MIT releases post-affirmative action class of 2028 data

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All those people arguing that schools would just cheat based on the essay were wrong. Black students went from 15 percent to 5 percent - a two-thirds drop. I only predicted a third to a half. Looks like MIT at least didn't cheat. It'll be interesting to see the Harvard numbers.

Harvard should have much better numbers. MIT is a tech place which is a very different admission standard

"Better" numbers = "more likely to get sued"

I am guessing Harvard will be more gun shy than you think.

They are reformulating admission criteria to maintain diversity in a constitutionally protected way. Geographic diversity admission preferences and providing a boost for low income and first gen status. Ironically, post-affirmative action legacy admissions will increase racial diversity in comparison to a test score and grades only admission system. Providing legacy preference will enhance the odds that alumni children from URM families (benefiting from previous affirmative action) will be admitted.

[Anonymous]

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.

Just a quick observation from outside the US, grouping all Asians together as a block is nuts.

60 percent of the world’s population lives in Asia including several of the world’s most and least advanced economies… and everything in between.

I totally agree. At the very least, have a separate statistic for Indian/Pakistani. It's confusing when people say Asian when they mean Indian because they Indians and East/Southeast Asians just don't seem the same at all, other than the fact that there are many smart people in both groups. On the other hand, if I hear of someone who's Japanese and someone who's Thai, they're still very different, but I can understand why they'd be grouped together. I think most people understand what I'm saying on a gut level. I mean countries like Turkey, Armenia, Afghanistan and Cyprus are in Asia, but we don't expect them to check the Asian box, do we?

Hilarious. Indians and Pakistanis hate each other. Often they are a different religion. Do you know how many Indian/Pakistan wars there have been?

But sure, lump them together and tell them they belong in the same ‘box’.

Do you know many Indians and Pakistanis? At a personal level we don't hate each other - our food, movies, language is very common. There also more Muslims in India then there are in Pakistan.

The hate is overseas and mostly politically motivated. Bangladesh is Muslim country and the people don't hate each other. Bangladesh was known as East Pakistan and the Bengalis cross the border on-mass everyday.

[Anonymous]

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.

Just a quick observation from outside the US, grouping all Asians together as a block is nuts.

60 percent of the world’s population lives in Asia including several of the world’s most and least advanced economies… and everything in between.

I totally agree. At the very least, have a separate statistic for Indian/Pakistani. It's confusing when people say Asian when they mean Indian because they Indians and East/Southeast Asians just don't seem the same at all, other than the fact that there are many smart people in both groups. On the other hand, if I hear of someone who's Japanese and someone who's Thai, they're still very different, but I can understand why they'd be grouped together. I think most people understand what I'm saying on a gut level. I mean countries like Turkey, Armenia, Afghanistan and Cyprus are in Asia, but we don't expect them to check the Asian box, do we?

The term Asian originated during the Civil Rights movement - instead of: Japanese American, Chinese American, etc. The term Asian American we created to unify these groups, on hind-sight this was a bad name. Anyone got a better name?

[Anonymous]

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.

Just a quick observation from outside the US, grouping all Asians together as a block is nuts.

60 percent of the world’s population lives in Asia including several of the world’s most and least advanced economies… and everything in between.

I totally agree. At the very least, have a separate statistic for Indian/Pakistani. It's confusing when people say Asian when they mean Indian because they Indians and East/Southeast Asians just don't seem the same at all, other than the fact that there are many smart people in both groups. On the other hand, if I hear of someone who's Japanese and someone who's Thai, they're still very different, but I can understand why they'd be grouped together. I think most people understand what I'm saying on a gut level. I mean countries like Turkey, Armenia, Afghanistan and Cyprus are in Asia, but we don't expect them to check the Asian box, do we?

The term Asian originated during the Civil Rights movement - instead of: Japanese American, Chinese American, etc. The term Asian American we created to unify these groups, on hind-sight this was a bad name. Anyone got a better name?

Just go by their skin colors. Eastern Asians should be called white and the current white people should change the name to red as it’s their true skin color
JK

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 50 years of affirmative action has taught the institution that URM students are less qualified.
It will take a while for the institution to unlearn that

Accepted across the board this year with the same AP classes, the same AP scores, the same ACT or SAT scores, the same ECs... and still less qualified?

