<p>You're right, my comparison was poor. But you get my point. The last thing that MIT wants is a potential problem child, and they make an effort to weed them out, as I am sure do most schools. All I see is stereotyping from the Middlebury adcoms.</p>
<p>Hey, 56forceout, please clear your mailbox.</p>
<p>Most schools don't want problem children, Middlebury included. MIT is one of a handful of elite institutions that probably doesn't have problems attracting an enormous pool of 17 year old MALE academic titan applicants. MIT doesn't have to take known personality risks to get the brightest boys with the best stats. Is my guess.</p>
<p>Yet Middlebury took him, no waitlist or nothin' ie: they knew they couldn't pass up those stats. They 'had' to take him.</p>
<p>I have to wonder about the comments on social skills. The kid lacks social skills. He is not a psychopath! We talk about finding the best fit for our students, but your average high school is a very bad fit for the really advanced kids, both in terms of curriculum and in terms of the social atmosphere.
If the kid is as much as a math genius as he is made out to be and so academically lopsided, I doubt very much that he will have found (m)any other kid (s) in his typical high school to talk to. Mstee posted a math-joke her S sent on the Parents cafe. How many of us get it? (neither H or I, both Ph.Ds got it--well, we got the Ring of the Nibelung reference, but not the math; and H is a scientist).<br>
One of the things S enjoyed most about his math camp is that the other kids had the same sense of humor he has. I've gone to end of session at CTY and at the math camp, and every time, I've seen kids cry buckets because they were saying good-bye to kids who were on the same wavelength. </p>
<p>I agree with sheetmusic, however, that the MIT comments showed that the Middlebury adcoms were genuinely concerned about best fit for the student. But I applaud them for letting the student decide for himself where he most wants to go in the end.</p>
<p>C'mon marite...this is no average math genius. I know a few of those (the boy who asked me to describe everything I knew about Black Holes when he was 8 and I was 38. He got a big blink of my baby blues is what he got. He's now at UChicago chewing up astrophysics. He'd get that math joke).</p>
<p>No, my sense is that this isn't one of those 'regular' genius misfits--this is a student with documented and forwarded warnings from his former schools. Do you know what it takes to get warnings forwarded from your secondary school? A lot. What secondary school wants to tank one of their high achievers? They must have felt they HAD to warn prospective schools.</p>
<p>This is something more than weak social skills--is my reading.</p>
<p>Adcoms are in the business of helping the college fulfill its institutional mission. In doing so, in building a class (they don't accept individual applicants, even if that is the way we think of it), they are first and foremost "risk averse". Why take a potential "problem" candidate when there are so many who aren't? Next in line are "developmental" candidates - money really does talk (as it should. These are, after all, private institutions.) They want to contribute to the prestige of the institution, both by recruiting and accepting and ensuring the attendance of candidates likely to contribute to their prestige, and by turning down some topnotch candidates as well. (No prestige is created by turning down lower-ranking candidates, only really good ones.) They need to fill all the niches - enough scientists, mathematicians, students of Japanese, football players, trombonists - or the faculty/coaches are on their case. Face diversity is a good thing. They can't overspend the financial aid budget, though there is always little danger of that if their recruiting and admitting patterns remain similar year after year. Lastly, they need to keep their traditional feeder schools relatively happy, which they can do best by being predictable.</p>
<p>Cheers:</p>
<p>You may be right, and I totally off the wall. I really don't know what documented PQs amount to. I have met my fair share of brilliant, socially inept people. One joined my H's graduate group (average age 25) at the ripe age of 17.<br>
Interestingly, over dinner, we were discussing students with disabilities; one of us made the point that, despite ADA, applicants are at a disadvantage if they disclose their disability during the application process as adcoms are risk-averse (as Mini points out). So my take is that the Middlebury adcom must have thought the high school letters can't have been that damning.</p>
<p>In this whole discussion, it seems to me that we are forgetting that there is nothing wrong with these very strong students but the fact remains that at an elite college that is taking just 20% of applicants, kids who CAN do the work who have very good stats overall and play varsity or play cello are still going to get cut. There may be kids who have an even stronger profile in the pile and even THEN, they may get cut as well when it comes to building the conglomeration of the class. As I mentioned before, when I interview kids for a selective college and this is a WAY smaller sample than an adcom is reading through, I almost become jaded at what normally would be some very strong academics or qualities. Why? Because they all have them to a degree. However, certain kids stand out more. Certain kids have done more, pursued something, achieved, led, even have personal traits in an interview that make them more than simply impressive but actually outstanding.</p>
