<p>There are two main issues with using GPAs as a proxy for student body strength. The first is that high schools are heterogeneous and as such many colleges don’t use GPA statistics (although I believe the UCs do). The second is that most top students and many non top students will have near perfect GPAs so it doesn’t serve particularly well to separate out the best students.</p>
<p>^ You used the term, “weaker”, so I supposed you were referring to the intellectual ability of the students/graduates. If I may rephrase your wordings, you were in effect actually saying this: Berkeley engineering students and graduates have significantly less intellectually abilities than MIT students and graduates. And, your basis for this was the SAT scores. Now, I find that claim boggling. </p>
<p>First of all, neither school actually admit students on the basis of SATs. If Berkeley, for instance, has been using it to admit students, Berkeley would just rank the applicants according to their SAT scores submitted, and admit those that belong to the top 10k out of the about 80k applicants. That would have been a much easier task to do on the part of Berkeley’s admissions, too. Berkeley would just run the the files on Excel and the admits name is then declared. But we all know that that’s not how the admissions at Berkeley work. And, as PiperXP has been claiming, too, at MIT, too. So, my question now is, why generalize people? Why do you need to generalize that Berkeley eng’g students and grads are much weaker when the very foundation of your argument is a mistake, in the first place? It doesn’t make sense to me. </p>
<p>Second, Berkeley is huge and is run by departments, the admissions are often subjected to what the department is looking for from their candidates, aside from ECs and other factors. For example, when you apply to the college of engineering, you need to show to the adcom that your mathematical ability is superior than the other subjects. But such does not apply to when you’re applying to the department of English or History or political science or Speech and Drama. Why do you need an 800 on maths part of SATs when, you, for instance, are majoring in Dutch Studies or Rhetoric?</p>
<p>Third, Vanderbilt and WashU, for instance, both have higher SATs than Stanford. So, by your logic, Stanford students and graduates are much weaker than Vanderbilt and WashU students and graduates. </p>
<p>
What? It was from your camp who made the generalization first. Your camp claimed that Berkeley engineering students and graduates are MUCH weaker than MIT students and graduates. Why then do you want the other camp to disprove what you have generalized first? That’s not how it should work, PiperXP. Do you remember your thesis defense? You present your thesis and you prove it why it works. only then will the panelists question you. Then you defend it. That’s how it should work. </p>
<p>According to some credible source, intelligence has been defined in many different ways such as in terms of one’s capacity for
- logic
- abstract thought
- understanding
- self-awareness
- communication
- learning
- emotional knowledge
- memory
- planning and,
- problem solving</p>
<p>Please consider these factors before generalizing, PiperXP. </p>
<p><a href=“http://otec.uoregon.edu/intelligence.htm”>http://otec.uoregon.edu/intelligence.htm</a>
<a href=“http://giftedkids.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=giftedkids&cdn=health&tm=29&f=00&su=p284.13.342.ip_&tt=8&bt=1&bts=1&zu=http%3A//www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/intelligence.html”>http://giftedkids.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=giftedkids&cdn=health&tm=29&f=00&su=p284.13.342.ip_&tt=8&bt=1&bts=1&zu=http%3A//www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/intelligence.html</a>
<a href=“http://www.intelltheory.com/”>http://www.intelltheory.com/</a></p>
<p>SATs prove a very basic level of intelligence. MIT doesn’t use SATs beyond a certain point, because past that point the SATs do not meaningfully predict how well a candidate will do. A large percentage of UCB students do not qualify.</p>
<p>You still haven’t directly compared MIT students and UCB students in a meaningful way.</p>
<p>Again, you missed the point. Berkeley does not admit students on the basis of SATs alone. Berkeley could have done that. But they didn’t. I have shown you the table showing multiple students with impressive SAT scores being turned down by Cal. </p>
<p>
I’m not sure about that. I think half the people in U of Cambridge, Oxford, U of Tokyo, IIT Bangalore, Peking U, NUS, etc couldn’t score 2250 on SATs. That wouldn’t make them much weaker students than you, PiperXP. </p>
<p>
And, how sure are you that a large number of MIT students would get into Berkeley? </p>
<p>Remember that Berkeley is looking for diversity, and would rather consider students who have thrived academically despite having gone difficulties in life. When you have applicants that are socially imbalance, nerds and such, you won’t get into Berkeley easily no matter how high you SAT scores are. Do you seriously think Berkeley is looking for geeks? No, they’re not. If they are, again, they would just rank the candidates based on SATs and GPAs, and admit those students with the highest composite scores immediately. But we all know that that’s not how Berkeley’s admissions work. What would nerds, fat and ugly do in the department of Dance and Performance Studies at Cal, for instance? Don’t get me wrong. I’m not trying to attack you personally, PiperXP. I’m only trying to demonstrate how Berkeley’s admissions differ from the others due to its departmental in nature, and how SATs could be less useful for some majors. If you’ve seen my post above, intelligence can be defined in many ways. Maybe the vast majority of MIT students have superior problem solving skill set than the students of the College of Letters & Science at UC Berkeley. And, maybe the Berkeley L&S students have superior communication and emotional knowledge than MIT students. </p>
