First off, this is an obvious preferential policy. It's actually worse than that, though, because the original idea behind preferential policies was that if we put our thumb on the scale "for a time", the policy would eventually no longer be necessary because the gap would close, and then stay closed without the need for continued manipulation.
That's clearly not the case here. They've apparently been doing it for fifty years, but the table only covers the past two decades so we can only talk about that. But in those twenty years the gap hasn't really closed at all, so that in the 2021 they've needed to put just as much of a thumb on the scale as they did back in 2000. So, as always, there doesn't seem to be any end point in sight.
So that's bad...
...on the other hand, we must always ask ourselves, "compared to what?" Is this bad compared to the sorts of preferential policies that have been going on in the ivy league for decades? Probably not. Honestly, if all the other top schools had the same General Institute Requirements as MIT, I think it would be a massive blow to "Studies" departments all across the country, and while there might still be discrimination going on, I don't think one could seriously argue that our current situation would be worse than it is right now. So yeah, MIT is discriminating against men, but at least they still have a tool to weed out students who are truly unprepared. AND they reinstated the SAT.
For those reasons I find it hard to pick on MIT. If everyone was "discriminating" in the way MIT was, that would be better than what most top schools are actually doing.
As for the Peterson tweet, he's generally right but it wouldn't apply to this case. MIT is definitely socially engineering a specific outcome, but they're not doing it in a way that will cause the bridges to collapse. (Note that Peterson DIDN'T apply it specifically to MIT, but this author did)
There is a shortage of women capable of STEM math at a high level. The top universities have to compete for this small pool. The yield from this pool is necessarily low, thus MIT has to admit them at double the rate, to fulfill their (secret) quota of women.
The other effect of this is that after MIT scoops up the few women capable of the STEM disciplines, it's slim pickings for downstream universities, like the UC, etc. And they end up designing pedestrian overpasses in Florida.
Does anyone know if there is a longitudinal study on MIT graduate career outcomes?
It's ironic that this person wants to remain anonymous so no one can be mean to her, and yet she opens her essay by insulting Jordan Peterson.
When Stalin was put in charge of USSR’s HR, a 30 year tyranny followed.
When I went to MIT, the gender ratios were lopsided. The bus to Wellesley was called the f-ck truck. The social structure was broken. The goal of admissions shouldn't be to pick out "the best," whatever that means, but to make MIT into a healthy environment. If you pick 10,000 people who are qualified to go by picking the top 20% of applicants, and make decisions within that pool to get an interesting mix of people, you'll get a much better Institute than if you try to pick the top 2% of applicants.
The class should have interesting people, quirky people, and diverse people, in all the ways diversity can be measured:
- Political left, right, and even more so, oddball corners (libertarians, communists, anarchists, etc.).
- All regions and cultures of the world
- Different disciplines, hobbies, and interests
It'd just be a very, very boring place if all it had were valedictorians with 1600 SATs. The problem with "best," as measured on tests, is it doesn't pick for things which matter like creativity or social dynamic.
The SCOTUS decision doesn't prevent all affirmative action. It prevents a very specific type: Looking just based on surface characteristics like skin color. The logic is very clear: Why should an African American student who grew up in a white community in white culture have a leg up on their white neighbor? They don't contribute much to (meaningful) diversity, in the way an African American student from an African American community might. Why is a Chinese student and an Iranian one the same? I don't think the same logic applies to gender, and even within race, a slightly modified affirmative action which does look at deeper diversity would pass SCOTUS scrutiny (and be much more effective).
MIT Grad here.... long ago. I'd ike to believe by now I've picked much more life wisdom than I ever did at MIT.
The root problem here is that there there are more qualified applicants than room for them. Somebody is left out and sad.
Should the final class...
1) have diversity in proportion to the applicant pool?
2) have diversity in proportion to world (or US) populations?
3) have diversity in proportion to the engineering community?
4) have diversity in proportion to some social engineering goal, like encouraging more "xxx" (pick your favorite under represented minority in engineering) ?
Bottom line: Not everyone will be happy with the admissions strategy.
This is actually a metaphor for life. Just because you weren't accepted at MIT doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't have a happy fulfilling successful life.
SOOO if you still feel damaged because you didn't get in.... let me state the obvious.... that I've met amazing engineers from many schools. Get over the MIT envy and stop blaming that for your low self esteem. The sooner you put it in the rear view mirror the sooner you'll realize are just as good as any MIT grad and you will be just fine!
Does MIT accept self-identification of gender? If so, sounds like there is a 2.2 times better chance of being admitted for those who avail themselves of that route.