Please point out how and/or where?

They're not less qualified at all but institutions have memories.
After 50 years of admitting underqualified students based on skin color, there is institutional assumption that many of the URM are underqualified.
This was probably less true at MIT than other places because of the nature of the education there.
But these attitudes will not change overnight, it took 50 years of unearned preferences to develop these attitudes and it will probably take at least 4-10 years for these attitudes to adjust to the new reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 50 years of affirmative action has taught the institution that URM students are less qualified.
It will take a while for the institution to unlearn that

Accepted across the board this year with the same AP classes, the same AP scores, the same ACT or SAT scores, the same ECs... and still less qualified?

Please point out how and/or where?

They're not less qualified at all but institutions have memories.
After 50 years of admitting underqualified students based on skin color, there is institutional assumption that many of the URM are underqualified.
This was probably less true at MIT than other places because of the nature of the education there.
But these attitudes will not change overnight, it took 50 years of unearned preferences to develop these attitudes and it will probably take at least 4-10 years for these attitudes to adjust to the new reality.

This is pure BS spin. Evidence says completely the opposite.

[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?

No, they're going to be respected because people will know they got in on their merits. Funny thing will happen, though. People will start asking what year you're in. They will need to know that in order to form the opinion (i.e. c/o 2028? Respect. c/o 2027? Doubt.) How do I know? I have experience at TJ where Class of 2024 and older gets respect. Anything younger, there's an undercurrent of being less than because the standards were lowered.

No, they're still going to assume they didn't get it on their merits. It's not like you can't just talk about your race in your essay or do the litany of diversity programs for high school students. People are not going to respect these black students.

A lot will depend on the credentials gap between URM and non-URM groups.

Honestly this reduction in URM looks like there is probably not much of a gap left, remember not only did the 5% have much higher average test scores, the 7% increase in asians has a slightly diluted average test scores. The hispanic reduction seems smaller than what I would have expected without racial preferences.

[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?

No, they're going to be respected because people will know they got in on their merits. Funny thing will happen, though. People will start asking what year you're in. They will need to know that in order to form the opinion (i.e. c/o 2028? Respect. c/o 2027? Doubt.) How do I know? I have experience at TJ where Class of 2024 and older gets respect. Anything younger, there's an undercurrent of being less than because the standards were lowered.

I can't imagine being such an idiot that I think about bullshit like this on a regular basis.

Just because you don't comprehend doesn't mean it's incomprehensible.

[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.

This. That poster’s teaching her kid to not want to be around people that look like the kid’s mom or dad made me sad. My kids (and I) are American for several generations. But apparently it doesn’t feel that way to others.

[Anonymous]

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?

No, they're going to be respected because people will know they got in on their merits. Funny thing will happen, though. People will start asking what year you're in. They will need to know that in order to form the opinion (i.e. c/o 2028? Respect. c/o 2027? Doubt.) How do I know? I have experience at TJ where Class of 2024 and older gets respect. Anything younger, there's an undercurrent of being less than because the standards were lowered.

You got these numbers backwards.
This alone makes me wonder if you actually went to TJ.
Not because you made a mistake and Tj students don't make mistakes because they obviously don't all get 1600s, but because if you actually lived this, then you wouldn't easily get confused about the 2028 cohort vs the 2027 cohort.

I think the class of 2028 created doubt because of their performance, not the admmissions standards. If they showed up and matched previous classes on PSAT scores the doubt wouldn't exist.
If that email from the math department discussing the abysmal performance by the students in the spring math 4 class didn't get blasted out to the world, the doubt might not exist.
It was the performance not the admissions process that undermined the class of 2028.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

What the actual f**k?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 50 years of affirmative action has taught the institution that URM students are less qualified.
It will take a while for the institution to unlearn that

Accepted across the board this year with the same AP classes, the same AP scores, the same ACT or SAT scores, the same ECs... and still less qualified?

Please point out how and/or where?

