Harvard Professor Steve Pinker on the Ideal Elite University Admissions System

Parents Forum
521

<p>“The other thing which can happen is that people decide that in order to “play the game”, they need to significantly increase their extracurricular involvement at the expense of their academics. For instance, someone may have serious academic interests but may want to possibly be a doctor, CEO, high-level governmental official, in addition to considering a faculty position. Assume they apply to top 5 schools and get into zero, but get into some other good schools (top10 or top 20.) If their academic credentials were stellar (way beyond the typical high school distinctions and perfect standardized test scores), these people may assume that they came off like a Sheldon on Big Bang Theory. Whatever they had did not communicate “future leader” in some field. Whatever non-academic extracurricular involvement they had was not enough. And so, if they do <em>not</em> adjust course, if they apply for that “sexy” CIA position, top medical school, or whatever in the future they are not going to get the call again.”</p>

<p>Oh god. It’s almost as if you think someone is doomed to fail in life if they don’t get into a top 5/10/20 school. Or if they didn’t do the “right” ECs in high school. You guys inhabit a strange world where fates are sealed by age 18. </p>

522

<p>"I agree with that, but I don’t think it is necessarily relevant to what an MIT applicant might have thought pre-CC. I believe that there was an era in which MIT admitted on sheer “brainpower.” This was the era when MIT was providing the guys who wound up in Mission Control, sporting crew-cuts, white shirts, narrow ties, and pocket protectors. "</p>

<p>I graduated hs in 1982 (just so you know my age/era). I was third in my class. The girl who was second in my class was a friend of mine who wound up going to MIT. She was brainy, but no more so than me, and she was cute and personable and had leadership qualities and charisma and all of those other things – she was the full package. Oh - and she was Asian too, fwiw. She wasn’t in the least the pocket-protector type. Maybe she was an aberration? She joined a sorority there (same one that I joined at NU) and from what I can tell given our sporadic contact over the years, does not lead a pocket protector life at all. Indeed, she has a job at a Fortune 50 company that’s fairly similar to the one I left. </p>

<p>" When I was at MIT as a post-doc, there was considerable concern that MIT graduates wound up working for Harvard graduates. It may be that the change in MIT admissions criteria was intended to address that. I think that collegealum314 has also raised this possibility."</p>

<p>Talk about navelgazing, inflated egos, or a combination of both. </p>

523

<p>Not to PG, but if we’re going to talk about today’s and tomorrow’s classes, we have to get away from what happened way back when. Times change. But yes, there is a large amount of unnecessary jockeying on this thread.</p>

524

<p>

You missed the boat again. Having fates sealed at age 18 is the exact opposite of the point I was making. The point is that if the criterion for landing the prized/“sexy” first job as it is for college admissions, then you should expect similar results if you have a similar record. If you want different results, then you would have to change course. Assumptions here are that the job selection and college admission are of the same selectivity, and that the first result wasn’t due to randomness.</p>

525

<p>"It makes no sense at all, QM. Taking the student’s desire to ultimately be a STEM faculty member at face value, MIT is not the only university in the land that produces future STEM faculty members. So thinking “I didn’t get into MIT, so I’ll never make it as a STEM faculty member” isn’t particularly smart thinking.</p>

<p>Well, they may think the STEM faculty who went to undergraduate schools out of the top 5 did so by choice or because they couldn’t afford it."</p>

<p>As if every smart person in the land even HAS these schools on their radar. </p>

<p>If someone actually thinks “the only reason person X did not go to a top 5 school is that they deliberately chose elsewhere or they couldn’t afford it” - then that person needs to put down the freaking textbook and engage with real people and life. There are tons of reasons why a top 5 school might not be on someone’s radar screen - starting with the fact that not everyone has the insane need to rank everything. </p>

<p>It’s almost like you’re unaware that people have lives outside pining away for a select handful of colleges! </p>

526

<p>

</p>

<p>I honestly can’t make heads or tails of your comment.</p>

<p>I don’t think I brought up the original idea, but an administrator mentioned that concern to me once, which was at least 20 years after quantmech was there. I don’t think it makes a lot of sense; being an engineer and being a CEO are two different jobs. There is a ceiling on how far you can rise in a company if you stay on the R&D side; you have to get into management to continue the ascent. Naturally, some people don’t want to become a manager. </p>

527

<p>

</p>

<p>Well, I didn’t state that explicitly, but I meant “by choice” to also include not applying to top 5 schools. </p>

528

<p>The navelgazing is that people actually classify the world into MIT grads and Harvard grads and care who, in the aggregate, works for whom. </p>

529

<p>Post #525 refers to the concern that cropped up at MIT when I was there as a post-doc–and apparently it was still a concern 20 years later, too. The Tech (MIT newspaper) at the time had a fair amount of commentary about MIT grads winding up working for Harvard grads. The use of “Harvard” was a short-hand as I interpreted it. It meant that MIT grads wound up working for people in management who came from other top schools, and presumably preferred to move into management, or went directly onto the management track when they started out. Of course, The Tech in that era also had a headline referring to the football team: “0 and 11 Record Misleading.” </p>

