<p>These schools we’re talking about cannot “serve” all the kids who apply. Whether or not we tag onto it that it ultimately serves society. Fact lets us know 85-93% or so will be rejected. Even if we play the numbers, assume a portion is just applying because they can, extract those better qualified but too uncertain or inexperienced, you still land somewhere near (anywhere near enough) Harvard’s reported pool of finalists that’s 3x the number of slots available.</p>
<p>And, something has to give. While your MIT friends say there is a possible 15% tier at the bottom, in their estimation, and while it seems simple that those could be “replaced” by admitting more hypothetical brilliant kids, that’s no guarantee, either. You need to see these apps, see how unclearly some kids convey their “specialness,” see how much can fall into place, then an LoR suggests some issue. Or the kid blows an interview in significant ways. You’d have to, I think, revamp the entire process (one that works for the institutions now) in order to accommodate more of the “specials.” And, with no guarantee they will turn out any better than the group they replace.</p>
<p>In this thread, I saw reference to brilliance and to Stanford. Dean Richard Shaw and his staff do indeed on occasion speak about brilliance as one of the elements that attracts them to a certain candidate. They also say that it is easier to recognize than to describe. </p>
<p>This might also be a result of the multi-sided significance of the term brilliance, as it can be describing great brightness and radiance or excellence or distinction in physical or mental ability or exceptional talent. </p>
<p>The term also conjures images of a diamond. But a diamond would be nothing but a special rock if it were not for a good helping of crafty polishing. And that is something that adcoms might recognize in a candidate that has the potential making of brilliance, with or without the academic or testing brilliance many tend to use as the sole yardstick.</p>
<p>Brilliance can indeed take the form of athletic excellence, or simply represent a person who radiates in his or her community through leadership and inspiration. And, fwiw, a beacon of light appears brighter in a darker and isolated environment. </p>
<p>After all, there is a lot more than advanced calculus or laboratory prowess!</p>
<p>Re #441, I think it would be interesting for MIT to compare the outcomes (so far as they are known now) of the waitlisted students who were accepted from the waitlist (and decided to go to MIT) with the rest of the class they joined.</p>
<p>All of the hypotheticals suggested by lookingforward in #441 might have happened with person X. But with the possible exception of the letter from the GC, I don’t believe any of them did.</p>
<p>To clarify a little on the possible mismatch between GC and student: The GC is a deeply committed Christian, who spoke about the importance of his faith during the baccalaureate ceremony which was held at a local Catholic church. The school in question is a public school. The student is an atheist–not of the highly vocal, “in your face” variety, but not hiding the fact either. (As it happens, I am a Christian myself, but I wouldn’t factor religion into my assessment of the student.) </p>
<p>I mention this just to indicate that there may sometimes be things going on the letters which the admissions personnel might not guess. I don’t doubt that they can read between the lines in the letters, but they might not get all the way to “why.”</p>
<p>So, clearly she was a contender. Regardless of what the GC wrote. Lots of reasons for WL- it’s not saying this bunch is our favorite and that bunch is, oh, if we have to. Because of all the institutional considerations, WL can mean, Darn, we can’t fit her in right now, but would love to have her if the right spot opens. (It can also mean less than that, but your friend did get in.) So is the grief about the waiting?</p>
<p>In practice, the consequence of having really smart people get rejected from the top, top places is that they are likely to be a little more practical. And by really smart people I mean people who would have conservatively in the top 50 students in a given class. The truth is that the likely material benefits of “doing something important” are not usually comparable to playing it safe and going for the money. The romantic vision of what the career represents takes a hit.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t describe it as a tragedy for the individual and they don’t major in “leisure studies.” But it’s disappointing to see the university. I completely understand when universities have other priorities and I think everyone understands when Northwestern admits Shelley Long (Cheers actress) to its theater program over a top student. But the reality is there are only so many Shelley Long’s out there in an admitted class in the few thousands or more.</p>
