<p>Actually because people with official and/or close ties to MIT have posted on the MIT board since I’ve been on CC, this is a good place to get both official and unofficial points of view about MIT admissions. I wish other colleges were as well represented on CC. I always found the MIT boards here, more fun to read, and more informative than those of other colleges. Especially compared to those of my alma mater, which can be very painful. I haven’t looked at them in ages - probably not since Northstarmom stopped posting.</p>
<p>This was in response to some post a page or two back I think!</p>
<p>@mathmom: Yes, in some regard, they are a victim of their own transparency. There were two high-ranking admissions officials MITChris and one another who posted regularly and interacted with people over years. As Mollie mentioned, MITChris is taking a break to further his schooling, though he pops in once in awhile. The other admissions person left MIT a few years ago. Also, there are/were scores of MIT admissions bloggers (e.g., students like Mollie who kept blogs of their own lives at MIT) who posted on the threads at MIT. I believe these people were in the employ of MIT, and it’s clear that they had interacted personally with the people who made the decisions. I have dismissed a lot of the “what if” hypotheticals that I’ve seen in responses to me and QM because I’ve seen how the people associated with MIT adcoms respond to different hypotheticals on the MIT board.</p>
<p>Regardless, let me re-iterate that I applaud MIT for its transparency.</p>
<p>And despite my criticism, I still think there is less silliness in MIT’s admissions compared to Harvard or some other ivy leagues (though none of the admissions directors went on well-publicized book tours like Marilee Jones.) By the way, I understand that Marilee Jones was something of a rock star in the admissions circle. And most of her radical ideas were stuff that ivies have done all along. I guess some of my disappointment is that one of the bright points of MIT was changed. </p>
<p>I do think there is evidence from the top that the ship has turned somewhat, based on a close reading of Dean of Admission Stu Schmill’s statements. However, the MJ rhetoric still does come out of some of the people who work there, some of which were hired by her. Even if Schmill wanted to a complete 180, it would be inappropriate for him to say so. MJ’s own statements of her tenure was that 15% of the people admitted under her wouldn’t have been admitted in previous years; that is, she took a chance on 15% who normally wouldn’t have cleared the bar. That means 85% <em>would</em> have cleared the bar. So Blossom and others who either were themselves admitted or were related to people who were admitted under MJ shouldn’t feel insecure. The 15% of people that normally wouldn’t have been made it undoubtedly have promise too and society benefits from them going into technical careers, or careers which otherwise build on their undergraduate education in science and engineering.</p>
<p>Regardless, kids are not immune to negative feedback. One of the reasons I post is to strengthen the resolve of kids who have not gotten in but would have if it was based on academic promise, to tell them that what talent and hard work is rewarded more logically when they go to grad school or set out in technical careers. Look, it’s easy for people to be resilient when they haven’t invested as much in their careers. Most of us would be thrilled to win a medal in the olympics. However, if you’ve trained every day for 10 years for something, and subjectively you did give the best performance as evidenced by experts (e.g., former champions), you want and expect to go home with that gold. When it doesn’t happen, it hurts both the individual and the sport. And hopefully the results of the junior olympics are not judged in a completely different way as the real olympics, because there will be talented people who will go for the short term success at the expense of their long term development. </p>
<p>There should be some place in society that promotes scholarship, and I think it’s logical that universities should have that role. Regardless of other priorities meant to spice up the university environment, the most celebrated value should be supporting those who go above-and-beyond in terms of making deep and creative insights which enrich the academic world, and which can be applied to change society for the better. In my experience in higher education, this is not the first priority of the elites at the undergraduate level. And in my opinion the elites are important; the higher on the ladder a university is, in my opinion the more its values reverberate throughout academia and the more they influence the talented teenagers out there.</p>
<p>" However, if you’ve trained every day for 10 years for something, and subjectively you did give the best performance as evidenced by experts (e.g., former champions), you want and expect to go home with that gold. When it doesn’t happen, it hurts both the individual and the sport. And hopefully the results of the junior olympics are not judged in a completely different"
Musical theater, dance students may have also trained long and hard, but they seem to understand that not being selected wasn’t a personal referendum on their worth. Is there a reason STEMmies seem to have more of an issue with this?</p>
<p>And it’s hard to watch Olympians cry when there’s only one Gold and the.poor dear got a silver. Maybe there should be more golds.
Otherwise , I green dot you, CA. Sincerely.</p>
<p>I don’t know how student bloggers generally operate , whether there is usually some oversight. Judging from the ones from D1’s school, there can be s lot of autonomy. Sometimes too much.</p>
<p>okay. I have only been thinking about language up to this point but now I’m thinking about admissions committees. Also, because for the first time in all the years I’ve been on the board, I actually read some of the student posts in the various university threads. </p>
<p>I’m thinking about PG’s quote 1283. Who judges musical theater and dance students when they apply to college? Is it a regular admissions committee or usually do they audition? Are they judged by amateurs or experts?</p>
<p>I’ve just encountered the idea that perhaps it would be better for scientists and mathematicians (experts) to judge potential scholars in the field? Could you get them to serve on an admissions committee? They do this for graduate programs but undergrad would be a full time job, right?</p>
<p>When one of my humanities snowflakes applied to colleges, he was pretty advanced in a particular course of study and it seemed like the admissions office sent his file on to that department and they contacted him themselves. Now I wonder how they made the decision to do that? Did they ask the department to evaluate what they were reading?</p>
But they ARE highly likely to be admitted, probably to multiple highly selective schools. They might not get into any specific one, of course. I think there are just as few such people as there are major prize-winners as well.</p>
I have been in the technical/financial field my whole life. I have put my heart and soul into my work. The whole promotion and advancement are still done holistically, meaning they don’t have to tell you why someone is promoted and you are not.
