[1455] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Re: A new ballgame at MIT
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Brian T. Sniffen)
Tue Sep 16 14:14:10 2003
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 13:25:28 -0400
From: "Brian T. Sniffen" <bts@ALUM.MIT.EDU>
To: MIT-Talk@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0309151906580.7518-100000@sub-zero.mit.edu>
(wally@sub-zero.mit.edu's message of "Mon, 15 Sep 2003 19:31:42
-0400 (EDT)")
>> >If a person is good at rowing boats but can't hack it at MIT, they
>> >won't be let in. It already works that way.
>>
>> I think you might be surprised how much sway the athletics head coaches
>> have in admissions--as in, surprised that it's non-zero. I've heard of
>> coaches who make phone calls on behalf of freshmen they want for their
>> team, and they wouldn't do it if it didn't work. That kind of "under the
>> table" influence is extremely sensitive to political winds--meaning that
>> if the athletic dept. goes on a highly publicized crusade, admissions
>> officials are sure to cue in and allow coaches an even more influential
>> role in admissions.
I'm not particularly worried about that -- either that student will
flunk out, or will succeed, thus proving he belongs at MIT. I have
slight concerns about the lab-geek who doesn't get admitted, and about
the second-tier implications as high schoolers are pushed into sports
as a good "in" to MIT.
What does worry me more is some of the statements Wally made:
> The athletics dept has limited input into the admissions process.
Gah, I hope so. Can you imagine if they had unlimited input into the
admissions process? You say this like we should be glad it's so small
instead of worrying that it's there at all.
> Some students seem to have an amount of political motivation behind
> their admission, but I think that's a tiny percentage. Elsewhere
> it's a much much larger percentage.
As Cinderella's Prince said, "Near may be better than far, but it's
still not here!" A tiny number of political admittees is better than
a large number. Keeping that politics between MIT's departments is
probably better than involving parents and donors. You're right,
let's be glad for the good features... but that's no reason to stop
calling for positive change.
This article is confused -- it's hard to tell what the real news is --
but it appears to present news of a negative change.
> In other words: a deserving MIT student is now more likely to be
> socially savvy, but the reverse is not really the case: socially
> savvy students aren't more likely to be cut out for MIT than
> non-savvy basement-lab-monkeys.
That sentence took me quite a while to parse correctly -- would you
agree with this:
These are changes from 20 years ago:
Deserving MIT Students are now more likely to be socially savvy.
Deserving MIT Students are now less likely to be basement-lab-monkeys.
These are not -- they're just as true now as they were then:
Socially savvy applicants are less likely to be deserving MIT students.
Basement lab monkeys are more likely to be deserving MIT students
> The admissions dept doesn't let in students because of those
> opportunities, rather irrespective of them.
Given the above, I hope so.
>> >I wouldn't worry too much about the changing demographics of MIT: I get
>> >the sense they're largely a consequence of changing high schoolers. The
>> >educational mission of MIT hasn't actually changed, has it?
>>
>> The point about changing a high school demographic is tough to quantify.
>> it's 50/50 whether Marilee Jones, when she talked about the "changing
>> young person" a couple years ago, was the savior of MIT's future, or
>> just an administrator who wished she were at Princeton.
>
> Somewhere inbetween. I think she wants a less socially inept MIT, but I
> don't think she at all wants Princeton.
I suspect she did, or didn't have a good idea of what MIT was and
where it was going, five years ago. I think she's got a much better
grasp on the situation now, and has stopped thrashing around in ways
that move MIT towards Princetonism. This new coordination seems
targeted in good directions, preserving MIT's uniqueness.
>> As to your last rant: just because MIT still has plenty of relics from
>> the past, doesn't mean they're not exactly that. This place is changing.
>
> The last rant was meant mainly ironically, but point taken. Still, I
> wouldn't call Steer Roast a relic of the past. You're just bitter 'cos MIT
> thinks your frat is totally goddamn stupid and doesn't care whether you
> survive!!! Ha ha ha ha ha ah ahahaha.
>
> W.
>
> ps. They think the same about mine, don't worry.
>
> pps. And all the others, come to think of it.
And the dorms too: the central administrative movements towards
"community" still bulldoze the existing fragile communities built
around elective residences and student activities.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen bts@alum.mit.edu
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Documentation on the use of the mailing lists mit-talk, all-talk,
mit-news, housing-talk, and the mit-talk Zephyr class is available at:
http://web.mit.edu/institvte/talk/
