Cruel Process

Colleges and Universities A-Z Massachusetts Institute of Technology
121

<p>Somebody brought up the IMO! Hot diggety dog!</p>

<p>With regard to the participation in the IMO by women, there was a fascinating article a while back in the Monthly Notices of the American Mathematical Society, comparing the number of women on the IMO teams from various countries. Particularly interesting in this regard was the comparison between groups that had fairly similar cultural heritages for a long period–e.g., the teams from West Germany and East Germany, and (later) the teams from the Czech Republic and Slovakia. The participation by women was quite different in those cases. As I recall, the participation by women in Japan and South Korea was also quite different (though it’s been a while since I read the article).</p>

<p>Another group was conspicuously limited in numbers on recent US IMO teams: white males of Western European descent.</p>

<p>This is extremely heavily cultural.</p>

<p>I think that one of the most valuable things molliebatmit is doing to increase the representation of women in science is pursuing her own scientific research at the highest level. In my opinion, having women attain prominent positions in science will do more to encourage the participation of women in science than 500 Saturdays spent making “goop” with middle school girls.</p>

122

<p>yolochka, there is a feature of admissions to “top” American universities that may help to put MIT’s decision in perspective (not that I am known around CC as a defender of MIT’s admissions process–far from it).</p>

<p>If you look at the percentages of students who are admitted to Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, and MIT (HYPSM) who actually choose to attend those schools, you will find that they are quite high. In fact, they are so high that I think one might wonder how the universities accomplish this, in the absence of collusion between their admissions committees.</p>

<p>In some countries, a single university may be able to count on the enrollment of an extremely high fraction of the admitted students. For example, I am thinking of Tokyo, or Moscow State. Oxford and Cambridge might appear to be a counter-example, but undergraduates can apply only to one or the other.</p>

<p>Although there are certainly differences among the HYPSM institutions, I think that the preferences of American students are more evenly distributed among them (the study by Caroline Hoxby and co-workers notwithstanding).</p>

<p>While yield no longer figures into the rankings of US universities, it seems to me that the overall predictability of enrollment is important to the admissions personnel. The admissions personnel at HYPSM need to hit enrollment figures within a very narrow range, without going too deep into their waitlists. MIT’s numbers taken from the waitlist are certainly low, and in some years 0. (It’s not that the waitlisted students are “worse” than those admitted; I think it’s a process issue.)</p>

<p>The more exceptionally highly qualified the student, the more likely it is that the student will be admitted to multiple schools in the HYPSM group. This reduces the predictability of enrollment. The existence of EA/REA/SCEA does give a hint to the universities about whether an admitted student is likely to enroll, and I suspect that the hint is often taken–but not always. Still, to me it would not be surprising if one or more of the HYPSM group decided to “let go” of a few applicants in this category, with reasonable certainty that one of the others would admit the applicants. This decision might never be articulated or even consciously registered in that particular way. (There are probably some applicants that everyone feels they <em>have</em> to have, but I would guess that their number is relatively small.)</p>

123

<p>yolochka, why are you so hung up on MIT? It’s unfortunate your son didn’t get admitted. But he has other fabulous options, so why not focus on those? Frankly this is ridiculous. Why would you want him attending school with all of those dumb girls anyway?</p>

124

<p>Affirmative action is practiced by nearly all top 20 schools, Caltech being the exception. I don’t know why MIT is being singled out.</p>

<p>Yolochka, do you share an account with your son? I ask because your account info says you are 18.</p>

125

<p>

</p>

<p>yolochka, I believe you have discovered what you are seeking but you’re just not seeing it. Since it’s obvious to you that MIT students and graduates hate data and refuse to analyze it, can’t you see that that’s the type of student MIT Admissions is looking for. And that must be the reason your son wasn’t accepted. I hope this helps and I’m sure your son will do great elsewhere.</p>

126

<p>We have already provided a reason for the large disparity between male and female admission rates at MIT–self-selection of the pool. That is, females don’t apply unless they are good candidates, whereas more males apply that are longshots. </p>

<p>Yolochka rejected this theory, saying that it didn’t occur in his high school. Well, first of all, a regular high school has such a tiny sample size that you can’t draw a meaningful conclusion.
Second of all, Caltech has historically had the same disparity in admission rates between gender, and they do NOT practice affirmative action. Caltech and MIT are the same type of school and draw similar applicants; it is reasonable to think that if self-selection explains the disparity in admissions rates between males and females at Caltech, the same thing may be occuring at MIT.</p>