<p>This thread is embarrassing. Piper, in general I love what you do on CC. You have helped many, including myself, in the MIT discussions. I hope you continue with that for a long time. But you’ve got to realize that you messed up this time.</p>
<p>I know that @molliebatmit has edited this discussion and it looks like she has removed the post that originally ignited the fire under @RML. When I first read that post about how you believe that UCB students are “much weaker” than MIT students I felt a jolt, a shock. I genuinely could not understand where that was coming from. It’s so much at odds with how MIT Admissions people talk and how others from MIT here on CC give help to those seeking admission to MIT. From that point on I wanted this thread to die. Every time I noticed there were more posts on this discussion I felt a tinge of discomfort. I hoped the defense of the “much weaker” position would just go away. </p>
<p>I understood what @RML was trying to do by posting some shocking words about physical characteristics. I think it worked because it gave me a jolt or shock that was similar to what the “much weaker” post did initially. Still the defense of that embarrassing “much weaker” position did not go away.</p>
<p>My son won the lottery a few years ago and was accepted into MIT. MIT was his first choice and he would have been very disappointed not getting in. But if he hadn’t he would have gone to UCB with his head held high. He got into other great schools, but for him UCB would have been the second best match. He is absolutely killing it at MIT and I am very proud of him. I know if he was at UCB he would be killing it there too and I would be just as proud of him. There are so many others like him who did not win the lottery and did end up going to UCB and the like. These are not “much weaker” students who deserve to be lumped into some category with your
generalization.</p>
<p>I remember reading another post of yours where you talked about your time applying to undergrad schools. You stated that you had always thought you would end up at a UC that you were definitely overqualified for. I can’t psychoanalyze over the internet or otherwise, but there appears to be some sort of “thing” you have about the UCs. I don’t get that feeling from any of your other posts. You show humility and helpfulness about everything else and I expect that to continue once this thread thankfully dies.</p>
<p>It’s not entirely clear to me why arguments on CC about properties of one group of students vis a vis another group tend to become about individual posters. This isn’t the first time it’s happened – there was a thread several months ago (maybe a year ago now, by this point) about female applicants to MIT where a poster accused me, Piper, and Lydia of thinking that we were better than all sorts of people, because we said that many female applicants to MIT were stronger than male applicants. </p>
<p>I think it’s a serious mistake to assume that when Piper says that MIT students, on average, are stronger academically than UCB students, that Piper means that she thinks she is academically stronger than every UCB student, or whatever thing people are assuming. I doubt, although I don’t want to put words into her mouth, that Piper intends to talk about herself one way or another, nor does UMTMYP student, who has been making similar arguments. </p>
<p>Personally, I didn’t find the original assertion – that MIT students are, on average, academically stronger than UCB students as a whole (not limited to the college of engineering) – particularly controversial. I’m perfectly happy to quibble about the meaning of the word “much”, but I read it as a statement of statistical confidence, as in, “these two groups can be shown to be different at the statistical level.” That also doesn’t seem particularly controversial to me, but I wish we had better descriptive statistics of the populations in question.</p>
<p>EDIT: And, I should say, if I’ve affected the sense of the thread with my edits, I apologize, and I can try to reconstruct it a little better. I was trying to keep the flow of the argument while cutting out the personal attacks.</p>
<p>@GrudeMonk - The post is on the first page, and it originated from UMTYMP student:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That post was made to answer the original poster’s question. That last statement could be perceived as an insult (unintended or not); I’m sure RML thought so as we see here:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nobody likes to be belittled, so fine, that post is okay. </p>
<p>Piper’s response:
</p>
<p>I see what Piper is saying, but it could have been more sensitive I guess. As RML also stated previously:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>However, RML proceeds to being insensitive despite his previous post.