<p>Unrelated to that.....in an earlier post...someone said they doubt high school varsity sports means a whole lot on an application but I disagree. First, just in my own family, one of my kids was a three sport varsity athlete. She achieved in all those sports but no higher than on a state level for high school sports. To go beyond that, she'd have had to specialize in one sport year round but that was not her...she likes many things. She also was very involved her whole life in several areas of the performing arts. Back to sports, I have also interviewed other students like this. I know their lifestyle....they are high achievers academically while also heavily committed time wise to these athletic endeavors. As someone who is evaluating these kids, I see this as a plus, even if they were not to be a recruited athlete. As well, some of these kids intend to get involved on some level in college out of passion for their sport. As mentioned, my own kid was not a recruited athlete. At college, she is on one varsity team, one club team and could be on a second club team if time allowed though for that sport has done it intramurally a bit. Her varsity sport involves both semesters by the way. She is not an elite athlete. To be at the top of her game, for the sport that she does on the varsity level in college, she'd have had to attend a ski academy and she chose not to, let alone even if she wanted to, could not afford to. She didn't want to, however. But now she is competing against kids who did. Even a high school varsity athlete can sometimes make it in college in a sport....depends on a college and depends on the sport. My daughter just got back from National Collegiate Ski Championships tonight and in her event, she was 17th out of 100 racers, just missing All American by two spots (the difference being a tenth of a second after two runs that totalled more than two minutes in length). So, even someone who just did their sport for high school can offer something to their college....her team came in third in the country in that event and her time played a part in that. </p>
<p>I think there are broad generalizations that are not always applicable. I have seen candidates whom I have interviewed who also have this kind of experience in high school and they do get into elite colleges. Kids from our high school who were athletes on the varsity level, in fact, now attend Middlebury (and were at the top of the class academically).</p>
<p>By the way, I think admissions committees see these sorts of activities that are big commitments and when they see a kid still be a top student, there is something positive about that. Just reflecting, for example, how my D and her teammates just missed 8 days of college and had to manage to keep up while away at all this training and events all week. It takes a certain kind of person who can handle it as it is not easy. Some of these kids are even in Organic Chemistry. So, I do think adcoms look at an EC like a varsity sport and see the time management involved as well as other qualities while still maintaining high academic achievement. I know that some kids I interview who juggle these activities and have high achievement in them do come across as a plus.</p>
<p>Yes, having lived in amongst academics, (some of whom are my best friends and relatives ;)) I too have met many socially inept geniuses. </p>
<p>Having been on the board of an elite private primary school sending students to elite private secondary schools, I assure you, warnings are only given when the current school believes the student is likely to be a problem. They are not given lightly. They are not given merely because a terrifically bright child is not a social butterfly.</p>
<p>In general, warnings are not given unless there were specific incidents which troubled the current school. Warnings are a big CYA. A 'Don't blame us when he goes off the rails'. </p>
<p>Why take a potential "problem" candidate when there are so many who aren't? The obvious answer is: there aren't as many academic titan....boys as you might imagine.</p>
<p>Or, if there are, they don't apply to expensive schools in nearly the same numbers as female academic titans.</p>
<p>sooze...your D was good enough to play her sport for her college. The majority are not in her league, my S1-captain of his high school varsity basketball team-included. 6'-2" and 180 pounds? Hello intramural sports!</p>
