<p>MIT admissions itself used the term “vaguely human” in their admissions video from 1992. It is a long video and the vaguely human comment (in reference to faculty) is at 12:03.</p>
<p>[Are</a> the Faculty Even Vaguely Human?](<a href=“http://alum.mit.edu/pages/sliceofmit/2011/08/26/are-the-faculty-even-vaguely-human/]Are”>http://alum.mit.edu/pages/sliceofmit/2011/08/26/are-the-faculty-even-vaguely-human/)</p>
<p>“What affinity group do I think you belong? The group that sees Asians as a threat to their progenies future well-being, of course. How obvious is that?”</p>
<p>How dare you. I have had a long history on this board of being very explicit about the fact that my kids didn’t “compete” with anybody but themselves, I don’t second guess college adcom decisions or concern myself with other kids’ comings and goings, and that we were never of the unsophisticated gotta-get-into-an-ivy-or-life-is-over mentality. Sorry, my kids – like all of our kids – create their own futures.</p>
<p>This post has gone way beyond the OP’s original post but I think it is important to remember that no one seems to know what colleges are looking for. My dd is VERY average on paper. She has test anxiety and actually had a panic attack during an ACT test. VERY average scores. Her GPA is good but not stellar 3.5 has AP and Honors classes. Involved in one sport (could have played at the college level but chose not to) and minimal involvement in school. She was accepted to every college she applied to and even got into a prestigious program that is ranked top 5 in the country. We didn’t see any of this coming and I think her friends are looking at her like WTH?? They have better grades and scores and did not have the success she had. We think her writing and reference letters may have given her the edge.</p>
<p>I must I have missed the memo, which “group sees Asians as a threat to their progenies future well-being”? I just want to make sure I know which group I am a threat to.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Since you asked, I will refer you to an article</p>
<p>[Asians</a> as the New Jews, Jews as the New WASPs
By Russell Nieli](<a href=“http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2013/01/asians_as_the_new_jewsjews_as_.html]Asians”>http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2013/01/asians_as_the_new_jewsjews_as_.html)
about an article by Ron Unz, discussed here in the thread <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/1425554-how-corrupt-ivy-league-admissions.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/1425554-how-corrupt-ivy-league-admissions.html</a>
I don’t like attributing someone’s views solely to group self-interest, since I can’t read the minds of other people.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>PG: Thanks for responding. Perhaps I am jumping the shark.</p>
<p>I really liked your link about admitting women to Yale and was very sorry no one followed it up. At the time women were admitted to Yale, many Yale Men argued they didn’t really fit in there. Up until that time, it was pretty much accepted by the Yale community that women might make male students uncomfortable. They didn’t fit into the accepted campus culture or social life. Sometimes professors even barred them from some classes occasionally so as to be able to cover topics unsuitable for female ears. Or so I’ve heard. You can expand that observation to the acceptance of anyone outside the straight, male WASP tradition, if you care to do so.</p>
<p>QM, time to take a breath. You are all over the map. It is difficult to “discuss” when one subtopic is repeatedly hammered, the focus so easily shifts, one’s own opinions and anecdotes are put forth as more valid and the minute someone counters well or clarifies, it starts all over again- same complaint or sideways. That’s not discussion.</p>
<p>I found the soap comment(<em>) offensive, not in the least funny. First, if an applicant truly does have body odor, I would see no reason for it to be mentioned anyplace other than a confidential admissions meeting. I won’t get side tracked talking about differing cultural standards for hygiene and the arrogance of automatically assuming everyone understands this in the same way. Second - really? Pretty easily solved issue. Just add “Gracious Living”(</em>) to freshman orientation. Are we going to judge on haircuts? Eyeglass frames? Clothing choices? What if they wear sweatsuits(*) - is that enough of a faux pas to determine they won’t fit into the MIT community? Are they being intentionally offensive? Or do they just need the “Gracious Living” course?</p>
<p>If someone has managed to graduate from high school, I am going to assume their social skills are “good enough” for college. Sometimes there may be issues with leaving home, but I leave that to their parents to determine. Unless the college puts a priority on social skills over academics, I can’t see why such skills would ever be anything other than a tie-breaker. I understand some colleges do put a priority on social skills and that’s certainly their prerogative. I never imagined, however, that was the case with MIT.</p>
<ul>
<li>- adding references later (joke)</li>
</ul>
<p>
</p>
<p>When it comes to restricting elite admissions just to straight, male WASPs, that ship sailed years and years ago, so I don’t think anyone can claim with a straight face that there isn’t diverse representation. </p>
<p>(Of course, the Ivies were pathetically late to the game on this one - with the exception of Cornell. Part of that may be the historic existence of the Seven Sisters.)</p>
<p>Yes, I’m sure oldfort sees Jews as a real threat to her children’s well-being, given that her children are half-Jewish.</p>