</p>
<p>There are other instances that could be brought up, but that would just prolong my post. My point being this: neither side is blameless. I apologize if this post was a headache to read; I had no idea how else to format it.</p>
<p>@nvruseaim - Thanks for that correction. I apologize to Piper for crediting her with saying something that had come from UMTYMP student originally.</p>
<p>To be perfectly clear my statement was not intended as an insult nor do I think it should be reasonably taken as one. What it the set of schools whose students you would consider much weaker than MIT students? Unless the set is empty which seems absurd to me are you insulting the students at those schools? </p>
<p>Sorry about that @"UMTYMP student". I didn’t mean to throw you under the bus like that with the previous post. It was an unintended consequence as I was responding to GrudeMonk.</p>
<p>I don’t think it was throwing my under the bus by any stretch of the imagination as I think my initial comments on the strength of the Berkeley student body are correct. </p>
<p>Okay. I believe we are all in consensus that, as RML stated, “in general, Berkeley students are weaker than MIT students.” And this is not in a condescending manner.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Neither does MIT. The SATs are still an initial higher bar.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, they accepted me, so ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The UC system has guaranteed admission for top students in California, which I easily qualified for:
<a href=“http://admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/freshman/california-residents/admissions-index/”>http://admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/freshman/california-residents/admissions-index/</a></p>
<p>I’ll be explicit: Berkeley was not the school I was referring to. You can probably find which school I was talking about in my history, but that’s neither here nor there at this point. I did get into Berkeley (and all the UCs I applied to), and I think getting into Berkeley was much more likely for me than getting into MIT. MIT and UCB have different admissions processes and standards, and I do think MIT has the opportunity to select a student body that averages higher quality than UCB.</p>
<p>I don’t think my points were invalid – if you still think I messed up, I’d like to hear more. (PM is fine if you want to see this thread die :P)</p>
<p>I do think I was less polite than usual. I don’t think I crossed a line - I was straightforward, I did not mince my words. It seems you saw the mix of theoretical and actual personal attacks before Mollie cleaned up the thread, and I’m surprised that what I said warrants criticism but those do not.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Mollie’s interpretation of what I mean is correct.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A fairly straightforward opinion was called condescending without any comment on substance. I’m confused why you thought my response was rude but RML’s was “okay”. I do not think UMTYMP student’s statement was an insult.</p>
<p>I still find PiperXP’s statements troubling… They still denote a certain high level of arrogance. Let’s take a closer look at her statements and how she insinuates her superiority over Berkeley eng’g students/alumni . For example, she said this:
Again, HuuuuuWaaaaaaTTT!!!
What on earth are you talking about? Higher quality in what? Are you saying you are of higher quality than most Berkeley engineering students/graduates, PiperXP? Seriously? By what measure do you qualify yourself and the rest of the MIT community, to be of higher quality than those Berkeley engineering students/graduates? Please elaborate further.</p>
<p>
Then again, for the millionth times, I’ll ask you this: Why then do you generalize people basing on a criterion not used to support your argument? Helloooooooooooo!!! Do you understand what you’re saying, PiperXP? You’re like saying, fat people are ugly yet you don’t have an exact metric of beauty. How then do you say fat people are ugly when you, yourself, aren’t sure how to define beauty, or, that, you do not know what beauty really is! </p>
<p>
Agreed. But I’d rather that it would have been phrased this way:</p>
<p>MIT students/grads, in general, are extremely talented people, based on some metrics related to logic, abstract thought, and even perhaps, memory. Berkeley eng’g students/grads, in general, are a little less so. </p>
<p>If you have such statements, then it would not have been insulting to Cal’s engineering community. </p>
<p>I think someone has to brush up on her intelligence on self-awareness, communication, learning and emotional knowledge.</p>
<p>
I’m sorry, but is this referring to me? Regardless of who the target was, at least @RML please try to be respectful with your future posts? Your posts have not been very friendly.</p>
<p>
I like the new wording at least. I believe it’s a good alternative if it makes everyone here happy.</p>
<p>
Hi nvruseaim. Obviously, you’re not the one being referred to by that message. Have a good day. :)</p>
<p>MIT is a great school. It was my first choice school, too. It was my dream school. But like many thousand others, I was denied admissions to MIT. I was also denied admissions to my second choice school, UC Berkeley. They’re the only two American schools where I was denied admissions, however. I’m not supporting either school. I trying to straighten the facts here and correct those that often generalize people. People who say, If you’re not at MIT or HYPS, you’re nowhere as talented. Fat people are ugly. Engineering students are nerds. And such… </p>
<p>So imagine as a thought experiment that half of the undergrads at Berkeley’s COE was transferred to MIT and half of the engineering undergrads at MIT were transferred to Berkeley’s COE (I think these groups are of roughly equal size). Do you think there would be a difference in academic performance between the two groups at each school? I think SAT scores and revealed preferences suggest that on average MIT students would significantly outperform the Berkeley students in this thought experiment and on that basis I think it is fair to say that MIT students are much stronger academically. You may disagree that MIT students would significantly outperform Berkeley students in the thought experiment or you may think that this thought experiment does not justify my conclusion which is fine but I think this thought experiment is a reasonable definition of academically much stronger/weaker. RML, I’m curious as to your thoughts on this.</p>