They're not less qualified at all but institutions have memories.
After 50 years of admitting underqualified students based on skin color, there is institutional assumption that many of the URM are underqualified.
This was probably less true at MIT than other places because of the nature of the education there.
But these attitudes will not change overnight, it took 50 years of unearned preferences to develop these attitudes and it will probably take at least 4-10 years for these attitudes to adjust to the new reality.

This is pure BS spin. Evidence says completely the opposite.

What does the evidence say? I don't think you have any evidence. You have opinions.

I mean if you go to a place that is lower tier 2 like Georgetown of Cornell, they have to dig so deep to get URM students that the gap we saw at Harvard is nothing compared to the gap we see at these schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's going to be interesting seeing how things develop if black students fall by two thirds across the board at elite schools, which now seems possible to likely, and as DEI internships dry up at white shoe firms in banking, consulting, law.

This is obviously a boon for HBCUs.

What does black politics look like under those circumstances? Will we see the end of Obama type respectability politicians, with more radical figures stepping in? A new dawn for Afropessimism? What happens if black people have no stake in elite institutions?

They need to step up and force their reps to push for education funding at the lower levels as well as encourage their community to work harder/smarter. I think the first fight for Blacks is colleges mis-representing the "Black" number to include African Americans (kids born to recent African immigrants). Fix that first. Work at least as hard as them and see your numbers go up.

Roland fryer has figured out how to get black kids in harlem to academically outperform the white kids on the upper east side.
It's going to sound like common sense but he has a study that proves that studying more and placing greater value on education leads to better academic results.

I mean, that's a no duh moment, which is why the no HW and dumbing down of education isn't going to really help those kids.

[Anonymous]

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.

Just a quick observation from outside the US, grouping all Asians together as a block is nuts.

60 percent of the world’s population lives in Asia including several of the world’s most and least advanced economies… and everything in between.

I totally agree. At the very least, have a separate statistic for Indian/Pakistani. It's confusing when people say Asian when they mean Indian because they Indians and East/Southeast Asians just don't seem the same at all, other than the fact that there are many smart people in both groups. On the other hand, if I hear of someone who's Japanese and someone who's Thai, they're still very different, but I can understand why they'd be grouped together. I think most people understand what I'm saying on a gut level. I mean countries like Turkey, Armenia, Afghanistan and Cyprus are in Asia, but we don't expect them to check the Asian box, do we?

Hilarious. Indians and Pakistanis hate each other. Often they are a different religion. Do you know how many Indian/Pakistan wars there have been?

But sure, lump them together and tell them they belong in the same ‘box’.

to Americans, they are the same thing. And actually, they used to be pretty much just one country under British colonial rule.

Let's be honest, most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a Pakistani and Indian, or Japanese and Korean (who hate the Japanese), or Irish and English (whom everyone hates - DH is English). That's what colleges and people in general look at .. your skin color and appearance.

[Anonymous]

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.

Just a quick observation from outside the US, grouping all Asians together as a block is nuts.

60 percent of the world’s population lives in Asia including several of the world’s most and least advanced economies… and everything in between.

I totally agree. At the very least, have a separate statistic for Indian/Pakistani. It's confusing when people say Asian when they mean Indian because they Indians and East/Southeast Asians just don't seem the same at all, other than the fact that there are many smart people in both groups. On the other hand, if I hear of someone who's Japanese and someone who's Thai, they're still very different, but I can understand why they'd be grouped together. I think most people understand what I'm saying on a gut level. I mean countries like Turkey, Armenia, Afghanistan and Cyprus are in Asia, but we don't expect them to check the Asian box, do we?

Hilarious. Indians and Pakistanis hate each other. Often they are a different religion. Do you know how many Indian/Pakistan wars there have been?

But sure, lump them together and tell them they belong in the same ‘box’.

Do you know many Indians and Pakistanis? At a personal level we don't hate each other - our food, movies, language is very common. There also more Muslims in India then there are in Pakistan.

The hate is overseas and mostly politically motivated. Bangladesh is Muslim country and the people don't hate each other. Bangladesh was known as East Pakistan and the Bengalis cross the border on-mass everyday.

Over here they tolerate each other, but they are separate friend groups. I think you know that