<p>[url="<a href="http://mitadmissions.org/apply/prepare/enrichment%22%5DThis%5B/url">http://mitadmissions.org/apply/prepare/enrichment"]This[/url</a>] MIT Admissions page recommends MIT OpenCourseWare as a great way to enrich oneself as a high school student. But does this look good on an MIT application? I love learning and I'd gladly delve into physics courses over the summer, but if there's no way to convey my efforts to the MIT admissions board, I'd rather spend my time doing something else more worthwhile. So does MIT care at all if high school students have taken their free online courses, or is it a non-issue? And please cite where you get your information from rather than simply speculating.</p>
<p>And what other extracurriculars can I engage in within 2014 that would look good to MIT when I apply at the end of this year?</p>
<p>You know, I’m tired of seeing replies like this. I’m not doing things “just to get into MIT”. I’m genuinely interested in OpenCourseWare and am wondering if I can convey any time I spend there to the MIT applications board. Given that I could engage in a wide range of enoyable activities this summer, the “more worthwhile option” will be the one that looks best on an MIT application. I’m not going to force myself to do anything I don’t want to do. Please stop giving this same old non-answer to those who ask for advice on getting into MIT. You were an applicant once too, and you should remember what it’s like to want to impress colleges. </p>
<p>I once asked my college counselor “what colleges want to see” in my summer before senior year. I got a similar response, so I know where you are coming from. If you are talking about a short amount of time , it may be worth it to do something that wasn’t your first choice if it may mean you spend the next 4 years in a place more suited to you (and no, I don’t think adcoms sort you into the most appropriate place necessarily.)</p>
<p>However, it is tough to answer your question that because MIT is so unlike other colleges. What I would assume would be that if you plan to learn on your own, you may be better with an EdX course where your performance and participation is verified. Better yet might be taking a real course for credit in person where you get an actual grade. When I was at MIT in the late 90’s, I knew more than a few classmates who had been to Harvard summer school in the summer before senior year. But MIT admissions was a bit different back then; academic prowess counted for more I think. It’s hard to say these days whether taking a class in the summer would impress MIT or bore them. People have put opencourseware participation on the application and it probably helped, but this is usually in addition to your classes during the academic year rather than as the sole activity in the summer.</p>
<p>In general, top colleges other than Caltech and maybe MIT probably don’t want to see you spend the summer taking a course, whether in-person or on-line (at least not the summer of the junior year). I’m not sure what would be better–perhaps something you could see yourself writing an essay about. </p>
<p>It might be too late to apply to RSI, but if you got in this selective research program, that would be a big deal. Doing research in general is seen as more doing than taking a class, which is more passive. However, again, research has become so commonplace that it is tough to distinguish yourself. In general, I would say doing something more active than passive is advisable. For instance, founding a startup is better than taking a business class on startups. Teaching an advanced physics class would be better than taking it. (Maybe you could work through opencourseware and then teach the class itself to interested highschoolers if you think there is enough interested people in your area. Of put up youtube tutorials on advanced topics. I’m just throwing things out there, but the theme is to be doing something active.</p>
<p>Keep in mind that MIT adcoms do read this forum so I would hesitate to volunteer anything too distinctive.</p>
<p>And by the way, I would not ask your college counselor advice on how to get into college, because they may put it on your rec that “Jake does what people want him to do.”</p>
<p>Just to confuse things, I’m going to agree with this statement. Keep in mind that you have a finite amount of time before you have to be working full-time. If you apply to physics grad school in 4 years, all they will care about is your performance in class, your research recs, and your physics GRE (the physics GRE is difficult by the way–it separates out the top candidates pretty well.) If you WANT to be studying physics now, you may be better off spending your summer studying physics as that may help your performance later on. For instance, maybe when you take these classes in college you will get 100% on them because you have seen them before rather than 94%, and that will lead to a professor being impressed with you. Sometimes taking the long view is advantageous, even if it may cost you in the short run.</p>
<p>The request for citations by the OP amuses me. I was an MIT alumnus and being on this forum for a number of years does help you get familiar with the sorts of profiles which tend to get in and don’t.</p>
<p>I think that looking at OCW is a great way of enriching yourself, and familiarizing yourself with some of the course content at MIT. OCW can be very meaningful to you personally.</p>
<p>But, I do not see it as a credential in regards to improving your college application. You would not list it any more than you would list that you regularly watch “Nova” on PBS or that you read some textbook on your own.</p>
<p>I do not believe that a completely unstructured, non-supervised, non-evaluated activity like looking at OCW would be appropriate to put on your application.</p>
<p>School sports tend to be structured and coach-supervised.
School clubs usually have some form of structure, school-approved and often teacher-sponsored.
Summer research opportunities and camps have some form of supervision.