<p>I don’t see the career choices and their consequences as a problem–some people actually would like to stay in R&D and not manage it. But some people at MIT did see it as a problem. </p>

<p>Also, I don’t understand why PG would object to the idea that some of the MIT applicants who were accepted there “deliberately chose elsewhere.” That can happen for many reasons. They might have chosen one of PG’s favorite schools, because they liked it, too.</p>

<p>Finally, with regard to lookingforward’s comment that students who increased their extra-curricular activities would not be doing that at the expense of academics: I can’t really believe that. I do believe that some students have stellar academics and over-the-top extracurriculars, both. In fact, that is not hard to believe. What I don’t believe is that those particular students would not have accomplished any more academically, if they had cut back on the extracurriculars a bit. The only exception that I can think of would involve heavily academic ECs.</p>

<p>I have encountered some extraordinarily impressive people in my life. However, I have not encountered anyone who was truly “magical” enough for increased involvement in ECs to have no effect on the academic accomplishments of which they would otherwise be capable.</p>

530

<p>“The navelgazing is that people actually classify the world into MIT grads and Harvard grads”</p>

<p>But we’re talking about decisions made by the MIT administration. It’s their job to look at outcomes and see what they can do to promote the interests of MIT. It’s no more navelgazing for them to care about out-recruiting their rival than it is for Southwest Whoville State to care about out-recruiting Northeast.</p>

531

<p>Go Southwest Whoville State! Beat Northeast Whoville State!</p>

532

<p>QM. Can’t believe it, perhaps, because you don’t see it. For the purposes of argument, I think you misunderstand or claim to. No one can dispute your idealistic views. Over a number of threads, you do seem to feel these kids are robots, QM. And that if only we would push them harder, offer them more streamlined lives, limit them to the certain focus, by gummy, the world would benefit and “they” would be satisfied, too. I get your point. But I dispute it. On many grounds. You don’t have the faith in kids that some of us do. You have the faith in concepts and a high interest in discussing your ideals. And experiences. I get that, too. </p>

<p>But we’re talking about today’s kids and a world that has evolved. No Bolshoi measuring limb length at 4 years old. We aren’t talking about cinder block institutions of higher learning, where crew takes too many hours, Bobby, and chorus is entertainment, Mary, unless it’s spiritual or what?, pre-professional? Come on. </p>

<p>You don’t see it. I see kids with solid 4.0+, high scores…and lives. And the ability to express themselves, be visionary and put ideas into practice and charm a stranger. And grounding and joie that comes from being more expansive, testing and fulfilling themselves in various ways- and they will make a difference in the world- even if, thirty years hence, the next QM doesn’t recognize their names. And it’s a good thing. </p>

<p>They’re not all outstanding. I’d like to see more of these kids with depth and breadth. I;d like more kids to climb out of the small, conformity based high school boxes. I’d like to see more attention paid to the small ways people influence others and leave the world a better place, more kids who can challenge themselves in multiple ways and come up smiling. Needless to say, I value humility, too. The end. If you break apart my words, well, as you said, we have freedom of speech. </p>

533

<p>

</p>

<p>That is just not possible at 18. They must all be over 30. :p</p>

534

<p>“Also, I don’t understand why PG would object to the idea that some of the MIT applicants who were accepted there “deliberately chose elsewhere.” That can happen for many reasons. They might have chosen one of PG’s favorite schools, because they liked it, too.”</p>

<p>That isn’t at all what I said, but never mind. I never “objected” to the idea that MIT applicants might choose elsewhere. I objected to the idea that one would assume smart people had to have had a top 5 school on their radar screen in the first place. </p>

535

<p>Good heavens, lookingforward! I am the original anti-robot-metaphor crusader! I am the person who started “Celebrating our Common Humanity Day!” It is set for the day after MIT admissions decisions are released, and its purpose is to remind CC posters that the most academically accomplished people are not one-sided individuals, but have feelings just like everyone else. Its main goal is to eliminate the use of the term “robot” from CC (and related terms such as “clone” or “machine”) when people are being discussed.</p>

<p>I don’t believe in pushing people! I do, however, think that there are people who are very curious about the world, and if their minds happen to take a scientific or mathematical turn, they might devote the preponderance of their time to pursuits that you would term “academic,” I think. Or perhaps you use “academic” just to mean school-related? Or classwork-related, in case of students who take advanced courses at universities while they are in high school? I use “academic” to apply to the entire realm of knowledge and research. </p>

536

<p>And, no I am not proposing limiting anyone! If a student actually wants to pursue knowledge and research, why limit that? Why would you think that would be joyless?</p>

<p>Aside from my marriage and family, the experience that has brought me the greatest joy has been discovery of results no one knew before. I have been literally ecstatic over it! For several weeks at a time!</p>

