<p>
</p>
<p>Yes. Of course!</p>
<p>But, the point is that there isn’t only ONE reason to accept a student, and it’s not all in the test scores. It just isn’t.</p>
<p>Clearly MIT agrees with this.</p>
<p>As we discuss behavior unbecoming to posters, I wonder if we can agree it is never appropriate to criticize a poster’s child? I have certainly been guilty of this behavior myself. I am trying hard to not throw any stones here.</p>
<p>bogibogi- Liked your posts.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I understand your sentiment, but if a parent complains about the admissions process and cites the rejection of his or her child as an example, the parent is inviting posts explaining why the rejection was justified, and these posts may be interpreted as criticisms of the child. Therefore parents should be careful about what they say and be thick-skinned before they post about their children, and other posters should be careful about what they write, but a general rule of “never criticize a poster’s child” may not be workable.</p>
<p>"“never criticize a poster’s child” may not be workable"</p>
<p>People on CC go to the other end. The parent may never have mentioned anything about the kid other than complain that great stats+ECs did not make the cut at some school but some like to throw stones at the kid anyway.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Bogibogi, am I correct in believing your son IS at MIT? Then clearly MIT <em>does</em> offer “a little forgiveness” to such students. </p>
<p>And anyway, I think there is a world of difference between being socially awkward, and being non-communicative. I think we can all appreciate the difference between the kid who shows up to the interview, wants to make a good impression but is clearly nervous, offers the limp handshake (not culturally driven), spills his drink, forgets to say thank-you to the waitress, etc. but who is clearly <em>trying</em> to make some kind of connection - versus the kid who shows up and appears clearly bored with the process, sees the interview as a waste of time til he can get back to his studies, sees the interviewer as a waste of space because the interviewer isn’t versed on the finer points of quantum physics or whatever, makes it clear that there is nothing in his life outside his academics, and treats the waitress or receptionist as if she doesn’t exist. I think it is abundantly clear that MIT / similar places are willing to “forgive” some of the former, but not so much the latter. </p>
<p>When I did hiring for a large (Fortune 50) company, one of the things I always looked for in my candidates was how they treated the “auxiliary” people - the receptionist, the other people in the waiting area, the secretary, the taxi driver, the waiter, etc. It was a glaring red flag to me if they treated any of those people as less important (or maybe “less human”) than those of us who were doing the interviews. I suspect that what is going on here is that there are some applicants who do indeed lack the social awareness to make their way in public with a modicum of good grace and good will, and I think MIT is justified in calling them out on it. Please note this is not about what-fork-to-use-in-the-fancy-restaurant or what-side-does-the-bread-plate-go-on, so please don’t take it there. There is a stunning literalness on this thread about what social skills means, and I’m trying to avoid that literalness.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think the point is that your son and his friends go out to dinner / movies / other fun (for them) activities, which demonstrates that he engages with other people AND has something in his life other than academics, so in that regard, there’s no “problem.” No one said your son had to be in the most popular crowd or be elected Prom King to have social skills that will serve him just fine.</p>
<p>Well, actually, there’s quite a bit of “geek chic” out there, and whatever insecurities are being aired here, particularly regarding 1. their being laughed at, and 2. them being noticed at all, is not true in this generation.</p>
<p>My oldest daughter is the type who can choose her boyfriends, and she chooses intelligent and sliightly awkward "geek’ types like her father every time. The point is not being BMOC, whatever that even means anymore, the point is that there are some people who truly just do NOT engage with other people. It’s not even about what people they are around. They don’t engage.</p>
<p>Some of them do quite well with GPA and test scores.</p>
<p>But, there is nobody, anymore, who would disregard the group of “Geeks,” not even the most attractive or socially adept on campus. It’s not done. Heck, there’s even Geek chic with girls these days.</p>
<p>So, try not to bring our “age” of “cool” into the room. Its not the same today.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Canuckguy, you claim that I have formed some belief to “signify my loyalty to important affinity groups” without a) indicating what you thought that affinity group was (“the group that is afraid of Asians taking their power” was a nice dodge, but at least Beliavsky had the guts to come out and say what he thought you were alluding to) and without b) any evidence whatsoever that the affinity group you are associating with me is one that I derive strong affinity with. Anyone who knew me in person would laugh out loud at the idea that I have a strong affinity with being Jewish, because I was a) raised without any religion other than secular Christmas and secular Easter, b) my affiliation with being Jewish is secular and weak, c) I don’t live in a “Jewish area” and d) I do no activities that one could characterize as affiliating with Jewish organizations. I do eat bagels and lox now and then, I’ll give you that. </p>