<p>I’m not saying there is no benefit to being female in MIT admissions; if this was true, then they wouldn’t say they practice affirmative action. However, it is not clear at all how affirmative action is practiced with regards to females at MIT especially since there is a large confounding factor (i.e., self-selection) which affects admissions rates.</p>

127

<p>

Well, fortunately one can do both. And who doesn’t like goop? :slight_smile: I don’t disagree, though.</p>

128

<p>mollie, piper, and others have made a lot of good points. </p>

<p>What I want to say is this: I tremendous empathy for people who are denied the opportunity to attend a university of the dreams. I have zero sympathy, however, for people who cope with this denial by lashing out at others who did, especially by mocking their apparent inferiorities. </p>

<p>Being denied from MIT, or from any school, entitles you to be sad, disappointed, frustrated (or, you know, equanimous and even-tempered). It does <em>not</em> entitle you to be mean towards other people who were admitted. Such undeserved cruelty is not welcome in MITCC.</p>

129

<p>I agree with you 100% about post #128, MITChris.</p>

<p>I wonder if you would please turn attention to the negative commentary by people affiliated with MIT about students that MIT is rejecting. For example, I have in mind the post by Ben Jones which is the first one highlighted on MIT’s web page about the Selection Process. Also, ExieMITAlum, an interviewer, has been referring to MIT students as “robots” and “clones” as recently as 3/31/13. This bothers me, and I think that it bothers a number of other forum participants.</p>

<p>In all honesty, I do not think that any other university mocks applicants that they have rejected, as much as MIT does on its official admissions website.</p>

130

<p>Well, thanks for bringing this to my attention. I checked my profile for the first time and discovered that I am (1) student and (2) was born in 1995. I wonder how that happened. Is it a default? Anyways, it’s now fixed. I declare here that I’m a parent and, well, I’m sorry I’m not going to reveal my age. I take the fifth on that. And to clarify, my son does not participate in online forums. He’s too busy doing things he loves and enjoys doing, and arguing is not among them :slight_smile: </p>

<p>

I am so glad you asked! Thank you. Here are 2 reasons:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Because I like transparency and honesty. I would like MIT adcoms to say honestly that boys have to meet higher standards than girls and so be it. MIT has a right to make whatever decisions it wants! Why wouldn’t they admit to it? Maybe because they will look very bad, and may potentially lose applicants (and $$$$), and ranks. Also, I don’t like when ECs claim that they can figure a person from a one-hour interview. </p></li>
<li><p>Because I don’t like the attitude of MIT affiliated females on this forum. It’s okay to be proud, but they obviously believe they are “the best of the best” just because they were SELECTED BY MIT. Well, perhaps they are the best of the best among other females. The evidence suggests that more qualified males have to be rejected to make room for some females, and nobody here is able or even attempts to refute it logically, by analyzing available data. I would like to see more humility, of a kind I see on other forums for even more selective institutions. There I see people who humbly admit that they don’t know why they were selected while many other, seemingly as qualified or even better, people were not. This is the right attitude. Here I see only pride.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>Btw, Caltech has AA and admits girls at a higher rate than boys. I’m sure they are also making effort to create a more diverse balanced campus. But they are not taking it to the extreme by creating artificial ratios like MIT does. They are not bragging that their admission process is extremely accurate. They don’t keep admission blogs with all kinds of advice, don’t call their applicants robots, clones, and barely human. What I like about their process is that instead of involving highly subjective ECs, Caltech involves faculty in reviewing applications. Who if not faculty would know best what kind of students they want in their classes?</p>

131

<p>

citation needed</p>

132

<p>^ only I’m required to provide citation, others can make any kinds of unsupported statements. Anyways, look at Caltech’s common data set. They say first gen and ethnicity are considered in admissions. Percentage-wise they also admit more girls than boys. Obviously they try to have a more balanced campus.</p>

133

<p>I would agree with QuantMech that MIT admissions officers could be less insulting to rejected students. If you listen to them you get the impression that they think they do not make mistakes. It’s unclear if they actually believe they don’t make mistakes or if they sound arrogant without actually in being so. In any case, that belief has clearly spread to many admitted/current students who believe that being admitted to MIT automatically makes one amazing. These students often don’t do particularly well academically either. I doubt I’m the only one who finds this incredibly off putting.</p>

