<p>
All of them would have flunked calculus.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Made worse by the fact rich Romans would have their slaves cook their fancy sauces in lead pots for DAYS. I recalled from a Greco-Roman cuisine history book that they had a sauce made by cooking grape juice/wine for days until it boiled down to a consistency of thick syrup. In the process, lead would be leeched into the mixture further adding to the sweetening effect. </p>
<p>They would then laden almost all their fancy foods with that sauce and regard a mark of fine Roman cuisine was to slop so much sauce on the foods that one cannot tell what they were eating if they were blindfolded. </p>
<p>Considering this was food only the Roman elite could afford to have…especially on a regular basis, they certainly received more than their recommended daily allowance of lead.</p>
<p>
Since you seem intent on clarifying your comments to the point of not being offensive, I will attempt to get you to address the issue that disturbed me. Remember, we are talking about “social skills”, not the relative brilliance of student X or Y. In your statement:
I assume you are talking about your son’s “social wonderfulness” in interacting with his peers, since that was your antecedent sentence (kind, humble, helpful, etc.). Are you saying that the “average” person can’t recognize these qualities because they do not experience that aspect of him? Because he is different (i.e. - not wonderful) with them? Because “wonderfulness” only has meaning in the context of actual relationships, and it’s not some property that the person possesses in the abstract. </p>
<p>Or are you saying that only brilliant people are capable of recognizing kindness, et al in other brilliant people? It seems like you are conflating the idea that people might not recognize how brilliant he is with the idea that people might not recognize his wonderful personality traits as if those are one and the same thing.</p>
<p>The Wikipedia article on the Dark Ages describes it as the “the cultural and economic deterioration that supposedly occurred in Europe following the decline of the Roman Empire”.
I’m saying that change can be for the worse.</p>
<p>Maybe I can add some perspective. </p>
<p>MIT respects all kinds of thought processes, personalities, and abilities. I know I’ve been an interviewer for more than three decades. There are many parents (and sometimes students) who wonder why a rejection occurred for one student and an acceptance for another. Sometimes I field those angry calls.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Often the decision is not reflective of the student or their abilities. It’s a matter of space. There are 19,000+ applications for only 1,000 spots. That means MIT must still decline thousands and thousands of strong students.</p></li>
<li><p>We all know how to screen students who are quirky, socially awkward, shy, or whatever. That doesn’t bother us. We are good at drawing a student out. What we look for is the spark that is igniting their engine. </p></li>
<li><p>Being “bright” and having perfect stats is ubiquitous. The pile is full of perfect grades, stats and laundry lists of EC’s . So how does one choose a student if they are indistinguishable from their peers? I’ve seen many bright students who simply chose from a menu of AP courses put in front of them by an adult who showed up expecting me to pick them on the spot because they’d done everything they were “supposed to do.” I tell them I don’t want to know what they were supposed to do, I want to know what they are driven to do. That is why a student with less than perfect stats (but still a strong candidate) might have been chosen over one with straight 5’s on their AP exams. Because they loved Show Choir, or were an amazing artist. Or had to find outside resources to learn about a science concept and then went back and trained the teachers - or started a science club, or a non science club or …etc. I’ve also see students who were in situations where few resources were available and went out and made their own. They don’t have the same powerhouse resumes, but somehow you know they’ll come on campus and blow everyone away. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>And what happens to those passionate students we can’t choose because of space? Those that stayed in touch with me went on to other institutions and did amazing things. It isn’t the “school” that makes someone great. It is that person’s internal drive to take the opportunities offer and transform them into something spectacular.</p>
<p>But mostly - when people wonder why a certain “star” didn’t get chosen - I can speak to the obvious reasons that lead me to write “no” on a report and helped MIT weed the pile:</p>
<ol>
<li>showed up without having started their application and expected me to offer them a spot with full ride because state colleges were recruiting them that way.</li>
<li>showed up in a suit, leaned across the table and demanded I “sell them” on going to MIT </li>
<li>played on their phone and texted their friends during the session</li>
<li>took courses they thought would make them recruitable, but not necessarily ones they were passionate about.</li>
<li>gave an example of a book they “loved” but then couldn’t name the characters, plot points, or give examples of what they liked beyond generalities.</li>
<li>showed up at the interview late and made excuses about a forgotten play date with a friend</li>
<li>couldn’t articulate a single aspect of MIT that attracted them beyond it was one of the best schools in the country (if you can’t do basic research on a college you claim is your first choice, it pretty much points to your approach once on campus). Some didn’t bother to look at the website even when filling out the application. But they’re livid when they’re rejected.</li>
</ol>
<p>Etc.</p>
<p>My husband, a Med School Adcom has horror stories worse than mine.</p>
<p>So suffice it to say that MIT isn’t looking for perfect students and widgets. On campus I’ve met some students so mature they could be running a Fortune 500 tomorrow. Others are still coming out of their shell. All brilliant in their own way and contributing to the overall campus vibe. MIT is looking for passionate students, flaws and all, who will lend as much to the campus and academic culture as they receive. Much more fun to watch someone blossom given the resources, then give the spot to someone who prepared a perfect resume, but just doesn’t seem to be able to jump beyond it.</p>
