Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are just too many applying for a limited number of spots within engineering and CS. MIT and CMU are over 40% Asian, as are the engineering and CS departments at many schools. How is that being racist? Do you think they should be 100%?

When people ask questions like this, I always think of RBG being asked how many women would be "enough" on the Supreme Court, and responding "when there are nine." You know, since there were nine *men* forever, and that wasn't seen as a problem.

So, when MIT and CMU were 100% white, was that a problem? Was it racist? Why would 100% Asian be any different?

That's what a virtual bit*hslap looks like!

+1000. Amen.

i don't get it. aren't the answers to those questions: "yes" "yes" and "it wouldn't be?"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are just too many applying for a limited number of spots within engineering and CS. MIT and CMU are over 40% Asian, as are the engineering and CS departments at many schools. How is that being racist? Do you think they should be 100%?

When people ask questions like this, I always think of RBG being asked how many women would be "enough" on the Supreme Court, and responding "when there are nine." You know, since there were nine *men* forever, and that wasn't seen as a problem.

So, when MIT and CMU were 100% white, was that a problem? Was it racist? Why would 100% Asian be any different?

Asians currently make up approximately 5.6% of the US population. Sorry, but not every Asian applicant is more qualified than every white applicant.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are just too many applying for a limited number of spots within engineering and CS. MIT and CMU are over 40% Asian, as are the engineering and CS departments at many schools. How is that being racist? Do you think they should be 100%?

When people ask questions like this, I always think of RBG being asked how many women would be "enough" on the Supreme Court, and responding "when there are nine." You know, since there were nine *men* forever, and that wasn't seen as a problem.

So, when MIT and CMU were 100% white, was that a problem? Was it racist? Why would 100% Asian be any different?

That's what a virtual bit*hslap looks like!

+1000. Amen.

+ 1
Well said.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are just too many applying for a limited number of spots within engineering and CS. MIT and CMU are over 40% Asian, as are the engineering and CS departments at many schools. How is that being racist? Do you think they should be 100%?

When people ask questions like this, I always think of RBG being asked how many women would be "enough" on the Supreme Court, and responding "when there are nine." You know, since there were nine *men* forever, and that wasn't seen as a problem.

So, when MIT and CMU were 100% white, was that a problem? Was it racist? Why would 100% Asian be any different?

It was. And, also not in the interest of education. No need to repeat.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are just too many applying for a limited number of spots within engineering and CS. MIT and CMU are over 40% Asian, as are the engineering and CS departments at many schools. How is that being racist? Do you think they should be 100%?

When people ask questions like this, I always think of RBG being asked how many women would be "enough" on the Supreme Court, and responding "when there are nine." You know, since there were nine *men* forever, and that wasn't seen as a problem.

So, when MIT and CMU were 100% white, was that a problem? Was it racist? Why would 100% Asian be any different?

That's what a virtual bit*hslap looks like!

+1000. Amen.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are just too many applying for a limited number of spots within engineering and CS. MIT and CMU are over 40% Asian, as are the engineering and CS departments at many schools. How is that being racist? Do you think they should be 100%?

When people ask questions like this, I always think of RBG being asked how many women would be "enough" on the Supreme Court, and responding "when there are nine." You know, since there were nine *men* forever, and that wasn't seen as a problem.

So, when MIT and CMU were 100% white, was that a problem? Was it racist? Why would 100% Asian be any different?

That's what a virtual bit*hslap looks like!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should take each applicant based on individual merit - anything else including a 40% versus 100% criterion is indeed racist.

Merit is hard to measure and any particular metric is easy to "game." Elite schools get to decide the community they want as long as they don't discriminate unfairly. They (rightly in my opinion) decide that SATs and GPAs aren't the only thing that matter. Social skills, self-awareness, leadership, creativity, and a myriad of other qualities are part of merit and contribute to the purpose of a school--educated citizenry and workforce. Diversity of experience and backgrounds improves the community.

There are other schools in the world that focus exclusively on scores. They don't have the reputation of the US schools. If they are truly more meritocratic though, time will tell and they will surpass HYSPM etc.

I don't buy the argument in the last paragraph. HYSPM is what it is because of where it is, America, the richest and most powerful country in the world. Period.

Every country has its "model" for merit and it becomes part of the culture. Colleges need to suck up to their constituents to maintain their "non-profit" status and continue to get money from their donors. They do this by trying to please everyone. The highest paid employee is typically the football coach.. in an institution of HIGHER EDUCATION! That should tell you all there is to know.

And?

It's Monday.

Anonymous wrote:There are just too many applying for a limited number of spots within engineering and CS. MIT and CMU are over 40% Asian, as are the engineering and CS departments at many schools. How is that being racist? Do you think they should be 100%?

When people ask questions like this, I always think of RBG being asked how many women would be "enough" on the Supreme Court, and responding "when there are nine." You know, since there were nine *men* forever, and that wasn't seen as a problem.

So, when MIT and CMU were 100% white, was that a problem? Was it racist? Why would 100% Asian be any different?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should take each applicant based on individual merit - anything else including a 40% versus 100% criterion is indeed racist.

