<p>I think that Yale and its ilk feel like they do provide a benefit to the society in many ways - not just through educating future leaders, but also through many local efforts, information and materials that they make accessible to the public, students who volunteer in the community etc.</p>
<p>QM, it’s okay to have some of those 24/7 research guys, but a university full of them would be pretty dull - and I have a soft spot for scientists.</p>
<p>I think it may be hard for an admissions office to tell who is getting the scores and grades in their spare time while they work on what they think is interesting (if it doesn’t appear on the application as ECs) and those who actually have to work for those stats. As I recall when DS applied they did ask teachers to distinguish between “hard-worker” and “brilliant” (though I think you could check both). Anyone know if that’s still on the application?</p>
<p>I think that people who oppose “grinds” might not have an idea of the qualities, especially dedication, that it takes to do that. I should really be busy working now, rather than posting on CC, and so can’t really qualify as a grind–but having had some long periods of simply grinding, I have the idea of what it takes.</p>
<p>One of my graduate students was a man from the People’s Republic of China, who had just completed his undergraduate degree in physics when the Cultural Revolution began. He was caught up in the turmoil, but managed to keep his head above water, and eventually came to the U.S., after that became possible, to continue his interrupted studies. (He was considerably older than I, when he joined my group.)</p>
<p>He had two sons, raised here. I still recall the time when we were having a dinner together, and he remarked that one of his sons had been selected for a special Saturday school in mathematics (through the public schools). He said to his son, “That is like more food for you.”</p>
<p>This remark struck me as particularly poignant, because my student had lived through the Great Leap Forward, and the accompanying famine and starvation.</p>
<p>mathmom, I don’t know whether the question about brilliance vs. hard work (kiss of death, that) still appears on the MIT letters of recommendation.</p>
<p>The man who claimed to be in the lab 24/7 was exaggerating it a bit. He’s done other interesting things–in fact, QMP once asked why I couldn’t be as interesting as he was.</p>
<p>I think that very bright, very introverted people may appear to be a bit dull at first meeting (<em>cough</em> Dirac <em>cough</em>). It may take them a while to warm up to strangers, unlike the happy extroverts. However, once one gets to know some of them–I don’t mean I knew Dirac–they often turn out to be quite interesting.</p>
<p>I agree that it can be hard for admissions to tell how much work went into accumulating the statistics, particularly if time was spent on pursuit of interests that don’t show up in the form of recognizable EC’s.</p>
<p>I know only a few very students with the “perfect SAT scores and perfect grades” and a good number of AP classes. However, among those I do know, I haven’t observed any “grinds.” Perhaps I am just luckier out here in Hilbert space. JHS I think knows one grind-type. Are they common elsewhere?</p>
<p>When it comes to beliefs and actions that are common in a minority culture, who decides whether the person needs to adapt and “get the cues,” or whether the person may honor his/her heritage, while still attending a “top” college? I am thinking in particular about immigrant or first-generation Asian Americans in raising this question. I suspect that the grind stereotype may cut most strongly against them.</p>
<p>Finally, I don’t find Ben’s entire essay objectionable. He does make some good points amid the one that I find objectionable.</p>
<p>“I think that very bright, very introverted people may appear to be a bit dull at first meeting (<em>cough</em> Dirac <em>cough</em>). It may take them a while to warm up to strangers, unlike the happy extroverts. However, once one gets to know some of them–I don’t mean I knew Dirac–they often turn out to be quite interesting.”</p>
<p>That’s where students have the essay. That equalizes the playing field for introverts and extroverts in a way that interviews don’t. (however, as an introvert, i believe cultivating the skill to be interesting in an interview is an important one to teach my kids, both f whom are naturally introverts too.)</p>
<p>“When it comes to beliefs and actions that are common in a minority culture, who decides whether the person needs to adapt and “get the cues,” or whether the person may honor his/her heritage, while still attending a “top” college? I am thinking in particular about immigrant or first-generation Asian Americans in raising this question. I suspect that the grind stereotype may cut most strongly against them.”</p>
<p>QM, you’d have a point if MIT didn’t admit any grinds. But they DO. They admit plenty of them. They just don’t want a school that is 100% them. Just like they don’t want a school that is 100% of anything.</p>
A common theme I’ve seen from the student bloggers about their high school years is that the physical high school aspect was a breeze that they aced without blinking. But then they had all this extra time to spend pursuing another interest. When you have two candidates of similar #s qualifications (2300, say, and a 3.9 or whatever) depth of ECs are a pretty good indication of what time was being spent where. And why wouldn’t admissions want the student who appeared to have spent far less time achieving the same results?
