MIT releases post-affirmative action class of 2028 data

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are the URM students accepted by MIT this year still going to be treated like they don't deserve to be there?

Sentiment won't change overnight.
They need to earn it over time..
Revisit in 10 years.

Why the F would they have to "earn" it??? The whole premise of this discussion is that no affirmative action has been applied.

Because these racists can’t imagine that there are extremely talented URM kids.

You again? No, that isn’t it at all! It’s that SOME minorities do get in with far lower stats. Some get in with high stats. I know this is true…you only think the latter is true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are the URM students accepted by MIT this year still going to be treated like they don't deserve to be there?

Sentiment won't change overnight.
They need to earn it over time..
Revisit in 10 years.

Why the F would they have to "earn" it??? The whole premise of this discussion is that no affirmative action has been applied.

Pay no mind to the PP, they're literally just racist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it is not fair to remove programs at MIT that help disadvantaged URMs. Affirmative action for women at MIT has a much bigger effect than affirmative action for URMs ever did. Nobody criticizes that because it benefits wealthy people.

How does affirmative action at MIT help women?
Have you ever been to MIT. The women are all asian and they are no wealthier than the average MIT satudent. The only group where the man don't outnumber the women... by a LOT... is the asians. Those asian women tend to be as smart as anyone else there.

They were still much less likely to get in for many many years before mit made it easier for women to get in. Women representation is also pretty important for sciences.

So you think that having women in science is important but having URMs is not?

And also, what about equity in science for LGTBQIA+ students / future scientists?

What about short people and fat people? Shouldn't they get a leg up as well since they have disadvantages in life as well?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it is not fair to remove programs at MIT that help disadvantaged URMs. Affirmative action for women at MIT has a much bigger effect than affirmative action for URMs ever did. Nobody criticizes that because it benefits wealthy people.

How does affirmative action at MIT help women?
Have you ever been to MIT. The women are all asian and they are no wealthier than the average MIT satudent. The only group where the man don't outnumber the women... by a LOT... is the asians. Those asian women tend to be as smart as anyone else there.

The MIT acceptance rate for women is almost double that for men. Is the female applicant pool that much better than the male applicant pool?

It’s probably somewhat stronger. Young men tend to be cocksure.

Yup! Female here who went to MIT in the 2000s. There's research suggesting that women are less likely to apply for jobs unless they believe they are 100% qualified, whereas men only feel they need to be mostly qualified (https://hbr.org/2014/08/why-women-dont-apply-for-jobs-unless-theyre-100-qualified). I saw the same sort of cocksure attitude at MIT. Quite a lot of male students take harder workloads or harder classes a lot of times than they could handle (and then brag about it). Also the type of women who apply to MIT are definitely different from most other girls, so there's definitely a lot of selecting out of the applicant pool. Maybe it's changed, but trust me, we were different. The ones that do apply and get in, usually end up going there. I'm not sure that's the case for male students, but I haven't seen the percentage yield numbers.

For what it's worth, I saw nothing that led me to believe that the women weren't just as qualified as the men. In fact, often times, they were better students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it is not fair to remove programs at MIT that help disadvantaged URMs. Affirmative action for women at MIT has a much bigger effect than affirmative action for URMs ever did. Nobody criticizes that because it benefits wealthy people.

How does affirmative action at MIT help women?
Have you ever been to MIT. The women are all asian and they are no wealthier than the average MIT satudent. The only group where the man don't outnumber the women... by a LOT... is the asians. Those asian women tend to be as smart as anyone else there.

The MIT acceptance rate for women is almost double that for men. Is the female applicant pool that much better than the male applicant pool?

I wonder what people think about Brown's acceptance rate for men being about 1.6x higher than their acceptance rate for women.

Some people are upset about it.

But most people think Brown and MIT trying to balance the gender ratio is a good idea. They see the value. But why do people not see the value in having more racial diversity?

Because even nerds don't want to go to a sausage fest for a school. Lots of folks--especially MIT guys--meet their spouse at their school (like my husband and I).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it is not fair to remove programs at MIT that help disadvantaged URMs. Affirmative action for women at MIT has a much bigger effect than affirmative action for URMs ever did. Nobody criticizes that because it benefits wealthy people.

I really hope they stay committed to it. People here don't care about diversity since they are majority white and wealthy, but I think scientific excellence in the black and hispanic community is important to not just the black/hispanic community in terms of representation but can have a tangible benefit to those communities.

