This is the best technical university in the world offering the best technical education in history. It's where the smartest minds learn foundational knowledge that will enable them to make amazing technological contributions to mankind.
Not everything needs to be a battleground for the boring diversity of skin color. It's actually important that we get the most qualified people in these seats.
No, not here. 100% of MIT admissions should go to pupils who are the most capable of succeeding and who are already the best prepared to succeed before they arrive. Utopia aside, as a society we require elite science and engineering ability. If we don't have it we lose out to another society that doesn't do this incessant navel gazing, simple as that. To whatever extent "starting point" is a problem it should be remediated entirely upstream from admission into the world's most prestigious technical university.
If someone has "elite science and engineering" ability and came from a background where they were raised by a family with a household wealth of $5, and someone has a slightly more "elite science and engineering" ability and was raised by a family with a household wealth of $1,000,000, I am not confident that long term the second person will be the greater innovator.
I agree with you completely, and a lot of talent surely goes to waste. I'm not sure what difference you think that makes. If the kid from the poor family isn't well prepared by the time he gets to MIT on day one, all of the natural talent in the world isn't going to change that.
One of two things will happen: He'll fail out; this is common for diversity admits. Or, he may require a remedial curriculum to develop these natural talents he is believed to have, but may not, nobody's really sure yet because he can't demonstrate them as well as the other students from richer households. Either way, a prestigious university is not the proper forum for that.
I've never seen somebody who opposes meritocracy actual suggest taking starting points into consideration - instead, they demand that easily observable, intrinsic physical characteristics be used as a proxy for "starting point".
But there are a number of studies demonstrating how race & class impact things (when controlled for other factors) like teacher perception, grading, letters of recommendation, not to mention just the fact that if you are growing up in a black (or white) household that has $5 in wealth, you'll have less access to educational opportunity than the white (or black, albeit far more rarely) household with $200,000 in wealth.
No. That only tells you to fix those factors but the outcome is what they are. By the time of the ACT/SAT test it's too late to fix those things. Fix those upstream.
What do you mean by "whites". American "whites"? The last IQ report has many Asian countries at the top followed by "white" European countries. Whites and blacks are such generic terms. There are many different types of white, black, asian, etc peoples that have different cultures and phenotypes based on the region.
That site is a mess. Shows a chart where the average IQ is 82, links to a page saying the average IQ is 100 (which is the original design). Also cites a eugenicist and thinks that worthy of a passing footnote. Frankly, I wouldn't trust anything I read there.
You can look for "intelligence" on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAT. From memory, Human Intelligence by Earl Hunt has plenty of references as well if you're into this topic.
This is the best technical university in the world offering the best technical education in history. It's where the smartest minds learn foundational knowledge that will enable them to make amazing technological contributions to mankind.
Not everything needs to be a battleground for the boring diversity of skin color. It's actually important that we get the most qualified people in these seats.