<p>A lot of the advice on the MIT forum is good, UglyMom. On the other hand, I don’t think that there is any other university site that has such negative commentary about applicants they have rejected. At least, I have not read any. Perhaps someone on CC can point to another. I much prefer positive advice.</p>
<p>With regard to the “only vaguely human” remark, I have seen one apology by Mikalye (just a few weeks ago), though based on your comments, UglyMom, I presume there were others I have not encountered.</p>
<p>However, after remarking that he was writing about a single applicant, Mikalye also said that he stands by his statement that “There are a lot of those folks out there.” I don’t know how he knows this. And it seems rather unapologetic to me.</p>
<p>Do you think there is a need to call applicants “clones,” in order to convey the positive message that you cite:
</p>
<p>Seriously, why not just say those things, without the edgy negative term?</p>
<p>Anything that you think is mocking rejected applicants please bring to my attention. It’s certainly not something we mean to be doing, and if it something is being perceived as such, then we should reconsider how we’re phrasing something. </p>
<p>I have a great deal of empathy for students who have been denied entry to MIT. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Your first point is interesting and I think it derives from different analytical lens used to examine decisions. Applicants, parents, and so forth tend to look at each individual decision and say “hey, this person got in, and this person didn’t; what gives?” Admissions officers look at the whole class and say, “is this the best cohort of students we could assemble? Does everyone complement each other really well? Is this going to be a very successful community?” The individuals are still the atoms which compose the whole, and still the focus of the process, but we appraise the community, not the individuals. </p>
<p>Put another way: what <em>is</em> a “mistake” in an admissions process? What would it look like? How would you recognize it? It depends a great deal on your perspective. It’s an epistemologically interesting question. </p>
<p>As to your second point. I do think that you have to be pretty amazing to be admitted to MIT. I don’t think, however, that it makes you necessarily more amazing than other people who weren’t admitted to MIT. And that’s definitely something I hope people understand. Every year I am very, very sad when there are a lot of truly terrific kids whom we do not admit for any variety of reasons. I know it is inevitable that being denied at MIT makes someone feel less awesome if only because being admitted to MIT feels like a validation of awesomeness. I wish it weren’t so and at every point I try to remind people that not going to MIT (or X other school) does not mean someone is not amazing. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah, and what bothers me most, as I said before, is when people who are not admitted take out their disappointment on people who were. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly. Ironically, it is when students <em>try</em> to make themselves stand out in essays and so forth that they end up reaching for the same tropes as anyone else. Applications are infinitely more interesting and compelling when they are honest and authentic and not “hrm, how can I pitch myself to sound right for this school??” </p>
<p>Anyone who has ever sat on the hiring side of a job interview knows what I mean. You get dozens and dozens of cover letters that say “I’m a detail-oriented team player interested in developing synergies” and before you even finish the sentence you slam your head into your desk over and over and over again. By trying to write the ideal cover letter most cover letters become completely indistinguishable. The same sorts of dynamics obtain in college admissions. I’ve been thinking about blogging on this topic to help explain what the admissions experience can be like to parents.</p>
<p>My mistake with the reference, MITChris. Sorry about the error. I believe it’s actually in the third blog post highlighted on the MIT Admissions site, on the page about the Selection Process. It is also by Ben Jones, though.</p>
<p>Jones writes:
</p>
<p>So, say one is a rejected applicant with 2400 SAT I/2400 SAT II/4.0 UW GPA, and many AP classes. What conclusion would one probably draw from this statement?</p>
<p>I wouldn’t say that this reaches the level of “cruelty.” But I do think it is unnecessarily unkind.</p>
<p>I applied to MIT ages and ages ago, was accepted, and chose to go elsewhere. I will say that had the Internet existed back then, and had this kind of material been up on the MIT site, I would not have applied. Perhaps I am nearly alone in my sensitivity to the type of statement that Ben Jones made. Of course, it could also be argued that since I chose to go elsewhere, in effect nothing would have changed. However, I think it is possible that the remark is off-putting to some.</p>
<p>I care to some extent about MIT because I was a post-doc there, and have had good friends on the faculty; and I care about all of the MIT students I know, and all of the MIT applicants I know, whether they were admitted or not, and whether they went there or not.</p>
<p>Hi again, MIT Chris: Another highlighted blog that I think could do with a bit of revision is the post about “Applying Sideways” by Chris Peterson. (I am not sure if that is yours, or a post by another Chris associated with MIT.)</p>
<p>The sentence there that makes me uncomfortable is:
</p>
<p>The aspect of this that makes me uncomfortable is that it comes quite close to identifying an applicant about whom MIT made a negative decision. It doesn’t do it all by itself, of course. However, an author I can name to you in a PM wrote a book about a group of somewhat unusual science fair participants, which featured (among others) a student who had done just that–and who was named in the book. I had read the book before I saw the post on the MIT site.</p>
<p>On another thread where this came up, someone challenged the possibility of identifying the student, since an internet search turned up about 60 people who had built nuclear reactors in their homes. The “garage” specification narrows it somewhat, though, as does the necessity for the person to be of college application age.</p>
<p>If it is the person that I surmise, then he had excellent guidance from a professional–whom he did seek out on his own, and whom he had to persuade that he knew what he was doing. I could certainly understand that MIT doesn’t want to encourage applicants to try to replicate this feat! All the more so, since many of them would not have the level of guidance that I think this person had! So I am not arguing about the decision–just pointing out that a lot of people probably know who this applicant is. Almost certainly, everyone who lives within the local newspaper radius of the person’s home does know (and I am not in that group).</p>
