<p>“There is zero evidence that the star kids that MIT is rejecting are ending up majoring in leisure studies at Southern CT State college instead of doing ground-breaking intellectual work at MIT. Zero evidence. So a kid gets rejected from MIT and flexes his or her muscle at a peer institution. I fail to see the problem or why this is a big deal.”</p>
<p>This is where QM gives the example that our hypothetical prodigy is so devastated by the MIT rejection he gives up on science altogether. This is where we trot out the student who was accepted at Harvard but not MIT and thinks, is there something wrong with me? Please. Spare me.</p>
<p>I’m sorry, bovertine, but I don’t think I can provide any more information without intruding on the student’s privacy. I am close to that (if not across the boundaries) already.</p>
<p>I think you may be missing the fact that MIT faculty are not particularly concerned about the quality of the undergraduate students, beyond a certain point. The quality of the undergrads has no impact on their research, really. The quality of the grad students does impact the quality of their research, and so the faculty determine graduate admission on a department by department basis.</p>
<p>The faculty would be upset if every MIT undergrad were a dud, of course. But the people that I have talked with, aside from complaining about the quality of about 15% of the undergrads, said that they did not have time to become involved in admissions.</p>
<p>If 85% of the undergrads are reasonably good, the faculty will not be perturbed by the 15% who can’t keep up, to the point that it would become worthwhile for the faculty to object. The faculty don’t know what students are out there who have not been admitted (or who have been waitlisted). They do not have a chance (nor the time, nor the inclination) to compare them with the admitted students, at the point of entry.</p>
<p>So the admissions office gets a relatively free hand. I think it may have improved somewhat under Stu Schmill.</p>
<p>The people who were wondering whether they should give up on science were collegealum314’s example, not mine. I think they were actual students that collegealum314 knows. For students who are going into business fields, a buoyant self-confidence may be a vital component of personality, so that someone who might question his odds of success after a rejection might not have what it takes to succeed in business.</p>
<p>However, I can completely understand that if a student is rejected by MIT, the student might wonder what his/her long-term prospects for a career in science at a high level really are. MIT is supposed to be looking a potential with expert eyes. A 4.0 UW GPA, 5’s on a slew of AP’s, and even many Siemens/Intel awards are no big deal when it comes to predicting one’s future in science. Lacking bovertine’s clairvoyance device, the student really doesn’t know whether he/she is going to be able to cut it in the future. I see absolutely nothing wrong with self-doubt occasioned by such a rejection.</p>
<p>On the other hand, if the student really loves science or engineering, I would expect the student to pick him/herself up and proceed as far as it’s possible to go.</p>
<p>Even if it were MIT’s job to train the best of the best - the brilliant people who will make the groundbreaking discoveries - it is also their job to train those who will play a supporting role to those same brilliant scholars. Those discoveries aren’t made in a vacuum. Those brilliant scholars need others with whom to discuss their ideas, off of whom they can bounce ideas.</p>
<p>When University of Alabama selects incoming students to play on its football team, they are not selecting only the top individual players. They are selecting a group of players that will hopefully end up working together as a team. In fact, a group of all superstars isn’t likely to make the best team. My Alma Mater was a division I hockey school, and I recall some of the better players while I was there. The leading scorer didn’t get there scoring goals - he had twice as many assists as goals, because he set up the plays. The leading goal scorer wouldn’t have had all those goals without him.</p>
<p>It’s the same in sports, drama, music… why would it be any different in academia?</p>
<p>Well, getting to an actual science career is fiercely competitive no matter what (with many math, statistics, and physics majors exiting to finance or computer software, and many biology and chemistry majors finding poor job prospects at the BA/BS and PhD levels).</p>
<p>A top student whose backup behind MIT is a state flagship university good in his/her major and which offers enough financial aid will likely have as good a chance there as at MIT. It may be more of an issue if the state flagship university is not so good in his/her major, or does not offer good in-state financial aid (e.g. PA).</p>
<p>Of course, a student whose goal is a job at an elite investment banking or management consulting company will be disappointed if s/he does not get into a “reach for everyone” school that is a favored recruiting ground for such.</p>
<p>To respond particularly to blossom’s point in #419: What about the student who is stuck in a poor high school? Spouse and I donate both cash and supplies to the schools; we sponsor book scholarships for students who can’t buy books; and I volunteer in a “science-y” capacity in the middle schools (including, upcoming, one about 90 minutes away in an underserved area). Spouse and I established a scholarship program, initially for minority students and later converted to socio-economic basis of student selection, and not only donated substantial personal funds (particularly considering our incomes), but also recruited corporate backers to add to it. We understood enough about how the financial aid system works to be able to ensure that the scholarship funds provided new opportunities for the students involved, and did not just replace their other financial aid (thus in effect shifting the money to someone else).</p>