Why? Some people are placing too much importance on those schools. I know a graduate of MIT who is a very good trader. His best memory of the school was his fraternity when he had the power to decide what kind of food they could have - he was a very popular guy for a year. </p>
<p>Both of my kids submitted a dance supplement. According to schools they applied to, those supplements were evaluated by the school dance instructor (professor). Since they weren’t going to major in dance, they didn’t have to audition. My kids’ school has over 10 dance troops. It would have been difficult if they didn’t admit dancers at any given year. Aside from admitting top academic students, most schools are trying to build a community. My kids wouldn’t have been interested in any school which didn’t have many top rated ballet dancers.</p>
<p>"But they ARE highly likely to be admitted, probably to multiple highly selective schools. They might not get into any specific one, of course. "</p>
<p>Exactly. I get the impression we are supposed to find it “sadder” when the 2400/4.0/EC man-of-good-cheer doesn’t get into his very first choice and has to slum it at another top school – compared to the 2200/3.9 kid who has to do the same thing. Why? Why is disappointment more “brutal” if one is super smart compared to just really, really smart? </p>
<p>Who gave these kids the sense of entitlement that the elite college of their choice was due them?</p>
<p>“In my experience in higher education, this is not the first priority of the elites at the undergraduate level. And in my opinion the elites are important; the higher on the ladder a university is, in my opinion the more its values reverberate throughout academia and the more they influence the talented teenagers out there.”</p>
<p>Is it wrong that the collective elites have said, in essence, to today’s teenagers - show us there is more to you than a classroom? Show us communication skills, leadership skills, things that make you interesting beyond the classroom? Certainly preferable to 50 years ago, when the elites said collectively - show us the imprimatur of the headmaster and that you come from a ‘good’ family.</p>
<p>Look, if their student body isn’t “academic” enough for you, why send your kid there? If the true talent is being spurned by MIT and caught up by (say) Carnegie Mellon or Georgia Tech, then wouldn’t the logical response be - I don’t want them at MIT anyway? It’s like you are trying to crash the gates of an exclusive nightclub while all the time complaining that they don’t like how they selected the very partygoers you want so desperately to join.</p>
<p>Sylvan, I’m not sure why you are taking such offense to my posts. Am I as obnoxious as you are making me out to be? Like I said, when I said “average”, I meant the “average man on the street”.</p>
<p>Since you are still having issues with me, I will clarify further. My son was chosen to be among the top 60 math students in the country for the US Math Olympiad Summer Program. From this group, the top 6 are chosen to represent the US at the International Math Olympiad. So compared to the this group of kids, I would say that a lot of us are pretty average, particularly in math. Also, when these kids go out to dinner/movies, the average/typical/regular onlooker would probably only take notice of them for being an awkward/nerdy/goofy bunch jabbering on about foreign math concepts. I would even guess that they are made fun of as my son has been the butt of many jokes. </p>
<p>As a below average person myself, I find it pretty darn difficult to comprehend the brainpower among this group. But I recognize that these kids are wonderful because, as an “insider”, I see the hard work and enthusiasm that these kids possess. But would an average/typical/regular “outsider” really be able to appreciate them if they had no familiarity with MOSP and the accomplishment that it is to make it there?</p>
<p>It was mistake to even bring up my son, but I had no idea that my words would be picked apart so much. I was just saying that as goofy as these kids may appear, there is value in having them at places like MIT.</p>
<p>Who says MIT doesn’t take a lot of such kids? They do. The debate seems to be whether they should or must take ALL of them. </p>
<p>And whether the average Joe on the street appreciates them isn’t of relevance. The relevant question is does MIT respect, value, whatever those kinds of brains. Clearly they do.</p>
<p>My previous post seems to rile people up more than I expected. Sometimes in life you just cannot win. When I try to be polite, I am accused of being coy; when I tell it as it is, then I am being egregious, or being both coy and egregious.</p>
<p>I think collegealum is one of very few posters that are capable of being impartial. PG is gracious? When did I say anything like affinity that makes it all a breeze for her and her kids anyway? These comments clearly illustrate Kahans third point, that motivated cognition rationally promotes individuals interests in forming and maintaining beliefs that signify their loyalty to important affinity groups. Whether those beliefs are base on reality is apparently unimportant, I guess.</p>
<p>I am pleasantly surprised that bovertine understood exactly what I was saying, and did not allow his impression of me to interfere with his judgment. Frankly I think STEM folks are more capable of resisting motivated cognition, and I am sure he would have taken full advantage to pile on if he thinks like a non-STEM. They both have my respect.</p>
<p>While still on this point, I would also like to say how amazed I am the distance people are willing to go to rationalize their position. Kahans second point, that those who scored highest in cognitive reflection were the most likely to display ideologically motivated cognition rings true once more. I guess that is why he is the Elizabeth K. Dollard Professor of Law and Professor of Psychology at Yale Law School.</p>