<p>I have another concern that comes from a juxtaposition of several sources, including Ben Jones’ highlighted blog post “There is No Formula.” In it, Ben remarks about the selection process:
</p>
<p>And then students are advised not to take it personally, if they are not admitted.</p>
<p>On behalf of the students Ben “frequently” saw rejected, who had the 2400/2400/4.0 UW GPA/many AP combination: What conclusion should such an applicant draw from the remark just quoted above? </p>
<p>The admissions decision is not personal, but simultaneously
</p>
<p>That all sounds pretty personal to me, for a decision that should not be taken personally.</p>
<p>Let me clarify that in #145, I do not mean to focus exclusively on “stats” of the rejected applicant. I should add science-oriented EC’s and non-science EC’s that are strong and have led to recognition, but are not “knock-your-socks-off” caliber. I think that an applicant like that, who was declined, would probably feel that the shortcoming must have been in how he/she decided to “embrace life.”</p>
<p>Could you possibly find another way of putting this message, that takes into account how many students MIT must wind up rejecting?</p>
<p>I have read on one of the blogs that admission counselors really feel that every student they admit is awesome. It also says that they can not accept all the awesome students out there. There is just not enough room. If an applicant has been rejected but possesses self confidence they will assume that they are in the pool of applicants that are awesome even though they weren’t admitted. If they are lacking self esteem they are likely to be hurt by any rejection they get from any institution. </p>
<p>My daughter found Ben Jones’ blog extremely helpful. She tried hard to make sure that her essays “dripped” with her personality. For example, there is an essay question asking, what do you do for fun? Well she loves doing math problems for fun, but she also enjoys many other activities. She chose instead of writing about math to write about something that showed her quirky fun side. This went against the advice that she received from many adults. Actually her aunt read her essay after my D was admitted and remarked that had she read it before she would of advised her to write about something else! This is what I mean about the transparency of MIT’s admission office. Ben Jones helped her figure out what attributes to highlight in her essays. This is probably what helped her get accepted. Had she focused her essays on other things she may not have been admitted, but it would not have made her any less awesome, and she knows it!</p>
<p>I’m totally on board with the idea that MIT cannot admit all the very strong students out there. I probably draw the line for “awesome” somewhere differently.</p>
<p>Anyone who spent much time reading the MIT site would know that discussing doing math for fun would generally be a poor idea (individual mileage may vary). At one point, MIT’s idea of a “good” answer to this question seemed to be making popcorn and watching a video with friends.</p>
<p>It’s certainly an advantage to have high self esteem. It’s great if it survives an MIT rejection–as in fact, it ought to.</p>
<p>However, when Ben is writing that he “frequently” saw students with “perfect SAT scores and perfect grades and a gazillion APs get rejected, because often these kids knew how to grind, but brought nothing else to the table,” I think it would take self-confidence bordering on arrogance for a student with “perfect” SAT scores and “perfect” grades and a “gazillion APs” who was rejected to think that he/she fell outside of the “frequent” and “often” group, and was actually viewed as awesome.</p>
<p>If “diction” is the correct term to characterize the use of “perfect” and “gazillion” in this sentence, I think the diction itself says something about Ben’s attitude.</p>
<p>Have you looked at blogs from Stanford, Princeton, Harvard, Yale, Caltech, and other schools? I would love to see those links, as well, so I can compare what they say against what MIT’s blogs say.</p>
<p>QuantMech,
I just want to comment that I admire your attention to detail!
I don’t have your patience, so I just try again to explain to luisarose in simple words why I think girls get an admission boost. </p>
<p>If you look at the links I posted (and there are many more out there), there is no doubt that the data points out a very simple fact: boys outnumber girls at least 2:1 when it comes to interest in STEM as demonstrated by enrollment in STEM classes and participation in STEM activities. Boys also have better grades and demonstrate more achievements in STEM. Boys form the majority in most STEM contests, win most prizes, etc. If this doesn’t show that more boys are passionate about STEM than girls, then I don’t know what would.</p>
<p>In the previous admission cycle, 12443 boys applied vs 5466 girls (79 vs 31%). The ratio has been stable in the past 10 or so years and reflects the interest in STEM. 891 boys and 851 girls were admitted. 52% vs 48%. This ratio does not reflect the distribution of interest, abilities, and passion. You tell me that talented girls are more likely to apply to MIT than talented boys. This is not logical. The data says that for each talented girl there should be at least 2 talented boys (to clarify, by talented I mean not an inborn talent, but as demonstrated by STEM participation). Tell me, why talented girls would be twice as likely to apply to MIT as talented boys? I see no reason for that. It actually should be reverse. Talented girls are probably more shy and less confident than talented boys, so they would be more afraid to apply. Actually, this notion is indirectly confirmed by the matriculation percentages. While 70% of admitted boys matriculated last year, only 59% of admitted girls matriculated. These percentages are stable across years. So talented girls are less likely to matriculate than talented boys, probably for the same reason they are less likely to apply. Girls are more afraid of academic demands in STEM fields. So in your strange logic, girls are braver than boys when it comes to applying to MIT. You give no evidence to support this assertion and refuse to consider evidence to the contrary.</p>
<p>Lidusha,
all you have to do is to read very reasonable posts by QuantMech where she provides examples of MIT adcom’s and EC’s arrogance.