Academic competitions have some form of structure and evaluation.</p>
<p>However, in the case of OCW, there is no such measure. It is not unlike taking a class as Listener status, where you are not graded, don’t have to do any of the assignments, and can be absent whenever you want. You might have learned something from the class, but you won’t get any credit for it.</p>
<p>Perhaps you should consider taking MITx courses instead. Unlike OCW, MITx courses include an evaluation component, distributing a certificate on successful completion of the material. While I do not know if the certificate would carry much weight, I imagine that it would at least be considered a more tangible means of demonstrating the time and effort you put in.</p>
<p>When you tell us nothing about your other options and ask these sort of questions, you sound like you’re doing things just to get into MIT.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I actually didn’t specifically seek to impress colleges. (For most of my high school career, I thought I was going to go to a UC that I was definitely overqualified for. So I pursued what I was genuinely interested in and had the opportunity to do, without that pressure - turned out to be things like drama, flying planes, karate, and community service.) </p>
<p>What I say is not some sort of trick non-answer. MIT takes all sorts of people. MIT takes people who have done scientific researchers and aced international competitions. MIT takes people who self learn. MIT takes people who primarily focus on athletics, or art, or music.</p>
<p>If you’re genuinely interested in many things and want to pick amongst those based on what can work best in an application, why don’t you start by telling us your options?</p>
<p>Our of curiosity why is doing things either primarily or partially to get into MIT or some other top college bad? Is it because you think not considering what colleges want maximizes your chances of admission? I am extremely skeptical of this. Perhaps you believe that in most or all cases the increased chance of admission is small enough to not warrant doing things you would otherwise not do? I would believe this is true in many but not all cases. Or do you find doing things to maximize one’s chance of admissions bad for some other reason? (maybe you think it is socially inefficient even if individually beneficial).</p>
<p>Like Piper I went through high school without really trying to impress colleges although this was more because I mistakenly believed I was very likely to get into schools like MIT/Caltech based on an excellent academic record even by the standards of MIT. As I now know unless you have major awards a narrow academic focus is far from a certain way to get into MIT/Caltech (I was deferred and then accepted at MIT and rejected from Caltech). While this story ended happily for me in retrospect spending considerable time reading math books was a clear mistake as the moderate benefit I gained from this was far outweighed by the risk I took in not getting into MIT or a peer school (not that going to a less selective school would have been catastrophic or anything).</p>
<p>Another way of thinking about this is as a kind of signaling model beloved by many economists. Maybe the socially optimal thing is for nobody to focus on impressing colleges but in any sort of equilibrium students will do some things they would otherwise not to impress colleges and that seems OK to me.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t consider this kind of “gaming the system” to be morally problematic. I (and I think economists in general) would argue that if MIT or someone else wants people to act in a certain way then it is incumbent on them to insure the the incentives are in place for people to act this way (“incentive compatibility” is the technical term).</p>
<p>This is an example: my son watched OCW physics and then took all three AP exams in physics to certify that he learned the material. Ditto Chemistry. He watched linear algebra (18.06), but obviously there is no AP exam to take, but he did talk himself into the “Theory of Differential Equations” course rather than the regular-level course at the local university. The physics he had learned allowed him to talk himself into a physics lab to do a science fair project that went to the state science fair. Then he got into RSI.</p>
<p>Doing OCW was done from intrinsic interest, but he took 4 hours out of an afternoon to demonstrate mastery in a tangible way through AP exams. Also, it gave him the ability to talk like a physicist at a much higher level, which then led to all sorts of opportunities.</p>
<p>Judging from your other posts, I can see that you are interested in computer science. You can easily take the same path in computer science. Learn online, and then participate in USACO, hack-a-thons, topcoder contests… there are many ways to document your prowess. Or use your knowledge to impress someone and get a programming job for the summer. Develop skills and then use them. </p>
<p>Oh yeah, my son also did music, community service, was an eagle scout, etc. But really, MIT is about science and technology, and the way I look at it, the internet is a jail-break for smart kids. Give yourself permission to start learning.</p>
<p>However, your question is a good one. How much of what you do, do you have to document? The answer, I think, is, “As much as possible.” But, remember, credible recommenders also can vouch for your level of expertise, even if it is not gained in classes.</p>
<p>I also think it’s likely bad for both MIT and for the student who does it.</p>
<p>I think pursuing what you’re actually interested in, by and large at this level, will lead you to a path of doing what’s right for you. </p>
<p>On the other hand, if you’re focused on impressing a school with things you don’t actually like, you (1) waste a lot of your high school time and (2) potentially end up miserable at MIT or wherever else accepted you on false assumptions. Note that (2) can cause you to leave MIT without a degree – and if you didn’t even enjoy MIT, that will be an even greater waste of your time and money.</p>
<p>On MIT’s end, they get a disinterested student, when the spot could’ve gone to someone who was actually interested in the things they talked about and made campus better.</p>
<p>If there was a checklist of things to do to get into MIT, everybody would invest their time following it. I wouldn’t say it’s bad; however, it just makes the applicant like everyone else. Anybody can follow a set checklist and work hard towards it (Good grades, high test scores). If I learned anything from college admissions, it’s a lot more impressive to “make your own checklist”. How an applicant “makes his own checklist” is up to him/her. Take initiative and be unique.</p>