<p>It seems to me that you wanted to portray me as a stereotypical Jewish mother who tears her hair out over hearing that the Asian kid down the block got into Harvard because there goes the opportunity for her own precious darlings and how will she ever hold her head up at mah jongg. My posts have been consistent over the years that I have never nor do I ever engage in comparing my kids’ desires, dreams, goals, successes, or failures to anyone else’s kids because they write their own futures; I have never been “Ivy-obsessed” and have made a huge point that a smart kid can do well at any number of schools; and I would never have any reaction to any other kid getting in anywhere other than “how wonderful for you, have a good time.” So I think you might want to re-examine where YOUR stereotypes come from.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, the Goths and Vandals did crash the gates of an exclusive nightclub known as the Roman Empire and in the process, became agents of change which made the Western world into what it is today. :D</p>
<p>Also find it ironic why there are so many latter-day Classicists who mourn this very crashing…especially considering even some Romans regarded the gate crashers as liberators. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Maybe this stereotype is a very recent one, but it made no sense to me when I was in HS applying to colleges. </p>
<p>Most Jewish kids/families at my HS were cheering on us Asian/Asian-American kids to get admitted to the elite/respectable colleges and viewed as kindred spirits due to perceived commonalities in culture and values…such as the valuing of academic education. It was the WASPY upper-east siders and some other White ethnics who had issues with this back then from what I’ve seen.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have read historians who say that the the fall of the Roman Empire set progress back for almost a thousand years. This happens when less civilized people overwhelm more civilized ones. I worry that the same thing is happening today.</p>
<p>
I’m sure MIT accepted some Goths. Probably not too many Vandals.</p>
<p>I showed my girls how to crash the gates of an exclusive night club when they were in their teens. Just dress the par, and when asked if your name is on the list, the answer is always, “Yes, there it is.” Smile and walk in. No hesitation and not to miss a beat.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not sure one can say the Romans were more civilized considering practices such as the gladiatorial games where real human beings were sacrificed for the banal entertainment of others, their generals were more interested in fighting each other to topple the emperor to gain the imperial throne, later imperial officials/emperors became so cruel & corrupt they drove some barbarians to rebellion*, etc. </p>
<p>Most of what I mentioned were present when the Roman Empire was at the height of its powers. </p>
<p>Of course, there’s also “Acts of God” such as the Antonine Plague(165-180 AD) which substantially depopulated the Roman Empire causing problems with economic productivity, taxation, and raising of sufficient Roman military forces. </p>
<ul>
<li>This factor was what drove the Goths to start rebelling in the mid-370’s which ultimately culminated in the Battle of Adrianople in 378 which ended in a Goth victory and the destruction of a substantial portion of the Roman Army not only in numbers, but also in experienced soldiers, commanders, and administrators.</li>
</ul>
<p>The Romans had a written language and mathematics and would have had much higher SAT scores than the barbarians.</p>
<p>"Probably not too many Vandals. "</p>
<p>Heard of a freshman high on acid and walking around naked on campus before college started. Is there a Godivan category for the lack of a better word?</p>
<p>The annual MIT tradition of pushing a piano off of a tall building (“piano drop”) suggests to me the presence of a Vandal contingent. Kidding aside, to me the piano is a symbol of civilization, and the existence of this MIT event bothers me. (I know it’s a free country, I don’t have to send my kids there, etc.).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not sure I’d agree with that…especially in the latter centuries. For one thing, their habit of using lead for piping and for cooking pots/utensils to cook fancy sauces meant they probably had cumulative issues commonly associated with lead poisoning. Cooking sauces in lead pots actually adds to the sweetening effect…but at a substantial price to one’s health!</p>
<p>Certainly not the breakfast/meal of champions, if you think about it!</p>
<p>From archaeological bone analysis, they also found this issue was most likely to occur much more with the wealthy elite who could afford the fancy cooking as opposed to the poorer Romans. </p>
<p>As for the barbarians, they are much less likely to have had such issues because they were too poor to have afforded the finest cuisine the Roman Empire had to offer. Considering all of that, they could have actually done better on the SATs adjusting for their lack of written language/literacy.</p>
<p>They’ve certainly outsmarted the Romans in areas of military strategy, diplomacy, geopolitical strategy, etc in the last century of the Western Roman Empire.</p>
<p>“Most Jewish kids/families at my HS … viewed as kindred spirits due to perceived commonalities in culture and values”</p>
<p>This has been my experience as well. Lots of kinship between Jewish students and East Asian ones.</p>
<p>Once read the accumulated lead (esp leached by citrus or other acidics) possibly resulted in diminished intellectual capacity over a few generations.</p>
<p>The worm’s experiences reflects exactly what Hanna and Cobrat wrote.</p>
<p>That said, I will return to being a reader of this most interesting thread.</p>