<p>"MIT is not just a university - it's a concept, an ideal. The group we admit in the next few days is going to change civilization. And that's not an exaggeration."</p>
<ul>
<li>Marilyn Jones, MIT Director of Admissions</li>
</ul>
<p>
[Quote]
The group we admit in the next few days is going to change civilization
[/Quote]
</p>
<p>Positively or negatively?</p>
<p>Audiophile: my bet is on "yes" ;)</p>
<p>A ~slightly~ different attitude than the U of Richmond president, n'est pas?</p>
<p>Marilee Jones is a delightful person not afraid of giving voice to hyperbole or merely the provocative. The fact of the matter is that nobody can predict where the changes will come from which will alter the courses of history. As demonstrated by Edward Lorenz's(MIT climatologist BTW) three simple nonlinear weather prediction equations, complicated dynamical systems are dependent on initial conditions where infitessimal changes can yeild wildly different results.</p>
<p>We all know about the impact of that unknown Swiss patent clerk don't we.</p>
<p>I predict that is more likely to be the work of the drop-outs.</p>
<p>Audiophile, you are right. Hyerbole or not, it works.</p>
<p>There is something important being said here. And I don't think MIT is the only school to do it, although their particular brand and flavor may be different than other schools.</p>
<p>I consistently find that my son is attracted to schools where the people consciously convey the message that by going there and immersing himself in what the campus has, he will (by definition) be part of something unique. Chicago also does a good job of this by turning a school's "disadvantages" or downside (monster workload, etc.) into a matter of pride.</p>
<p>Well said, Cami215. Hyperbole or not, it shows a commitment to a vision which cannot help but influence the applicant pool, the accepted classes, and the work done once students arrive (and just as importantly, after they graduate). My son is at MIT now. The concept that he and his fellow students will change the world for the better is definitely hovering in his subconscious, and I believe it was installed there by the school's administration. The definitional framework schools build for themselves can be a very powerful thing.</p>
<p>However, The group we do not admit in the next few days is also going to change civilization.</p>
<p>Also, keep in mind that not every member of the admitted group will choose to attend MIT. They may do their civilization changing elsewhere. Nor is she suggesting that every single admitted student will change civilization.</p>
<p>Thank you for that perspective, NJRes, which in my opinion is more accurate.</p>
<p>Just thinking how would you like to work with people who have been fed this as a regular part of their diet. "I'm not a mere mortal, I'm a god..."</p>
<p>Actually I've felt a good dose of this with some of the Haavard people I've worked with over the years. They had just been told a few too many times how truly special they must be. Happy they condescended to talk to me, when they needed something done..</p>
<p>Better to be truly special through your deeds than by advertisement, if you ask me. The overbearing boorishness, the self-congratulatory nature of some of these people only detracted from their actual accomplishments. IMO.</p>
<p>...and I think there's a big difference between inspiring college students (as mootmom emphasizes) and feeding their vanity.</p>
<p>monydad,</p>
<p>
[quote]
Just thinking how would you like to work with people who have been fed this as a regular part of their diet. "I'm not a mere mortal, I'm a god..."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Interesting how the same incident can strike people very differently. To me, it all depends how you approach things in general. I honestly have no quarrel with what MIT is saying. Jones is not limiting what other universities will or can not do; she is not attempting to define their vision. (And surely every school should have its own vision!) She is merely saying what MIT will and should do. Frankly, this is a lot more productive than some of the interchange I've see on the Yale/Harvard boards on this site where one or two posters seem to get an insane joy out of running the other school down. </p>
<p>What attracted son about Chicago was that, on the one hand, the school can articulate a true commitment to scholarship and yet can still laugh at itself. Chicago is not known for "changing the world" but it is doggedly assertive in portraying itself as the defender of scholarship and deep thinking. It also has a quirky brand of humor. I don't think that such pride is necessarily a bad thing. </p>