134

<p>

</p>

<p>I am not sure whether they have AA currently or not. But in the past, I am certain they have not had AA. This was confirmed by people who worked in the admissions office, and was well-known. Yet, even at that time, the rate of admission for girls and boys was vastly different.</p>

135

<p>

I think the difficulty is that you have not actually provided any evidence. Show us some of this available data. I haven’t been able to find it. I’ve looked. I’ve looked a lot. We love data.</p>

<p>

No one gets to make unsupported statements.</p>

<p>

Actually, Caltech does have an admissions blog: [The</a> Blogs - Caltech](<a href=“http://www.caltech.typepad.com/]The”>http://www.caltech.typepad.com/)</p>

<p>

When did that ever happen?</p>

136

<p>“They say first gen and ethnicity are considered in admissions. Percentage-wise they also admit more girls than boys. Obviously they try to have a more balanced campus.”</p>

<p>Just because they have a “more balanced campus” or admitted more of one grouping than another does not mean that that was their goal and they made decisions to make that happen.</p>

<p>My guess is that they also admitted a higher percentage of left-handed people than the percentage in the applicant pool.
That does not mean that they set out to admit more left-handed people, or that a left-handed person was specifically chosen over a “more qualified” right-handed person.</p>

137

<p>@UMTYMP STUDENT POST #96</p>

<p>I think MIT is looking for a balance. They like students that study hard but find time to hang out with friends. They might prefer a student with a low 700 score and a social life than a student with 800’s on all his exams, but never sees the light of day. I don’t think that they mean to discourage students from self studying.</p>

138

<p>Here’s the thing about humility. I <em>was</em> surprised, honored, and grateful to be admitted into MIT, and I was humble about it and didn’t brag, etc. But when someone starts suggesting I don’t deserve my acceptance, humility is the last thing on my mind.</p>

<p>And again, we are not ignoring data. There is no data to ignore. The only data we have is the admission % for boys vs. girls, which may be because a higher % of female applicants apply. You say this is impossible because MOST GIRLS aren’t interested in STEM, but that’s totally irrelevant.</p>

<p>Let me give an example of what I mean. If you took all of America’s senior high school girls and put them in a room, maybe only 6000 would be highly interested and gifted in STEM. So that would mean you’re right, girls are overall less interested in STEM.</p>

<p>However, the 6000 female applicants to MIT are not a random 6000 from the entire pool. They are the 6000 that are outstanding in math, science, and tech. Thus, while its true that most girls are not qualified for MIT, its also true that most girls WHO APPLY are qualified.</p>

<p>We can argue this to death, but a higher % admitted for girls does not mean they rejected better boys. Everyone they admitted or rejected was for a reason, and the reason wasn’t just gender. The only “data” that would be relevant here would be if admissions released ALL data on their female/male accepted students - GPA, scores, ECs, letters of recc, interview evaluations…anything else is incomplete and could be misleading. And that would be a huge breach of privacy.</p>

139

<p>Edit: higher % of qualified females apply (paragrah 2). Sorry, on my phone and can’t edit.</p>

140

<p>In what context is keeping an admission blog with all kinds of advice a bad idea?</p>

<p>My daughter found that MIT is the most transparent in the application process. They clearly state what they are looking for in an applicant. </p>

<p>What does the best of the best mean? Does it mean that they are the smartest, does it mean that they are the best scientists, that they have the most potential? Maybe it means that they are the best fit for MIT? Is it arrogant for a girl to feel like a perfect fit? It may be just a clear sense of self.
My daughter applied to MIT because based on admission blogs and a campus visit she was sure that she’d fit in perfectly. It’s for the same reason that she chose not to apply to some other prestigious universities, because she didn’t think she would fit into their culture at all. It certainly doesn’t make her arrogant.</p>

<p>I think that admission officers call applicants clones when they all look identical on paper. Every child is unique. They are yelling, “Don’t be afraid to tell us who you really are, what are your real passions?” Don’t just tell us what you think we want to hear. Don’t choose activities that you think we want to see. Be yourself and you won’t look like everyone else."</p>

<p>I believe that the term was- vaguely human, not barely human. Assuming that I am correct, 3 years is too long to hold a grudge when the said poster has apologized on numerous occasions.</p>