<p>By doing thing primarily to get into MIT, it may also corrupt one’s purpose for learning. For example, if MIT publicly stated that all applicants who took MIT’s OpenCourseWare has a higher chance of getting in, people may participate in these courses just to have a higher chance rather than to learn.</p>
<p>Piper, your idealization of the student in his natural state is a little extreme. Even Rousseau relented a little and came to believe in the social contract . The way I see it, being motivated to get into college improves students and helps them achieve things that they can feel great about. I don’t understand why you think goal setting results in misery. In my experience going after goals results in increase skills, confidence, and a natural thrill.</p>
<p>The natural thrill ends after a student applies to a college. As a second semester senior, I have watched countless classmates and friends drop extracurricular activities after they submitted their applications. My closest friends even question why I still continue with my extracurricular activities. I hate to say it, but the natural thrill is unsustainable.</p>
<p>The feeling of working to get into a good college is also corrupting. Here are two examples: does an applicant volunteer because he/she wants to help society, or to reach his/her goal of clocking in a set amount of volunteer hours. Does an applicant participate in robotics because it looks good on an application, or because it’s a great way to learn programming and building.</p>
<p>I certainly agree that in many cases students are doing themselves a disservice by trying to impress colleges. But I would argue that on the margins if someone would slightly prefer X to Y but colleges find Y significantly more impressive that doing Y instead of X is a good idea. Nor do I agree that just because a student does some things they otherwise wouldn’t to impress admissions they won’t enjoy attending a given school. One can imagine a hypothetical student who was solely interested in academics being fitting in more at MIT than other schools even if MIT admissions would rather admit someone with more diverse interests. My advice for such a student would be to do some activities anyways as admissions considers them important.</p>
<p>If admissions is so bothered by this behavior then they should change their policies as their current policies seem to be a huge contributing factor towards this behavior. </p>
<p>I think that’s a rather extreme view of my position If you want to do something, and a goal gives you extra motivation, go for it. Or if you have to waste a little time jumping through hoops (ie, I don’t know any students who think the SAT is the best use of their time in and of itself) to accomplish your goals, go for it.</p>
<p>I do think spending a large chunk of time doing something you don’t like to get into MIT is a waste of time and can make you miserable. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s a pity, and not my experience. Probably speaks to high schools that encourage behavior like laundry-listing and high schools that generally don’t have high-caliber students and thus don’t.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sure. I’m talking about significant margins.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think it greatly increases the chances.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Er, MIT admits plenty of people who are solely interested in academics who didn’t waste time on other things. We get plenty of pointy students. (Usually our problem is people thinking MIT doesn’t admit well-rounded students!)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What sort of policy change are you recommending?</p>
<p>But you are misrepresenting the OP who is comparing something he would like: “I love learning and I’d gladly delve into physics courses over the summer,” with something else that he would also presumably like: “I’d rather spend my time doing something else more worthwhile.”</p>
<p>The deciding factor is how other people would value the activities: “what … would look good to MIT when I apply at the end of this year?”</p>
<p>I just don’t see this as pathological. We try to please other people, especially when they might have greater wisdom than us. </p>
<p>Are there really that many students who get in solely based on their academic record without any extracurriculars? Perhaps there are but I don’t think it is that common as students will typically have at least participated in at least some high school clubs or done service.</p>
<p>It’s hard to say whether MIT actually places non-trivial weight on stuff like community service but at least some students perceive that it and other top schools do and then proceed to do considerable amounts of community service for college admissions. I think the same can be said for leadership positions in high school clubs. Neither are that hard to do/get but they are seen as almost required by many applicants and I think MIT should clarify that unless you do something truly exceptional they will no care about these things.</p>
<p>The other main thing that I think is wrongly incentivized is how MIT and other top schools treat extremely difficult schedules. Consider a hypothetical student who in their junior year take a courseload equivalent to the average freshmen MIT curriculum in terms of rigor and grading and got a 3.2/4. A similar but more common situation would be a statement taking the freshmen taking the freshmen science and engineering curriculum at a decent state university and getting something like 3.5-3.7/4 (my rough estimate of the difference in grading). I think both of these students would have significantly damaged their applications relative to taking typical AP classes and getting close to a 4.0 even though academically both students would probably be slightly above average at MIT. Granted I think there are few examples of this in practice but I would argue that students don’t take these courseloads unless they are extremely confident in their abilities because they perceive getting these kind of GPAs will kill their chance at top colleges. I would also argue that students taking courseloads in high school that are more difficult than typical MIT freshmen courseloads who get near perfect grades should be almost automatically admitted but this doesn’t seem to be the case (nor do students perceive it to be). </p>
. The way I see it, being motivated to get into college improves students and helps them achieve things that they can feel great about. I don’t understand why you think goal setting results in misery. In my experience going after goals results in increase skills, confidence, and a natural thrill.</p>
If you want to do something, and a goal gives you extra motivation, go for it. Or if you have to waste a little time jumping through hoops (ie, I don’t know any students who think the SAT is the best use of their time in and of itself) to accomplish your goals, go for it.</p>