<p>I don't know why one has to read into to the math genius admit that there is something more to it than weak social skills. And the F, who knows what class that was in?--it is not stated. It might have been in a class that most colleges don't include in GPA, but are required by some high schools, e.g., Religion, or Health and Safety (I happen to know and love two boys who had spotty transcripts because of required courses such as these!) It's all speculation. I doubt that any college would want to admit anyone with known major psychological problems. That's a bit of a stretch to assume that. IMO. As long as we're reading between the lines, who knows? --perhaps the math kid had met and hit it off with a Middlebury math professor? or? ? There is just not enough information given here to know exactly why these decisions went the way they did. Perhaps someone at Middlebury called the high school and found out that the "weak social skills" were, in fact, "weak social skills" and nothing more.</p>
<p>However, I was surprised by the original post. I would have thought the sports team captain would have been admitted and the geeky kid not, based on my impression of Middlebury. But I also get the impression that Midd gets an abundance of applicants who are team captains and maybe not so many geeky gifted math type applicants, or maybe that was the case at least, in this round of admissions.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The committee's longest discussion was about a math genius with weak social skills. The young man's tests scores were impressive -- a perfect 800 on the math SAT II and scores nearly as high on verbals. He'd earned straight A's in his school's most challenging math and science courses and dominated math competitions with outstandingly good computation skills.</p>
<p>However, there were problems in his file. The boy had flunked at least one class and consistently drew low ratings on PQs -- personal qualities. A school recommendation suggested that the student might need support, socially. An alumni interviewer noted that the boy came across as unenthusiastic during their meeting.</p>
<p>The low PQs prompted numerous questions from the application readers and admissions officers. They wondered: Would the student be better off at a place like MIT? Would a little extra hand-holding -- a carefully matched roommate, say -- be enough to help the student adjust at Middlebury?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Cheers: Would that amount to "warnings?" I've read those comments as describing a socially inept applicant; but what do I know?<br>
I have to say I'm now really curious about the recs written for that math genius :)</p>
<p>Mikemic notes," I do wonder why they took the math kid, considering the problems he's already shown."</p>
<p>Response: All schools recuit based on the Schools' needs. Middlebury isn't known for strong science and math program. Their strength has always been in languages and liberal arts. Maybe they want some strong kids in the math/ science area to beef up their "perceived weaker" areas and to fill the classes for math/ science oriented majors.</p>
<p>Cheers, as I said, it depends on the college and the sport. For instance, my D could never ski for Middlebury. </p>
<p>Also, my D was not recruited. The adcoms would not have known if she was good enough to make the team when she applied, only that she WANTED to be on the team. The coach wouldn't even talk to her until AFTER she got admitted. </p>
<p>Also, I was remarking earlier about playing a sport at ANY level once in college, not just the varsity level. For instance, colleges want kids to join their club teams, or even intramural teams. My D would not be recruited for soccer even though she was goalie for her high school team that made it to state semi finals. She is not an elite soccer player....never did travel teams, only plays in one season of the year. However, she does play on Brown's club team that competes against other schools. She is still contributing to the life of the campus. What I was saying is that even for kids at her level which is not a recruited athlete but kids who are committed to activities like sports, it can be seen as a plus along with very strong academics, because the student is going to contribute to the life of the campus in some capacity. My D wrote in her materials how she planned and hoped to do these sports at any level in college, as well as hoped to participate in her other lifelong EC endeavors....explaining how so in college. I do think adcoms look favorably at kids who were involved in something, like a sport (can be MANY other ECs, not just sports) and achieved in some capacity or played some significant role in the endeavor, if they also are very strong academically. Usually JUST strong academics won't be enough for elite college admissions. Passions, involvement, commitment, leadership, achievement, personal qualities, do play a role IF the academics are also there. </p>