<p>Canuckguy, I think it’s <em>your</em> prejudice that insists on seeing me as a stereotypical Jew, given that I was raised with no religion and am about as non-practicing and secular as one can get. I think maybe you need to examine who is stereotyping whom here.</p>
<p>There’s a lot of misinfo being shared. Leads to false assumptions by others. How many times has an "innocent " question been posed, rather than the asker just Googling? Or coy gamesmanship?</p>
<p>And now B brings up the purposefully inflammatory Unz again?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are we talking Slumdog Milliionaire here where someone really is coming from a situation with no running water, etc.? I’m pretty sure MIT adcoms are smart enough to understand a truly impoverished background. Or are we simply talking someone who has full access to running water, etc. but is absorbed enough in his own universe not to use it?</p>
<p>I’ve had to provide feedback to an employee who had distracting body odor. It wasn’t fun, and it made my other employees’ lives miserable until it was addressed. I can see why, all else being equal, that would count as a “ding” against an applicant. Such is life. It would be a ding in the working world, no?</p>
<p>My kids are half WASP and half Asian, so they are very confused as if they are a threat or not.</p>
<p>lookingforward, I’m confused by your post. How should the discussion “go”? Isn’t that the nature of a forum: everyone chimes in with their opinions, complaints, anecdotes, questions, etc? Maybe some posts are not made at the most “convenient” time; nonetheless, they add to the discussion.</p>
<p>QuantMech, I always read your posts with interest and appreciate her presence on these boards.</p>
<p>Ah, yes. It comes out now that some people think that “robotic” (and possibly “vaguely human”) are codewords for “Asian.”</p>
<p>I see a couple of possibilities here. One is that we white people, to preserve our hegemony, are using terms like this deliberately to keep Asians down. I think this is untrue–and if it is true, I have to say we haven’t done a very good job of it. And this possibility doesn’t lead to a very useful discussion.</p>
<p>Another possibility is that there is something about some Asian applicants that is causing adcoms to think they are “robotic.” What might this be? Well, it might be that some Asian applicants, like some non-Asian applicants, are not well-socialized, don’t interact well with others, etc. But it’s also possible that cultural factors might make this appear to the case when it isn’t–i.e., failure to give a firm handshake, failure to look an interviewer in the eye, failure to pursue ECs beyond “stereotypical” ones that may be pushed by parents. Are these unfair? To an extent, yes–but I’ve got to say, if you’re going to spend time on test prep, you might want to spend some time on interview skills prep and EC strategy as well.</p>
<p>Finally, it’s my observation that MIT takes “robotic” applicants, if they’re really smart. Or at least people who aren’t very social. But MIT takes a variety of people.</p>
<p>Alh, seen one way, no, the soap crack was not nice. Why is there fixation on it as evidence of MIT’s policies? Is it because some truly believe one rep let out some secret? Is it really important to repeat and repeat? Reopen a 3 yo thread? My very Southern Lady mil would call “pwt” and not invite that person again.</p>
<p>I think the reason that MIT comes up in this kind of discussion so often is that it seems (to some people anyway) that there are some applicants who “obviously” should be admitted to MIT because of outstanding math/science achievements and abilities. This is much less clear for a place like Harvard.</p>
<p>Thought experiment: should MIT admit a math whiz who can’t read?</p>
<p>I’m sorry, but given the fact that college freshman are expected to have roommates, I can’t think of any other time that the hygiene question is MORE relevent, frankly. A lot of this stuff is nice to chat about in theory, but when it is your kid living in the pigsty room with a kid who doesn’t bathe or wash their sheets or clothes? Let’s talk. </p>
<p>Quantmech wrote:<br>
</p>
<p>This thinking is the “problem,” finally, with threads that take this turn in discussion. MIT is not keeping people out. They are accepting a small percentage of applicants. They are accepting a small percentage because so many apply, not in an effort to “keep people out.” </p>
<p>Also, QM, while I find you generally to be an interesting poster, I find your continued aggressive posting at Mollie asking her to defend 1. a post SHE did not make and 2. for an institution she no longer attends, to be far more personal attack than the lazy and ill advised statement made by the poster on that thread you linked who is doing interviews. Clearly that poster should not be doing interviews for MIT, if for no other reason than the posting out of “school” element of that remark. But, you should examine your own motives for making such aggressive posts at a poster who was not the one making that statement, in particular when MITChris, who DOES work for the University, could easily be questioned.</p>
<p>ETA: when I think of robotic people, which I rarely find anyone robotic, though sometimes not particular engaging, I have no race in mind. I actually think of this one white guy I knew. So, I"m not sure robotic is code for asian the way people are trying to make it out to be, though I could be wrong.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sorry, oldfort. I thought your kids were half Jewish and half Asian. I must have confused you with the Tiger Mom :-). (It’s a JOKE, people.)</p>
<p>Bogi, I do mind what I feel is dissembling.</p>