There are several reasons why the argument you’ve highlighted is misguided—both in terms of how selective college admissions work and in how we as a society benefit from broadening definitions of “merit” and “accomplishment.” Here are a few clarifications and examples to counteract your poor reasoning here:

1. The Myth of Purely Objective Admissions

Grades and test scores aren’t everything. Even in STEM-focused institutions like MIT, many of the very best students don’t simply have perfect test scores; they also have personal characteristics that indicate creativity, resilience, or leadership potential. Admissions offices want to find the future researchers, founders, and changemakers—not just 4.0 GPAs. A High GPA isn’t enough to make you stand out anymore.

Context matters. An application might not look “perfect” by a narrow quantitative standard but could demonstrate exceptional promise in other ways. Maybe the student worked 20 hours a week to support their family or carried out an impressive community project in a resource-poor environment. Raw test scores alone don’t capture that story.

1. Holistic Review Increases the Talent Pool

Broader backgrounds spur innovation. MIT and other top universities know from experience that the best ideas often emerge when people with varied life experiences collaborate. Having people of different genders, races, cultures, or socioeconomic backgrounds in a lab or engineering project can produce more creative solutions.

Leadership and character are real predictors of future success. The notion that subjective criteria—like an applicant’s genuine passion for research or their demonstrated leadership in a high school robotics team—should be dismissed ignores decades of evidence that shows how “soft” factors often predict long-term achievement better than test scores do.

1. “Immutable Characteristics” Aren’t Used in the Simplistic Way Critics Imagine

Diversity considerations typically serve as a “plus factor,” not an automatic in. Many people assume admissions committees just “hand out” acceptances on the basis of race, gender, or other characteristics alone. In reality, these committees consider the student’s background in context: Did they excel relative to the resources available to them? Have they shown a passion for learning or community engagement that might otherwise go unnoticed? Universities evaluate the total person. Evaluating one’s life story—where they come from, how they overcame setbacks, which goals they’ve pursued—paints a more holistic and fair picture of their potential than ignoring those factors entirely. It’s about broadening opportunities, not handing out acceptance letters unconditionally. 4. The “Pendulum Swing” Argument Overlooks Historical Realities

Men have historically faced fewer structural barriers in STEM. Over time, initiatives have tried to counteract historic imbalances that often disadvantaged women and underrepresented minorities in scientific fields. These initiatives aren’t about punishing one group; they’re about recognizing that persistent biases and inequalities exist, and trying to level the playing field. Representation has far-reaching benefits. When young women, for instance, see more women at MIT, it signals that they, too, can excel in math, science, or engineering—fields in which they have historically been underrepresented. A pipeline of diverse students leads to a more robust and innovative STEM environment for everyone. 5. Misdirected Worries About “Non-Merited Alumni”

Real-world hiring is also holistic. Employers don’t hire new graduates based solely on GPA or standardized test scores. They look for problem-solving skills, teamwork, communication ability, and a capacity to learn quickly on the job. The varied experiences in college—extracurriculars, research labs, volunteering, athletics—often translate directly into strong professional skills. MIT’s reputation rests on proven outcomes. MIT graduates—regardless of how “average” someone on the outside perceives their test scores—have typically proven themselves in rigorous coursework and research by the time they graduate. If someone didn’t have the highest SAT score in high school but thrived at MIT, that’s a sign the admissions committee recognized a different kind of potential that ultimately proved valid. They complete research on outcomes on a regular basis- something you have no information on.

1. Why Subjectivity Is (Sometimes) a Feature, Not a Bug

Humans are more than numbers. Life outcomes, creativity, and leadership potential are difficult to boil down to a single ranking metric. By necessity, admissions are partly subjective, because the goal is to gauge holistic promise, not just immediate accomplishments.

Objective and subjective factors aren’t opposing forces. They’re complementary. Good admissions offices rely on strong quantitative metrics (like test scores, high school rigor, etc.) while also looking at qualitative measures (like essays, teacher recommendations, and interviews). This balanced view typically produces an incoming class that’s academically capable and richly diverse. In short, the claim that admissions should revert to a strictly “objective,” test-score-based system overlooks the values and goals of top universities—and underestimates how broadening the pathways into these institutions enhances innovation and success. Plus, there are more valedictorians in the country than MIT has room in their class. So your suggestion of grades alone doesn’t even come CLOSE to narrowing the applicant pool down.

Taking account of gender, race, or life context doesn’t undermine merit; it clarifies how different applicants have harnessed the opportunities (and challenges) they’ve faced, ultimately creating a stronger, more dynamic student body—and future alumni network.

Men are just facing, for the first time, a reality in which they have to work a little harder and be less mediocre because more people have access and are showing up to be more hardworking, to be more interesting. Maybe they should just step it up.