<p>Right, I see the difference clearly between prejudice against the “perfect” scorers, vs. not offering admission automatically. I have no problem with the latter.</p>
<p>I think that to say that students have often sacrificed something much more important in order to achieve the 800/800/800 score is an indicator that one views such students with at least a tinge of suspicion. No?</p>
<p>I think that to say that students with “perfect” SAT scores and “perfect” grades and a gazillion AP’s were “frequently” rejected because they “often” knew “how to grind,” but had little else to offer indicates a certain real distaste for such applicants. (Quotations from Ben Jones, not Marilee.)</p>
<p>Virtually no university, and certainly no top university auto-admits students with 2400’s, nor should they. However, it is my impression that MIT was unique in commenting negatively about those students.</p>
<p>Re #1020: Mollie could perhaps tell us how much of the admissions philosophy of Marilee Jones remains in place at MIT, and how much has been changed.</p>
<p>Right, no problem, no big deal if they decline many valedictorians (there are way too many not to have quite a few being declined). It’s the very strong negative tone that MIT had that’s the issue.</p>
<p>Really, Mikalye’s comment about interviewing applicants who seemed only barely human (or words very close to that formulation) bothers me more than any other aspect of MIT Admissions, as problematic as some aspects were in the Jones era.</p>
<p>Well, as I remarked above, perhaps Mollie can clarify what part of the admissions philosophy persists, and what doesn’t. And why Mikalye is still interviewing for them.</p>
<p>Surely everybody would agree that the adcoms at MIT (or anywhere else) could make mistakes, since they are human? That is, they might make errors even when applying their own admissions policy. If it is comforting to think that this may have happened with respect to any particular student, why not? That’s different from thinking that their policies are wrong-headed.</p>
<p>
The lack of ECs is probably what is most likely to get a kid labelled a “grind.” That’s certainly how the other kids in the high school identify them.</p>
<p>Well, I will give you one example. When I was in high school, there was a guy who won a gold medal on the math olympiad and won the Westinghouse with a math research project. A professor who collaborated with him noted that his work looked like that of a brilliant mathematician with 20 years of professional experience and unusually balanced in terms of proficiency in subfields of mathematics. Even professional mathematicians often rely on strength in one subfield or another. By all accounts, he is a normal guy and a well-regarded teacher 15 years later (now at Harvard.) I’d say that this guy was clearly in the top 500, wouldn’t you? </p>
<p>Explanations that there may not be room for him because there are more applicants than seats, which is the common refrain around here, seem absurd to the point that it’s a slap in the face. </p>
<p>And yes, there are people who are almost that good, people who would obviously be head-and-shoulders academically above phi beta kappas at Harvard or MIT. I knew a few of them. </p>
<p>As you go down in ability, there are more and more people. But it’s not just like everybody on the “A” honor roll is indistinguishable.</p>
<p>lookingforward, I think that our personal philosophies are so different that it might actually be interesting to discuss hypothetical cases to the point that we can elucidate where the other is “coming from,” as they used to say.</p>
<p>I don’t get a worldview in which it passes without comment for someone who to all appearances is officially connected with MIT to say that he has interviewed students who are only barely human, yet it is better to reserve to a PM questions about why MIT still relies on the services of the unidentified interviewer who can only be labeled by his username.</p>
<p>In addition to the “more applicants than seats/beds” refrain which collegealum314 addresses (and in my opinion refutes) in #1031, there are also statements that no one “deserved” admission to a “top” university. </p>
<p>I do not believe this. I distinguish it from applications where there are single-digit or even double-digit spots available. No one “deserves” to be hired as an Assistant Professor at Harvard. (Actually, considering Harvard’s tenure rate, that statement cuts both ways.) But I mean it in the sense that there may often be a single opening in a field, in a multi-year period. So if Harvard had not hired the man that collegealum314 mentioned in #1031, I wouldn’t have difficulty with that.</p>
<p>On the other hand, when 1000+ students are being admitted to a “top” university, I have no difficulty in saying that someone as exceptional as the future Harvard mathematician deserves to be among them.</p>
<p>It is true of many of the admitted students that they did not “deserve” admission, and were fortunate to be admitted.</p>
<p>Hunt, as always, is the voice of reason. However, it is possible that Hunt entered the conversation too late to see my quotation of the current MIT Admissions site:
Imagine that! Every decision is correct!</p>
<p>If I could figure out some way to harness the 100% accuracy of MIT’s admissions decisions in the process of converting heat to work, I believe that the device could violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics!</p>
<p>It would go a long way with me for the Admissions personnel to state plainly that they do occasionally make mistakes.</p>
<p>I have heard that students arriving at MIT sometimes cheered each other on by saying, “Marilee doesn’t make mistakes!” That was genuinely nice for camaraderie (sincere statement). But in terms of accuracy?</p>
<p>I think this is simply a case of backgammon and chess. Since luck plays a role in backgammon, an amateur has a chance against a pro. Not so in chess. So, given a choice, most people prefer backgammon. They do what is in their own best interest.</p>
<p>Our ruling class wants to appear liberal to win maximum support at the ballot box. So it is also in their interest to support backgammon. (Since there is no guarantee that their children are among the best of the best, it is doubly important for them to support backgammon).</p>
<p>Top schools are handmaidens to power and they play their role accordingly. So it is also in their best interest to set up a Byzantine-like system for admission. Here is an excellent example how the game is played:</p>
Well, I don’t mean to be overly nitpicky, but I did not explicitly include myself in this group. And I haven’t made a secret of the fact that, as a clueless applicant from a middling public high school in the midwest, I did not have an “otherwise strong application”. It’s all very well and good to point to my double-major and my PhD from a top program in my field and say that MIT did the right thing by admitting me, but isn’t the trick to do it prospectively?</p>
<p>I already have. It must be remembered that PG requested it and it would have been impolite to refuse. You do notice how quickly she changed the topic when information on her significant other was broached? I simply dont think it wise to dismiss Kahans work: knowing ones affinity group can reliably predict ones behaviour. </p>
<p>As for the rest of your analysis I am sure there is room in this world for more than one opinion.;)</p>
<p>Also, I would like to thank alh for locating the conversation between Bryan Nance and “Momchil” (link in post #1029). </p>
<p>Historically, Momchil was a Bulgarian ruler who fought the Turks in the mid-1300’s, sometimes on the side of the Byzantine Empire and sometimes on the side of a Serbian ruler. The name “Momchil” is still used as a given name in Bulgaria.</p>
<p>No quarrel with what Bryan Nance wrote. Some of it is quite funny, and the advice is excellent (generally speaking).</p>
<p>However, I suggest looking at the posts by “Momchil,” on the link that alh provided. Do these read to you like the posts of an 18-year-old Bulgarian who is applying to MIT?</p>
<p>Apologies: my post #1016 (about the MIT applicant who liked to solve differential equations/read physics books with friends) was based on a faulty recollection and should be ignored–though not the other posts. I had inadvertently combined information from two different sources.</p>