<p>To put it simply, if a kid can't dream at 17 or 18 years old, even to the point of hyperbole, then when in his life will he possibly find time to dream?</p>
<p>".....doggedly assertive in portraying itself as the defender of scholarship and deep thinking...."</p>
<p>Have you any idea just how offensive, not to mention inaccurate, a statement like that is -- whether that's out of a parent's mouth, a student's mouth, or Univ. of Chicago's well-oiled PR machine?</p>
<p>Gee, those poor shallow thinkers who universally populate every other 4-yr institution, those unscholarly students! I wonder how they made it into Ivies, UVA, W&M, Williams? (And just in case anyone is thinking of responding with a song-and-dance about legacies & donors, that person would be misinformed about the number of low-income non-legacies being admitted to Ivies & many top LAC's in the last 2 yrs. minimum)</p>
<p>I mean, we all know just exactly how other institutions -- say Reed, Berkeley, Amherst -- admit far fewer scholarly students than are admitted to Chicago. Of course, here's where repliers come out with statements about how there's an equation between students with slightly lower stats and students who are TRUE scholars. (High stat students can never be true scholars; in fact, usually, they are less "scholarly" than the "deep thinkers" at Chicago.)</p>
<p>Whoa FrenchBaroque!-- seems like you're reading quite abit into Cami215's statement . . .</p>
<p>I beg to differ. I don't think I'm "reading into" it at all. I think I'm responding to exactly the sweeping statement that was asserted. (Not "a" defender of scholarly whatever, but "the," etc.) Not a tiny difference. I see this as a restatement of what I've been reading for quite some time on the forums, from Chicago parents & their students or their applicants. Chicago = scholarship. Non-Chicago = non-scholarship. I think this is just a variety of the same meaningless vanity-wars I see on other threads, including --someone mentioned above -- on the Ivy forums. And I don't think those "wars" are any more an accurate reflection of reality, either. There's just as much student-scholarship going on at Brown, Middlebury, and Johns Hopkins, as there is at the University of Chicago. I'm just tired of this myth continuing to go unchallenged, & I am not the first person to notice it, so I disagree that I am "reading into" a very clearly stated post.</p>
<p>I don't get the leap from Chicago = scholarship to Non-Chicago = non scholarship, not from Cami's post, anyway. I hope/believe the first part of the equation is true (have an S attending), but don't see how it leads to the second. I hate to think that my son would have been doomed to a non-intellectual environment had he not gotten in to Chicago off the waitlist. I don't believe that! Actually, my H and I tried to talk S into attending another fine school, which we both believed would have offered him the intellectual atmosphere he wanted and a more nurturing atmosphere (and cost less too, darn it!). But anyway, I've seen more than one Chicago bashing thread closed by the moderators, so lets not get a war going here, okay?</p>
<p>Prehaps try replacing "the defender of" with "a defender of" or perhaps with "the premier defender of" in Cami215's post. Does that make it better for you, FB?</p>
<p>FWIW, I tend to agree with FrenchBaroque. There does seem to be a lot of misconceptions verbalized on cc suggesting that there are only a handful of schools that are more scholarly or "intellectual" than the rest of all of the other top Universities and colleges that accept amazing applicants. These are the same schools that supposedly only "attract" certain types, thus the overuse of a favorite cc term - "self-selecting"! I am also rather tired of hearing that Swarthmore and Chicago (and a few other chosen LAC's) are the only places where "true" intellectual students would be happy, or where they would fit in. </p>
<p>Did you ever notice that usually it is the parents, not the students who continually sing this song?</p>
<p>The other recurring cc myth is that you can judge the degree of intellectualism at a school by counting the number of PHD's produced! One thing I learned from cc wisdom is that the only thing an intelligient scholarly person would possibly consider in life is the pursuit of a PHD.</p>
<p>So much for my thread and the theme of idealism that characterizes those institutions... back to the old debate about reputation and "scholarliness."</p>