<p>We have so little to go by in that article. The math genius kid didn't sound like a "problem" but more like someone who others viewed as socially inept. There were flags that gave him some negatives, I think, but not to the point that he'd be a problem. I think it made him a bit less "attractive" of a candidate. However, I think colleges want all types and in this case, maybe they wanted kids to fill a math genius slot. They don't just want leaders or movers and shakers and athletes. Frankly, this kid likely would not have moved me in the interview and sounds like that was the case with his interviewer but the school saw other qualities that must have made up for that weaker aspect. I don't think he was gonna be a problem on campus as much as whether or not he'd fit in. My guess is that there are all types in a class and he'd have found his type even if not the majority on that campus. Sometimes, when I interview kids, I feel it is a bit unfair because certain kids come across WAY better than others and yet, I know intellectually in my head that some candidates could be great but just not interview well. Still, the ones who do interview well tend to impress way more. This sounds like a kid who did not interview well and even those who work with him don't see him in a positive light socially, yet he has other things to offer a campus.</p>
<p>Susan</p>
<p>Taxguy, I agree with you that this kid might have been attractive to Middlebury to fill that slot in the class....math whiz....as their school is more known for humanities. They may have been willing to overlook his less than redeeming social qualities because he had something else to offer the make up of the class.</p>
<p>I find the coincidental juxtaposition of the thread about the discussion of the math genius with low PQs at Midd and the expulsion by GWU of the student suffering from depression quite fascinating.</p>
<p>You are quite right, Marite! On that thread about the suicidal GW student, SOME folks are saying let this kid who has some serious mental health issues remain on campus. This is a kid who needs close supervision. He is at risk of commiting suicide for which others will have a huge outcry as to why the college didn't prevent that. AND let's not forget that one thing that set this boy's mental state in motion was the suicide of a classmate/friend and thus if this boy does the same, the college has to think of what is in the best interests also of the student body, some of whom might be affected similarly. Yet, on THIS thread, we are talking about a socially inept kid (admittedly not many details were given) who likely isn't gonna contribute socially but has other contributions to make to campus....but is not going to be a problem for others on campus....is not a threat to himself or others....just is not well, too socially with it. He doesn't sound like a problem but more of a nerdy misfit sort (unless he finds a crowd of like minded kids). It is a very interesting contrast here.</p>
<p>
[quote]
As for her soccer playing? It was viewed as ho-hum -- there was no indication she'd taken the initiative to contact coaches at the school, nor was she a recruited athlete. The committee recommended that she be rejected, and then went on to waitlist a 3.97 GPA cello player who had not sent a recording of her cello playing to the music department.
[/quote]
I haven't had the time to read this whole thread, but this paragraph from the original article caught my eye. My D was a high SAT, 4.7 WGPA, and a competent varsity athlete (not recruitable) and a decent piano player. She did take the time to contact coaches at every school to which she applied, and she also took the time to send a home-recorded CD of her favorite jazzy Christmas carols on piano.</p>
<p>For what it's worth, and she did get in to Midd.</p>
<p>Marite, I agree with this observation --these kids cannot be removed from the public school, but most private high schools don't want them (unless they are therapeutic schools) and colleges generally do not want them, either. Let's face it --getting 800 on the math SAT these days is a good but not enormous accomplishment, and imo the level of math done in high school --even at its highest-- is insufficient to pinpoint the true genius from the merely very talented. At the high school level, all these kids seem good --but there are a lot of them, overall.</p>
<p>Give us your oboists (or is it harpists this year?), your rowers, your $25,000 charity raisers, your student body presidents, but be sure they are all social butterflies. Dont contaminate our nations best liberal arts schools with any socially inept math whiz. We certainly wouldnt want to carry diversity that far! </p>
<p>Could it possibly be that Middlebury truly wanted to build a class that had a variety of students with different personalities as well as different extra-curricular interests?</p>
<p>No matter how many times I read the article and the comments herein, I still see the math talent maximized and the problems minimized. An 800 on the Math IIC is not that great of an accomplishment and we have no idea about the level of the academic competition. If the competition were at the national level, I think that it would have mentioned in the discussions. On the other hand, the high school did not discuss haphazard incidents but reported CONSISTENT low personal qualities scores. </p>
<p>And for what it is worth, I do not see much careful attention and care displayed by Middlebury's officials in their comments about MIT. I found that comment simply callous. Come to think about it, maybe there WAS a huge fit between this student and Middlebury: lacking social skills.</p>