You could also look in this same thread for the links to data I provided. See my broad interpretation of the data in the previous post.</p>
<p>These are differences between MOST boys and MOST girls. NOT MIT APPLICANTS. They are ALL the most passionate about STEM.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not saying that talented girls are more likely to apply than talented boys. I’m saying that less talented girls are less likely to apply than less talented boys. Many males apply who have little to no chance, which drives the male acceptance rate down.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>oh my god</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, that escalated quickly. Jeez. I’m guessing those girls went to other amazing, top-level schools because they were BETTER MATCHES, not because they were AFRAID of academic rigor. That is an utterly ridiculous and frankly sexist leap in logic. And yes, I know you’re a woman.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are so far off base here. Braver? I don’t even know what you’re talking about.</p>
<p>This conversation has gotten so far derailed. I suggest we just close it.</p>
<p>The patience you young ladies are displaying here is just amazing. I would have probably broken down into unproductive insults by now. How offensive.</p>
<p>re sbjdorlo, #150, I haven’t looked through those blogs recently (that is Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, and Caltech), though I have looked at all of them in the past. I would differentiate blog posts by people who have graduated from college, and are employed in Admissions vs. blog posts by current students, even if they are remunerated for posting. </p>
<p>The students aren’t writing in an official capacity for the institution (at least in my view); they don’t make admissions decisions, and it would be right to let their viewpoints “ripen,” if they have said anything negative about rejected applicants.</p>
<p>Whether a university should consider itself responsible for posts by alumni interviewers is not clear to me. On the one hand, they are volunteers. On the other hand, they hold a position of responsibility in connection with the university. On yet a third hand, anyone on CC could claim to be an alumni interviewer, and there’s no way of being certain.</p>
No, what we’re telling you is that less-talented boys are more likely to apply to MIT than less-talented girls – that the distribution of boys applying has a longer left tail than the distribution of girls applying. We’re not saying anything about the right side of the distribution. (EDIT: Sorry, luisarose, I see you’ve already covered this.)</p>
<p>
I can’t say I’ve seen examples of arrogance out of MIT-affiliated women on this thread (I assume you’re talking about me, Piper, luisarose, lidusha; I don’t actually know unicameral’s gender). I don’t think any of us is arguing that we’re better than anyone who was rejected – just that we’re not systematically worse.</p>
I couldn’t find entries relevant to admission at this link. They seem to be about life at Caltech.</p>
<p>molliebatmit
I understand probability concepts can be hard to grasp. But try again: For each talented girl there are at least 2 talented boys in the general population. Assuming talented boys are as likely to apply to MIT as talented girls, then there should be twice as many talented boys as there are girls in the applicant pool. Thus, if the admission is based on talent, there should twice as many boys admitted as girls. I hope this helps.</p>
<p>Disclaimer: by “talented” I mean demonstrated interest and ability with regard to STEM, not an inborn ability.</p>
Ding ding ding! CONGRATULATIONS, you have answered your own question yolochka!</p>
<p>Why do girls get admitted at a higher rate? Talented girls are more afraid to apply, so only the very top girls even send in applications while you have a much larger distribution of boys applying. You have been told this several times.</p>
<p>You are contradicting yourself here yolochka.</p>
<p>
You posted literally less than an hour ago:</p>
<p>
The number of talented girls vs. talented boys is not relevant here. We are talking about the number of talented girls vs. mediocre girls and talented boys vs. mediocre boys, to compare the acceptance rates. And as you have said yourself in that second quote, the girl’s proportion is much higher than the boys proportion.</p>
<p>luisarose,
you don’t have to participate in this discussion. I understand you are an extremely humble person until you feel that your awesomeness is threatened. Believe me I’m here not to question your abilities or awesomeness. No need to be so defensive. I usually don’t judge people whom I don’t know personally.
This is your guess. And as such, it has little value. How do you know that boys who matriculated to MIT didn’t get into other “amazing, top-level schools”?
At the same time, my reasoning is based on the well known fact that more boys are passionate about STEM than girls, and it’s only logical that more of them apply to MIT and decide to matriculate. And, to repeat, it is logical, that the pool of applicants should have at least twice as many boys who are passionate about STEM as girls, and thus, the admitted ratio would be 70-30 to reflect the ratio in the general population and in the applicant pool, if not for the decision by MIT to give a boost to girls. I have no problem with it, except that they shouldn’t lie about it.</p>