<p>I do think participating in chorus counts as entertainment, unless the participant is a serious musician. I would include a serious avocational musician in the “serious” category.</p>

<p>I believe that I have a good deal more faith in young people than you do, lookingforward, but I am not sure of your reasons for claiming that I don’t.</p>

<p>The idea that a person could not join drama at school is anathema to me! I would not care if QMP were “fourth villager.” Indeed, QMP once referred to receiving the “coveted living scenery roles” in productions. But I would class that participation as entertainment.</p>

537

<p>

</p>

<p>I don’t know if it’s fair to say I see kidS like that, but I have tickets to see Tavi Gevinson on Broadway in a few weeks. Actually, I am joking a little bit. There have been others, too. The valedictorian/president of my daughter’s class was like that, too – a really, really impressive guy, who was accepted everywhere he applied except Princeton. He was a Math 55 type seduced by – what else? – hedge funds.</p>

<p>But let me go back to Gevinson for a moment, because she’s an interesting extreme case of a “genius” type in the humanities. For those of you who don’t yet have a Pavlovian response to her name, Tavi Gevinson is an 18 year-old middle-class kid from the Chicago suburbs – father a schoolteacher, mother a SAHM and Judaica craft artist, two older sisters – who at 12 became a darling of the fashion world by writing a really great fashion blog. A few years later she turned her blog into an on-line and print magazine called Rookie, for which she recruited an impressive collection of youngish, mainly 20-something writers and artists. She decided she wanted to try acting, got featured roles in a couple of movies and a TV show, and then was cast in a three-actor Steppenwolf production that has moved to Broadway, co-starring as an equal with brand-name actors Michael Cera and Kieran Culkin, and directed by current Best Director in the World Anna D. Shapiro. She was supposed to start college at NYU this fall, but she deferred a semester when her show got booked on Broadway. Apart from the flash and name-dropping – her co-stars, her sitting next to Anna Wintour for fashion week – if you have read more than a few paragraphs of her writing, you know that she is unquestionably the real deal. And she did it with no parental involvement other than love and a roof over her head – her parents are charmingly befuddled by what she does.</p>

<p>Here is a kid with actual accomplishments and recognition. She doesn’t need Harvard, Yale, or Stanford. She doesn’t even really need college, except she values education. She’s the star, not the name at the top of her diploma.</p>

538

<p>Sorry to use 3 posts to respond to 1 by lookingforward, but I wanted to comment on something I agree with:</p>

<p>“I’d like to see more attention paid to the small ways people influence others and leave the world a better place, more kids who can challenge themselves in multiple ways and come up smiling. Needless to say, I value humility, too.”</p>

<p>I agree with all of that whole-heartedly. There is a quotation that I have been searching for, to post on CC. In essence: The reason that the world is as it is, and not a great deal worse, is largely due to the efforts of unrecognized people [who have advanced the common good]. The first part of that sentence is close to the phrasing in the quotation; the part in square brackets is further off from the quotation in its wording, but it approximately captures the meaning. The statement itself is quite beautiful. I wish I could locate it–Google hasn’t helped so far.</p>

<p>Where we differ is:

  1. I think that academically focused high school students can and do influence people for the good in small ways.
  2. I don’t think that people who participate in chorus are challenging themselves, for the most part (aside from time management, perhaps). I have to admit to substantial ignorance about this, because I have a serious problem with pitch production. During the third-grade Christmas concert, I was asked to just whisper, so that I wouldn’t throw the people around me off. If there is something challenging about participating in chorus–here I am not talking about participating in a performance of Handel’s Messiah with a major orchestra, just an extracurricular singing group that gives a few concerts a year at college–then I will alter my viewpoint.
  3. I don’t see academically focused students as joyless.
  4. Your comments about high-school students being conformist and “in boxes” do not make sense, in terms of my own experience. I accept that there must be some places where this is true–just outside my experience. </p>
539

<p>Back to #534, which I can’t edit now: I am most likely not the “original” anti-robot-metaphor crusader, even within CC, but I have certainly been outspoken on the topic. And “Celebrating our Common Humanity Day” is my idea.</p>

<p>It is apparently too late to edit #535, too. But I wanted to mention that my friends and I have contributed to each other’s happiness, too, of course. This includes friends who are close to lifelong–if at this point I can count friends made at age 12 as lifelong. They are very important to me. I feel that our friendships are very deep–we have been through a lot together. But in truth, for me, there is a kind of ecstasy that comes from my work that is different in character from the happiness and joys of friendship.</p>

540

<p>“I see kids with solid 4.0+, high scores…and lives. And the ability to express themselves, be visionary and put ideas into practice and charm a stranger. And grounding and joie that comes from being more expansive, testing and fulfilling themselves in various ways.”</p>

<p>I see a kid like this about once a year. Sometimes it’s been a client, sometimes a Harvard interviewee. They exist, but lots of Ivy admits don’t have all this.</p>