AFAIK, schools like MIT (or my alma mater Caltech), are the exceptions that proves the rule. Single dimensional focus on academics (e.g., STEM) might be *one* way to get into an "elite" school that has a narrow focus, but isn't really going to get you very far in an admissions pool at Harvard, or Stanford.
Except that MIT sees thousands more applicants than there are spaces - and all those applicants have 4.0s and all those applicants have won science fairs. The applicant that has that and has also written/acted/played an instrument/etc. is going to stand out.
NOTHING has changed about the ability of humans to adapt to new circumstances.
The dinosaurs adapted to every change in their environment for hundreds of millions of years. Then new circumstances arose which they could not adapt to - unless you want to count chickens as a success story.
People have been making that same argument since the dawn of the industrial revolution and it is just as nonsensical now as it was then.
I see this argument often when these type of discussions come up. It seems to me to be some kind of logical fallacy to think that something new will not happen because it has not happened in the past. It reminds me of the historical observation that generals are always fighting the last war.
America's dominate political party
You mean the ruling minority.
Of course they didn't change their conclusion because the important matters didn't change - she's still white, wealthy, and powerful.
We have come a long way in a historically short time to casually include a woman in that set.
I am NOMAD!