Can you give an example of a interest or other time-sink that wouldn’t have it’s place on a college application?</p>
<p>Just dropping back in to say that I think that mathmom’s older son had a long-standing, time-consuming interest (related to computer science) that didn’t lead to any particular EC-type recognition.</p>
<p>^Oh my goodness - the essay! As far as my oldest was concerned it was navel gazing of the worst sort. He loathed the experience. He did end up with what I thought was a pretty good essay for an engineer - it started with the results of a computer program he wrote that used some sort of algorithm to write an essay using sample essays from the internet, but then it kind of devolved into a list of his accomplishments without much insight into his personality. He isn’t exactly anti-social, but he definitely not user-friendly. People who get to know him find him funny and smart. But he was sooooo different from my younger son, who understood exactly how to use the essay to sell himself. (Guess which kid is interested in diplomacy? )</p>
<p>mathson actually I think did have enough to show that he’d taken his passion for computer science well beyond the dabbling level, (Employment, recognition by a gaming magazine, volunteer work,) but he may still have come off as just another computer nerd. His two school ECs were kinda academic - Science Olympiad and Academic Team - lots of awards in both. Interestingly I think that when colleges are putting together a well-rounded class, the pointy STEM person may fair better at a more generalist school than at a tech school where they are a dime a dozen. It’s possible that at Carnegie Mellon, where the applications were read by the Computer Science school as opposed to a more generalist admissions department, they actually understood better the depths of his accomplishments, or there were just too many kids like him for MIT to admit. (About 90% of the kids in SCS had also been rejected by MIT!)</p>
<p>“He isn’t exactly anti-social, but he definitely not user-friendly”</p>
<p>Well, I can understand why colleges don’t want huge numbers of students who aren’t user-friendly (in your words) and I see no reason they should apologize for that.</p>
<p>So the bottom line is that everyone has someone who, they believed “deserved” admission to (insert your elite school of choice) and it Just Wasn’t Fair, or evidence of bias, that they didn’t get in. I look at it differently. No one is entitled to anything, and rather than treat elite admissions as an award you earn, treat it as - you swing your best bat, and that’s all you can do.</p>
<p>And mathmom’s son got into great schools, so if citing him is evidence that adcoms are missing the point or valuing the wrong things or overlooking meritorious kids … It doesn’t quite work.</p>
<p>So because this thread is up and running again, I just wanted to point out that MIT’s newspaper recently put out an article about the passing rates of MIT’s freshman math and science classes - [Freshman</a> GIR pass rates remain steady relative to yearly averages - The Tech](<a href=“http://tech.mit.edu/V133/N9/girs.html]Freshman”>http://tech.mit.edu/V133/N9/girs.html). All had pass rates in the mid-90’s, except for 8.01L which had a pass rate of about 78%. 8.01L is the introductory physics class that is geared for those who have a poor math and physics background, so it makes sense that it’s pass rate is not as high as the pass rate of other classes.</p>
<p>MIT could fill its class with students with strong math and physics backgrounds, and I think it should. Then it would not need to have an 8.01L class.</p>
<p>Not all high schools offer more than a regular high school physics course. Should students who happen to live in an area served by a high school offering only a regular high school physics course be automatically excluded from attending MIT?</p>
<p>Of course, UCB. It’s their own darn fault if they live in an area where the public high schools only go up to pre-calculus, or where there may be only one general physics class. Their parents weren’t rich enough to afford the schools that someone like Beliavsky can, so they’re probably undeserving anyway.</p>
<p>The high school curriculums are such that most kids may miss out on Physics completely. They need 4 years of science which may include 1 year of IPC, 1-2 years of chemistry, and 1-2 years of biology. Some may do Physics instead of second year of chemistry or biology.</p>
<p>If there is one set of students who have already met some of the academic requirements by getting 5’s on AP Calculus BC and AP Physics C and have (say) a 95% chance of graduating, and another set of students you are unsure about (maybe their high school offered neither AP course) and have only a 78% chance (referencing the number in post #933) of passing some of the core classes, I think you should fill your class with the former group of students if possible. It is painful to flunk out of college, so why not select students to minimize the number of people who flunk?</p>
<p>Because most people of substance consider it crass to set up a system that rewards people based solely on their parents’ socioeconomic status, Beliavsky. People of substance are bothered by that concept.</p>
<p>Just to comment on tpg’s post, first- the usual expectation (and I think you know and understand them better than anyone here, as a parent,) is 3 years of lab sci. The kid who wants an engineering or physics major and has not taken physics, is suggesting an issue. (Issue is a light word here- ie, starts with “Why Not?” Followed by wondering how he could write down a potential major he had no experience in.) First check is whether or not the hs offered it (a number do not offer AP phys; nearly all cover phys at least in a hybrid 9th grade exploratory course.) There’s also an expectation of AP calc, if available. </p>
<p>We also look for related experience- something that shows the kid both knows what he’s talking about and has pursued it. We’re not talking here about “come one, come all” colleges. We’re talking about those that can cherry pick. And those are the same ones who tend to be academically competitive in the classrooms.</p>
<p>I’d also suggest Canuck lay off the quasi sociological analysis of PG. She can tell me if I’m wrong, but over many, many posts, her message has been consistent: we wouldn’t have rolled up in a ball if the kids hadn’t gotten into an elite. That doesn’t mean her kids were not allowed to apply. It doesn’t mean that, by applying, she betrayed anything. It seems clear to me, she looked at a reasonable number of college choices and her kids made their best choices. Without “desperation” for an Ivy to seal their magical futures.</p>
)</p>