<p>
I know Daniels was not writing about admissions in that artucle. Of course, given his marital history I assume he would admit there are times when you might rethink any decision.</p>
<p>QM- your friend got into MIT. What is the gripe? You are a scientist, a specialist, but have said before not involved in admissions. You don’t know how she presented, whether another kid (or more) from her area seemed the more logical first choice, not even how she actively compared with others. Only that, in your estimation as a scientist, you feel she was a super candidate, one who should have gotten in during the first round. It’s akin to saying that, in your mind, with your own expertise, she should have won Intel. </p>
<p>You aren’t privy to the U’s needs (or processes,) what the competition was that year, what may have turned on adcoms- or made X less compelling, less of an urgent admit, in the first go-round. But, you do know a few profs at other schools and have heard their disinterest in participating in admissions. </p>
<p>It’s too easy, not rigorous enough, to say: well, the problem lies with them, there is a problem. They didn’t take X, first pass, so their heads are in the ground. Or, the common CC fallacies: someone else didn’t need finaid, someone else was a legacy, someone else had made-up ECs or got help on the essay. Or, someone else was a minority. Or blame US News.</p>
<p>Nearly every app I have seen this year is golden in the eyes of someone. Is that enough? No. They admit based on their needs, their perceptions, their sense of what works best and has been working best, over a a long time. Not who pleads this is their dream school, not how many recs say, this is “the one.”</p>
<p>“Or in the words of a Stanford professor I know, “Undergraduates? What are those?””</p>
<p>Supposedly Bill Gates wants a gating process for college graduates instead of high school ones. Someone asked Stanford President if it is a good idea and he said if we need to give it to our students, they will pass it before they come to college and so it would be useless for stanford admittees.</p>
<p>To add: X is a male. Despite the advantages for anonymity of leaving the impression that someone else created upthread that X is female, this whole discussion would probably make no sense in that case. I doubt that a young woman with X’s file would have been waitlisted, to begin with.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This was exactly my point.</p>
<p>^^Why is that QuantMech? Are women given preferential admittance to STEM programs?</p>
<p>The profs not interested in participating in admissions were MIT profs. They are the only ones I have asked about reviewing admissions philosophy with the Office of Admissions. Their priorities lie elsewhere–the problem of the weakest students is insufficiently urgent to justify the time expenditure. The point of their work is the research.</p>
<p>Not everywhere, by a long shot, Agentninetynine. However, MIT admits roughly equal numbers of men and women. They specifically are unlikely to leave a woman with excellent qualifications on the waitlist.</p>
<p>On CC, I have heard of one young woman who was not admitted to MIT despite very high stats and other accomplishments–she was not particularly interested in MIT, approached the application there in a somewhat haphazard way. Specifically, she didn’t follow through on one of the required letters of recommendation, with the result that MIT received it about 2 days before they issued the decisions. (Can’t recall the poster’s name offhand.)</p>
<p>Since Spygirl is my first to go through the process, I’m curious about the late MIT LOR. Aren’t the high school GC’s responsible for these?</p>
<p>^I don’t know, but I think your family deserves some points for the spy motif. You’re obviously a fun group.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“Trust us. We’re professionals.”</p>
<p>Aw shucks, thank you Collegealum. We do have a good time and DH * thinks * he’s hilarious.</p>
<p>Curious about how colleges keep track of their communities. Is the class created year by year or are incoming freshman chosen based on what is lacking in the junior year?</p>
<p>Well, at least he’s Smart.</p>
<p>You can still be an accomplished scientist, even if you don’t go to MIT. Many of my professors did not go to MIT, and I bet the reason for at least a few of them was because they were not admitted. I know that this in fact true for at least one professor I’ve had. But given that they are now professors at MIT, they seem to be doing well.</p>
<p>Well put, Thumper1!</p>
<p>“The people I have talked to at MIT do not consider undergraduate admissions to be sufficiently important to spend time on it.”</p>
<p>well, then, there’s your answer. If they aren’t bothered enough about the alleged genius-rejections to do anything about it, why should you be?</p>
<p>Not to mention, who would want to send their kids to a place that seemingly cares so little about them?</p>
<p>It also begs the question why kids are killing themselves to get admitted to a place where undergraduates are so clearly an afterthought.</p>
<p>College alum - its pretty clear you’ve worked only in labs and not worked in the business world; do you not understand how large organizations are run? MIT adcom – any elite school adcom – is not operating in a vacuum, full of rogue people who arbitrarily decide “we want more Hispanics or North Dakotas or people who aren’t such nerds!” They have missions that adhere to the strategic plan of the university. If they don’t construct a freshman class that meets the needs of the university, they’d better figure out how to do so next time around or be canned. Why you think they create their own rogue mission is beyond me.</p>
<p>
Trying to get a clearer picture. Pizzagirl: Do you have any example of what that mission might be? Would it really hurt the school if they didn’t have 20 tuba players or 40 kids from North Dakota? As long as they were all full pay? </p>
<p>Snort Someoldguy:)</p>