Lots of people criticize gender discrimination... .It's not that difficult to get into MIT for women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Several posters already seem to be uncomfortable with how Asian elite schools are getting and it's still early in the process. Will we see "white flight" out of the ivies?

They will claim white flight. But we all know the real reason is they’re not competitive, which is why they’re so increasingly racist.

?
What a hateful remark. Please check in with yourself before you post.
Hate has no home on DCUM.

There is a very real sentiment among some white people that they are being crowded out of their birthright by asians.

your comment is very hateful as well. how are you making this assumptions?

It's not hateful just because you hate it.
White people felt that way about Jews outperforming them and they hated them for it, and now they feel that way about asians and they hate asians for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Several posters already seem to be uncomfortable with how Asian elite schools are getting and it's still early in the process. Will we see "white flight" out of the ivies?

They will claim white flight. But we all know the real reason is they’re not competitive, which is why they’re so increasingly racist.

?
What a hateful remark. Please check in with yourself before you post.
Hate has no home on DCUM.

There is a very real sentiment among some white people that they are being crowded out of their birthright by asians.

I thought that was the sentiment from other groups. “We’ve played the game exactly right give us what we deserve.”

Which groups? Let's be more precise and not so mealymouthed. Say what you mean.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it is not fair to remove programs at MIT that help disadvantaged URMs. Affirmative action for women at MIT has a much bigger effect than affirmative action for URMs ever did. Nobody criticizes that because it benefits wealthy people.

How does affirmative action at MIT help women?
Have you ever been to MIT. The women are all asian and they are no wealthier than the average MIT satudent. The only group where the man don't outnumber the women... by a LOT... is the asians. Those asian women tend to be as smart as anyone else there.

The MIT acceptance rate for women is almost double that for men. Is the female applicant pool that much better than the male applicant pool?

I wonder what people think about Brown's acceptance rate for men being about 1.6x higher than their acceptance rate for women.

Men get affirmative action at most liberal arts colleges/undergraduate-focused institutions. It has to do with colleges trying to maintain 50/50

Nope. Those schools have way more qualified applicants than spots. The men they choose are qualified regardless of their often being many more female applicants than male.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it is not fair to remove programs at MIT that help disadvantaged URMs. Affirmative action for women at MIT has a much bigger effect than affirmative action for URMs ever did. Nobody criticizes that because it benefits wealthy people.

How does affirmative action at MIT help women?
Have you ever been to MIT. The women are all asian and they are no wealthier than the average MIT satudent. The only group where the man don't outnumber the women... by a LOT... is the asians. Those asian women tend to be as smart as anyone else there.

The MIT acceptance rate for women is almost double that for men. Is the female applicant pool that much better than the male applicant pool?

I wonder what people think about Brown's acceptance rate for men being about 1.6x higher than their acceptance rate for women.

Some people are upset about it.

But most people think Brown and MIT trying to balance the gender ratio is a good idea. They see the value. But why do people not see the value in having more racial diversity?

Being around women has value to male students, being around diversity has zero or negative value.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As expected. But a little surprised by the decline in Latino students. There are a gazillion students with at least a grandparent from Latin America. Lots of Brazilian, Argentinian, Chilean families value education.

Only 2% of Latino students score over 700 in math SAT, so you simply should not expect to see a lot of them at MIT.

If you're going by over 700 SAT math, MIT should be about
47% Asian
43% White
3% Black
7% Hispanic

Actual class of 2027 is not too far off from that
47% Asian
37% White
5% Black
11% Hispanic

Now do 790 SAT.

If MIT just tracked SAT math scores, it would be even more Asian.

At MIT, 25% percentile for SAT math is 790 and 75% percentile is 800.

For 800 math scores, here is the national breakdown by race:

Asian 3%
White <1%
Mixed race <1%
Native American <1%
Black <1%
Hispanic <1%
Pacific Islander <1%

For 750+ math scores, here is the national breakdown by race:

Asian 22%
White 4%
Mixed race 4%
Native American 1%
Black <1%
Hispanic 1%
Pacific Islander 1%

no one wants to learn or create or live in a bubble of people selected based on SAT math scores.

Except for really rigorous environments like the folks developing fusion energy or the algorithmic trading hedge funds or anywhere competence actually matters.

I don't hear of any hedge funds or fusion energy researchers complaining that they absolutely can't hire anyone so they just have to close up shop. So, what's the problem?

