[xanaxagoras]

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.

[MiroF]

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.

[xanaxagoras]

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.