Merit is hard to measure and any particular metric is easy to "game." Elite schools get to decide the community they want as long as they don't discriminate unfairly. They (rightly in my opinion) decide that SATs and GPAs aren't the only thing that matter. Social skills, self-awareness, leadership, creativity, and a myriad of other qualities are part of merit and contribute to the purpose of a school--educated citizenry and workforce. Diversity of experience and backgrounds improves the community.

There are other schools in the world that focus exclusively on scores. They don't have the reputation of the US schools. If they are truly more meritocratic though, time will tell and they will surpass HYSPM etc.

I don't buy the argument in the last paragraph. HYSPM is what it is because of where it is, America, the richest and most powerful country in the world. Period.

Every country has its "model" for merit and it becomes part of the culture. Colleges need to suck up to their constituents to maintain their "non-profit" status and continue to get money from their donors. They do this by trying to please everyone. The highest paid employee is typically the football coach.. in an institution of HIGHER EDUCATION! That should tell you all there is to know.

And?

Anonymous wrote:They should take each applicant based on individual merit - anything else including a 40% versus 100% criterion is indeed racist.

It depends on how you define individual merit. Some people only define it as test scores and GPA. Others, like many elite colleges also include extracurriculars, personality, etc. It's sad that people build their kid's entire life based on the false assumption that grades and test scores alone will guarantee success. Maybe the Kumon's and other test and educational prep centers should stress these factors. I guess they're just selling a "dream" to those who can afford it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should take each applicant based on individual merit - anything else including a 40% versus 100% criterion is indeed racist.

Merit is hard to measure and any particular metric is easy to "game." Elite schools get to decide the community they want as long as they don't discriminate unfairly. They (rightly in my opinion) decide that SATs and GPAs aren't the only thing that matter. Social skills, self-awareness, leadership, creativity, and a myriad of other qualities are part of merit and contribute to the purpose of a school--educated citizenry and workforce. Diversity of experience and backgrounds improves the community.

There are other schools in the world that focus exclusively on scores. They don't have the reputation of the US schools. If they are truly more meritocratic though, time will tell and they will surpass HYSPM etc.

I don't buy the argument in the last paragraph. HYSPM is what it is because of where it is, America, the richest and most powerful country in the world. Period.

Every country has its "model" for merit and it becomes part of the culture. Colleges need to suck up to their constituents to maintain their "non-profit" status and continue to get money from their donors. They do this by trying to please everyone. The highest paid employee is typically the football coach.. in an institution of HIGHER EDUCATION! That should tell you all there is to know.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should take each applicant based on individual merit - anything else including a 40% versus 100% criterion is indeed racist.

Merit is hard to measure and any particular metric is easy to "game." Elite schools get to decide the community they want as long as they don't discriminate unfairly. They (rightly in my opinion) decide that SATs and GPAs aren't the only thing that matter. Social skills, self-awareness, leadership, creativity, and a myriad of other qualities are part of merit and contribute to the purpose of a school--educated citizenry and workforce. Diversity of experience and backgrounds improves the community.

There are other schools in the world that focus exclusively on scores. They don't have the reputation of the US schools. If they are truly more meritocratic though, time will tell and they will surpass HYSPM etc.

This is wrong. Discrimination in college admissions is perfectly legal. It's called "holistic" admissions. Show me a federal court case that has ruled otherwise.

I said "Discriminate unfairly" -- discrimination is a difficult to assess concept that different courts have interpreted differently--but by "unfair" I meant things that went outside the law.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should take each applicant based on individual merit - anything else including a 40% versus 100% criterion is indeed racist.

Merit is hard to measure and any particular metric is easy to "game." Elite schools get to decide the community they want as long as they don't discriminate unfairly. They (rightly in my opinion) decide that SATs and GPAs aren't the only thing that matter. Social skills, self-awareness, leadership, creativity, and a myriad of other qualities are part of merit and contribute to the purpose of a school--educated citizenry and workforce. Diversity of experience and backgrounds improves the community.

There are other schools in the world that focus exclusively on scores. They don't have the reputation of the US schools. If they are truly more meritocratic though, time will tell and they will surpass HYSPM etc.

This is wrong. Discrimination in college admissions is perfectly legal. It's called "holistic" admissions. Show me a federal court case that has ruled otherwise.

Anonymous wrote:They should take each applicant based on individual merit - anything else including a 40% versus 100% criterion is indeed racist.

Merit is hard to measure and any particular metric is easy to "game." Elite schools get to decide the community they want as long as they don't discriminate unfairly. They (rightly in my opinion) decide that SATs and GPAs aren't the only thing that matter. Social skills, self-awareness, leadership, creativity, and a myriad of other qualities are part of merit and contribute to the purpose of a school--educated citizenry and workforce. Diversity of experience and backgrounds improves the community.

There are other schools in the world that focus exclusively on scores. They don't have the reputation of the US schools. If they are truly more meritocratic though, time will tell and they will surpass HYSPM etc.

Anonymous wrote:They should take each applicant based on individual merit - anything else including a 40% versus 100% criterion is indeed racist.

a) define "merit"
b) since when is race an illegal factor in college admissions?