<p>Finally I dont think QT did anything wrong, and I understand and support her position on admission. Although you and your ilk are badly outnumbered here and just about everywhere, you are not whistling in the wind.</p>
<p>“I was trying to say that my son can communicate and collaborate when in the company of people who share his interest and passion. I believe that that can be the case for many kids who are accused of lacking in social skills; they just have not met their “people” yet.”</p>
<p>If someone can only communicate and collaborate when “in the company of intellectual peers,” that’s a significant deficit. Ironically, it brings to mind the Deseriewicz (sp?) article that gets linked on here periodically - the Yale (I think) professor who just cannot possibly find anything to say to the plumber because, well, the plumber is just a regular joe and how could he possibly inquire how he is doing or gripe about the Red Sox or whatever. </p>
<p>Look, I like smart people. I don’t do well hanging around vast quantities of not-smart people either, and I “found my tribe” in college in a way I couldn’t in hs. But there is a difference between not being the life of the party and not being able to have basic communication and social skills. And I think it’s fair for MIT to want to cultivate such an environment. For their employees, if nothing else.</p>
<p>A while back Blossom and I were exploring this idea on another thread, using Classics (Latin and Greek) as an example instead of math/science, until unintentionally offending some readers by dropping names of schools.</p>
<p>It is possible for a motivated, reasonably intelligent person to teach themselves Classics at the kitchen table and with library resources and internet to theoretically contribute worthwhile research to the field. However, that person will have to have a credential - PhD- to be a professor. In reality, I doubt any publisher will accept kitchen table Classics research for publication no matter how brilliant.</p>
<p>Many colleges teach Classics but the instruction varies widely and wildly. Yes, Suetonius is taught in many undergraduate departments. Sometimes that class consists of reading Suetonius in translation, sometimes of slowly and carefully translating a hundred lines or so at each class meeting under the close supervision of the teacher, and there are some classes where students read “Lives of the 12 Caesars” at home in Latin, come to class and go over a few grammatical peculiarities and then discuss the “meaning” of the work.</p>
<p>Believe it or not - lots of young people seem to want to study Classics. Some students never have that opportunity till they reach college. Others go to high schools with excellent Latin programs and sometimes even have the opportunity to study Greek. Who “deserves” admission to the sort of program where Suetonius is taught at the highest level. I am thinking here about the Brewster letter and looking for the student who will take most advantage of opportunities Yale has to offer.</p>
<p>Because some students start these studies “late” there are a number of post-bac programs for students who want to become Latin professors/scholars. You can google it if you care. After undergraduate degrees they spend a couple of years or so preparing to apply to graduate school because they aren’t competitive with a BA.</p>
<p>For top PhD programs I estimate there are between 100-200 applicants for ever slot. (I am happy to be corrected on this by anyone in the know) There are also usually hundreds of applicants for every tenure track job.</p>
<p>Probably we have more Classicists in this country than we need. I don’t know. Some state governments, especially in the south, in the midst of very severe financial problems, are talking about how best to cut public colleges. Classics is sometimes mentioned as a possibility. Some students only have access to their local colleges for undergraduate education. I hope 60 years from now, it is possible to study Classics somewhere other than a top 20 school (whether public or private)</p>
<p>I think it is correct when I say 60 years ago, Latin professors probably had some sort of prep school background and were the sort of Yale man alluded to in Brewster’s letter. These days Classics professors come from all sorts of backgrounds. I am convinced this is a good thing, just as I was convinced in a much earlier thread that society benefits from having Art Historians for whom paying $30,000 of an MA is a financial stretch or hardship. </p>
<p>Let’s pretend in a few decades there is a hypothetical absolute top Classics program while most programs in the country have disappeared. What sort of student deserves access? Who gets to make that decision? Does society have any “right” to question who is getting that education?</p>
<p>"But they ARE highly likely to be admitted, probably to multiple highly selective schools. They might not get into any specific one, of course. I think there are just as few such people as there are major prize-winners as well. "</p>
<p>This is what seems hard to comprehend for most people who seem to think they have to get in everywhere with those numbers. People with great scores, class rank, reasonably good ECs do get into places but not all. When they don’t get in anywhere, I suspect they did not ask the best writer of LORs for recs or wrote essays that did not meet the mark.</p>
<p>“If someone can only communicate and collaborate when “in the company of intellectual peers,” that’s a significant deficit.”</p>
<p>I agree that it is a deficit and I wish it wasn’t the case. I accept the fact that he will need to work on improving his social skills for the rest of his life. But in the context of whether brilliance is enough, for an academic institution, i think a little forgiveness is not out of order given that these kids are valuable to the community. And just like the kids who are accepted for their potential for intellectual growth, shouldn’t these awkward kids be given the chance for social growth?</p>