Of course they can and they choose to hire based on competency without regard to skin color.
They don't give a fux if they end up with a bubble full of people with perfect sat scores.
They can't afford to hire people based on skin color just so they can look like a benetton ad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So no gain in white seats. All the seats previously occupied by URM went to Asians.

This follows what we are seeing on tours. We toured a dozen top20 schools this summer and the tour groups were 75-95% Asian and South Asian.

My kid (mixed race Asian) was completely turned off and we're left wondering what to do. She wants diversity in college.

You mean she wants White majority in college.

An uncomfortable fact is that affirmative action was partially motivated by suppressing Asian admits to keep white donor families comfortable. Once these schools hit 45% Asian, their social clout with affluent whites will evaporate.

That is the purpose. Anyone whose been to Berkeley has seen how exclusive majority Asian environments can be.

Is it bad? How is it compared to a majority white campus?

NP. I suspect it can feel uncomfortable to many people, especially those that are not from heavily Asian states. The US is about 7% Asian, so touring a school that is majority Asian looks and feels different than anything many people are used to seeing.

Some white kids feeling uncomfortable being a minority? Honestly if you are going to be at the highest levels of anything, you are going to have to get used to being around people that are not like you. Whether they are white people from different cultures, people of different races, genders, religions, etc. Something like 60% of the world is asian, you are going to be around asians a lot. None of these top schools have more asians than whites except UCLA and Berkeley. It will be years before any of them are predominantly asian. But I agree the discomfort white people feel is pretty clear on this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So no gain in white seats. All the seats previously occupied by URM went to Asians.

This follows what we are seeing on tours. We toured a dozen top20 schools this summer and the tour groups were 75-95% Asian and South Asian.

Are you stupid? Race is all made up. That’s why some of are colors (white, black) some are geographic locations (Asia, Pacific Islander) and some attempt to find commonality in…Spanish colonization? (Hispanic).

My kid (mixed race Asian) was completely turned off and we're left wondering what to do. She wants diversity in college.

Turned off? Did she pretend she could get in? Why don’t you encourage her to apply to Howard University? She can get her diversity experience there.

I’m pretty sure this poster is white…black people aren’t the only ones uncomfortable with a majority Asian environment

This is really racist. If you substitute any other race for Asian in "uncomfortable with a majority Asian environment" you'd be branded a racist but somehow you think it's okay to say this.

You seem obsessed with being a victim. If the ivies were majority black or Hispanic, people would be in a goddamn frenzy. Asians aren’t the first race to have racism happen to them, but it’s also just truthful that single race environments quickly become exclusive.

Asian is not a race. Asia is a continent made up of many countries with people who are vastly different from each other.

Sigh.

Asian is a race. All races are incredibly diverse and "vastly different from each other."
What kind of person denies this reality?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So no gain in white seats. All the seats previously occupied by URM went to Asians.

This follows what we are seeing on tours. We toured a dozen top20 schools this summer and the tour groups were 75-95% Asian and South Asian.

My kid (mixed race Asian) was completely turned off and we're left wondering what to do. She wants diversity in college.

You mean she wants White majority in college.

An uncomfortable fact is that affirmative action was partially motivated by suppressing Asian admits to keep white donor families comfortable. Once these schools hit 45% Asian, their social clout with affluent whites will evaporate.

That is the purpose. Anyone whose been to Berkeley has seen how exclusive majority Asian environments can be.

Is it bad? How is it compared to a majority white campus?

NP. I suspect it can feel uncomfortable to many people, especially those that are not from heavily Asian states. The US is about 7% Asian, so touring a school that is majority Asian looks and feels different than anything many people are used to seeing.

What really gets me is that the PP's kid is half-asian, and yet her kid is put off by seeing a lot of ethnically asian kids. Now most of those asian kids that are so off-putting to her, like mine, are no culturally different from her kid or a caucasian kid. It makes sad to think that no matter how many generations our family has been here, and no matter how much we have contributed to our communities, it is still skin color that matters the most to many people.

Liberals are teaching their kids to be racist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:in 10-20 years most of these institutions will be led by Asian Americans

No, they will be led by Indian Americans. Look at the Silicon Valley.

First of all, Indians are Asians. Second, who are the current leaders of Nvidia, Broadcom and AMD?

Indian American here. I’m not Asian. Sorry. You don’t make the rules for us all.

What? Also an Indian American, and we're definitely Asian; I don't think I've ever heard anyone with ancestry in Asia (whether that be East, Southeast, or South Asian) ever dispute that.

Well, now you have.