<p>By the way, I tend to use MIT in my examples because I went there, the institutional priorities are simpler, and STEM talent is easier to discuss in a public forum.</p>
<p>I didn’t mean the Good Will Hunting line literally; I don’t mean that there are 10 people in the world who can evaluate science talent. But yeah, I think QM is better at evaluating science/math talent than adcoms because of her familiarity with what it takes to succeed in that field.</p>
<p>Xiggi, I find it interesting that you seem to have a lot more respect for how well adcoms do their job than the faculty at their respective colleges (from what I gleaned from the Mitch Daniels thread.)</p>
<p>If you mean to say that Person X was waitlisted initially, did s/he have a suitable backup school to attend if s/he did not eventually get admitted from the waitlist?</p>
<p>“But yeah, I think QM is better at evaluating science/math talent than adcoms because of her familiarity with what it takes to succeed in that field.”</p>
<p>Yes but for the gazillionth time that’s not the only thing that matters. In college or in life. </p>
<p>This perseveration reminds me of a nerdy guy who wishes to date a pretty girl and keeps referencing his SATs as to why she should say yes.</p>
<p>“But it’s disappointing to see the university. I completely understand when universities have other priorities and I think everyone understands when Northwestern admits Shelley Long (Cheers actress) to its theater program over a top student. But the reality is there are only so many Shelley Long’s out there in an admitted class”</p>
<p>Your example makes zero sense. Theater majors are supposed to be good in theater, not calculus. Shelley Long wasn’t famous or on Cheers when she went to NU; she was a promising theater student like any other.</p>
<p>Well there’s this kid at my school (he’s a Senior). He has EPIC grades, is the main valedictorian, he has pretty much the max GPA possible to have (4.8 I think), has taken almost every AP my school offers (he just didn’t take the useless, easy ones like Enviromental Science, Music Theory, etc.). He also went to an EXTREMELY selective research program over the summer in New York (we live in Cali.) where he worked along very accomplished Ivy League graduates (and other high schoolers). I don’t know what his SAT score was but I know it was 2350+.</p>
<p>He applied to Stanford, everyone thought he was definitely going to be accepted with no problem. </p>
<p>Yes, you’re right, although theater is not a class in high school. But I meant that even if a university did not have a formal theater program, people would understand if someone with another talent (such as acting) was admitted. And in the case that a university does have the major, people understand that they need to recruit for other majors at the expense of taking students which are stronger in the traditional subjects (english, science, math) taught in school.</p>
<p>The general point is that this is a red herring. There are plenty of spots. On a different scale, it’s like saying that it’s understandable if valedictorians can’t get into the state flagship because they look for different majors, they have limited spots, and thousands of people apply who made the “B” honor roll.</p>
<p>Actually, that comment is exactly the stereotypical comment one would expect from someone who is/was in a fraternity/sorority and/or member of the mainstream HS’s popular crowd who enjoys bullying those who don’t fit in. </p>
<p>Folks like that are one reason why during undergrad some HS/college friends and I lived to crash parties thrown by those organizations/folks or their parents to gorge ourselves on the food and drink and to otherwise enjoy the thrill of being latter-day barbarians/Vikings. </p>
<p>"Tpg, how many classes in the IB program get the maximum score multiplier that help boost the GPA beyond 4.0? Isn’t the answer … all of them in your district?</p>
<p>It could have changed --and should have-- but that was the case in my ancient days. "</p>
<p>xiggi - In our local schools, pre ib, ib, preap, ap all get 1 extra point. Since our schools offers both, in most cases the AP/IB classes are the same class with some extra stuff for IB. So when TOK uses up 3 classes with no GPA credit, it is a loss of 3 extra points. So people wanting to stay at the top give up IB due to the disadvantage. </p>
<p>On a side note, have you seen any cross admit/preference rates between Harvard/Stanford for 2016 admits?</p>
<p>"Actually, that comment is exactly the stereotypical comment one would expect from someone who is/was in a fraternity/sorority and/or member of the mainstream HS’s popular crowd who enjoys bullying those who don’t fit in. "</p>
<p>Well, I wasn’t a member of the “mainstream hs popular crowd” nor did I ever bully anyone, so, sorry, but your comments don’t apply.</p>