<p>So I think I am allowed to complain about other things, too. I don’t think anyone has a good, generalizable solution to the problem of failing schools. I am certain that if they do, it will cost a lot of money.</p>
<p>The problem I am writing about could be solved at the stroke of a pen, with a dollar cost of $0.00.</p>
<p>On the one hand, I would be happy to see a star in my classes who was declined by MIT. Occasionally, we get such people. Very occasionally, we get people who were accepted by MIT, but chose us instead. While their presence is a great boost to our faculty, it not so easy for the student to cobble together the courses that will provide an MIT-level of education, nor are their classmates on par with the top half of the group at MIT. I’ve written “sub-optimal” a whole lot, just not on this thread yet.</p>
<p>A while ago, on a different thread, I argued that a student who was ready for graduate-level classes as a freshman at a state flagship really belonged somewhere else. I still think so, despite the general lack of buy-in on this analysis, and the fact that it’s a pretty conservative claim.</p>
<p>lookingforward, you seem to be reading a lot into my posts or those of other posters who have views similar to mine. I’m not sure where “capricious, ignorant, and willful” comes from?</p>
<p>One more comment in my long string: I am not actually hung up on MIT, all evidence to the contrary. QMP did not apply there. I use MIT in my analysis because their mission has a strong engineering/science slant; that affects the type of students they are looking for, and I have some confidence in assessing students relative to that mission. Harvard’s mission is different. I make no specific statements about Harvard for that reason.</p>
<p>Caltech generally takes the kind of students I’m writing about, if they apply. However, Caltech has a culture all its own, and it really is not for all of the strong proto-scientist types. I love Caltech in the abstract–not sure how I would have felt had I gone there. Also, I have some reservations about Caltech’s view on affirmative action–they don’t practice it.</p>
<p>Just as an addendum to #433, for the benefit of ucbalumnus: Berkeley is quite different from the average state flagship; and in my area, I rate it well above the very good state flagships, as well. Nevertheless, I’m not sure that an incoming freshman who should be starting with graduate courses would be well-served at Berkeley.</p>
<h2>It comes from other comments on this thread, including the suggestion adcoms are not qualified to recognize what’s best for the school, ala Good Will Hunting. That they operate in a vacuum or have “free hand.”</h2>
<p>I hate that all this has to turn to MIT again.<br>
When you talk about one kid or a handful who are so special they should be at their top choice school, you unwittingly focus on the school as server to the kid. In appplying, the kid is asking to join. The smarter ones should be aware of admit percentages, know the risks, not assume their specialness makes them clear cut choices (and not taking this all back to the quantitative arguments of that other thread.) The fact that a few adults or some national competitions endorse them doesn’t mean the college has to bow. Or when they are in a position where too many kids fit their needs.</p>
<p>I’d like to think these “special” kids have a level of determination and personal strength wherein the confidence and life direction does not hang on one college. Or Ivies or Chi or Stanford. Their determination should be paramount. They should not crater so easily. That’s not suggesting the companion “life skills” in the first place. It’s off. </p>
<p>If an adult is interested in fostering a uniquely qualified kid to the top STEM programs, especially in high school environments where the app skills may not be well known or polished, perhaps the missing effort is preparing them for the admissions process, as well.</p>
<p>I’m not trying to be harsh, but some of these arguents rest on a kid’s hopes and wants. When putting yourself into immense competition, you have to be aware. And resiliant. Which, btw, IS one of the strengths we look for.</p>
<p>Actually, Berkeley’s greatest strengths are generally regarded as being at the graduate level (while non-advanced freshman get the “bulk lower division” experience of 700 student introductory economics courses like at most big state universities), and its large size (and the large size of many of the departments) means that a large selection of graduate courses and graduate level research projects is available in many departments.</p>
<p>But would such a student be significantly constrained at other good flagships like Michigan, Texas, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Rutgers, Illinois, Maryland, etc.? Of course, if s/he lived in a low population state with a small state flagship that had limited offerings in his/her major, that would be a different story (or lived in Pennsylvania and needed financial aid).</p>
<p>When collegealum314 posted (in #409, I think):</p>
<p>There’s a line in “Good Will Hunting” where the professor, a Fields medalist, says that he is one of a handful of people who can tell the difference between himself and Matt Damon’s character (who was light years ahead of the Fields Medalist.)</p>
<p>I don’t think that was tantamount to calling the admissions personnel ignorant nor willful. I’m not in the “handful of people” in that remark. (Actually, the portrayal of the young man in that film, in a math class, was ridiculous. The class was covering topics that many MIT students have had in high school.)</p>
<p>In thinking about the school as the server to the “kid,” I was not doing that unwittingly. I do think of the school as the server to the students (including the applicants). I’d guess that my students and their parents are glad I think that way.</p>