<p>Mostly, the reality is MIT, like many other colleges, is building a diverse class. And a student who is chosen might not be in a different year with the exact same stats.</p>
<p>This is an exaggerated example, but bear with me — In one year you might be perfect because you’re a socially awkward science nerd with high stats, good scores, and lots of science activities but also play the Tuba and come from an underrepresented state such as Montana. But if, that year, they get 100 students who have the same demographic, then you might not because that is the year the Institute chose the socially awkward science geek tuba player from Montana who also writes poetry for fun. Does that make sense? All good students - just not enough space for them all</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The decline was already under way centuries before the actual fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 AD. In fact, some historians have said it was a miracle the Roman Empire didn’t fall somewhere in the 200s considering the substantial depopulating effects of that plague I referred to, constant infighting within the Roman Army/ruling elite to see who was to be the next Emperor/Emperor-maker, invasions, economic turmoil, corruption within said elite, etc. </p>
<p>Also, by the late Roman era…especially in the Western Roman Empire…the cultural and economic deterioration were already well underway.</p>
<p>
I would just like to note that most of these problems could be avoided with some coaching and interview practice.</p>
<p>Of course, a student who doesn’t think he needs any coaching or practice is probably the most likely to make one of these mistakes.</p>
<p>Oh and the Pirenne Thesis argues that the real fall of the Roman Empire didn’t happen until the coming of Islam really changed the economic system. :)</p>
<p>“I would just like to note that most of these problems could be avoided with some coaching and interview practice.”</p>
<p>Maybe some think that their perfect scores/USAMO wins/whatever should be so compelling that they needn’t sell themselves and needn’t invest in that preparation and thoughtfulness. I wonder why (or where) someone would get that idea.</p>
<p>Sorry I am back briefly (cue chorus of groans), after saying that I was off this thread. I invoke the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. (Yeah! That’s the ticket! The Heisenberg uncertainty principle!)</p>
<p>The real reason is that my brain runs a bit slowly when I am upset. So I am responding after a delay to remarks made upthread. I apologize that I have not read most of the comments posted in the interim.</p>
<p>Perhaps based on my humorlessness in response to the “only etc.” comments or perhaps because of my references to Homo habilis and Homo erectus, I think that some of the posters believed that I had taken the remarks literally. Actually, I did not.</p>
<p>I took them for a form of “humorous” exaggeration, directed at unnamed but rather specific people, based on personal qualities that were probably either neurologically or culturally based (or both), characteristics not chosen by them, and either not under their control, or only partially so.</p>
<p>When I was growing up, jokes about people with a Polish cultural heritage or Italian cultural heritage were sometimes told in my community and on television–never by my family, I am glad to say. Jokes about people from West Virginia were told. (Part of my family lived in West Virginia for multiple generations, though no longer.) Helen Keller jokes were told by schoolchildren. Once when I repeated one, my parents told me it was not at all funny. Jokes about people with cognitive limitations were told. Jokes about gay men were told. Not jokes, exactly, but comments intended as “amusing metaphors” were made in reference to the Irish. (My ancestry is Irish in part.) I don’t mean to re-open old wounds by mentioning the specifics, but I thought that being very specific would help to illustrate my point.</p>
<p>I am very grateful that by the time that QMP entered school in our current community, pretty much all of these jokes had died out. I think there may have been some Helen Keller jokes floating around, but QMP did not have to be told that they are not funny.</p>
<p>I look forward to the time when all jokes that draw on characteristics that people have not chosen for themselves have disappeared. The difference between my childhood and QMP’s makes me think that this is not purely Utopian.</p>
<p>If you thought that I was over-reacting, because the statement “only etc.” was not intended literally, I hope you will read the set of comments above and one below.</p>
<p>Based on sevmom’s post, the phrase may have originated in a question “even etc.” about the MIT faculty. I differentiate that from the later use, because I presume that the question meant that the MIT faculty might be seen as super-human, or too distant to interact with students. In any event, that comment was directed “upward.” The comment by an interviewer, about interviewees on whom he is submitting a negative report, seems to me to be different in nature and directed “downward.” (This is true even if the interviewee in question were the top IMO Gold Medalist of his year, or the author of multiple papers in Nature.)</p>
<p>There is also a question about whether jokes about a group have an influence in permitting society to discriminate against them, even though they are intended as jokes. And further, whether they reveal underlying attitudes that are discriminatory.</p>
<p>I am back off at this point.</p>
<p>ExieMITAlum - That is a nice list of issues during interviews. No wonder MIT places so much weight on them.</p>
<p>QM, Welcome back! Since you’ve come back, you might as well stay!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ha! </p>
<p>Not really surprising considering the modern French, Germans, and Belgians…including Walloons like him are the latter descendants of the very Goths, Franks, and other barbarian groups who decided it was better to crash the exclusive nightclub known as the Roman Empire rather than pine away in the remote hopes that they’d be admitted by being meek and polite. </p>
<p>He’s just trying to downplay his ancestors’ role in destroying what was an attractive exclusive nightclub…especially in an era when most of his compatriots felt much sympathy and kindred spirits with the Romans. Something which the Roman elite would have viewed with some disgust considering they tried in vain to keep them out of their exclusive club. :D</p>
<p>Incidentally, the Franks also were involved in overthrowing the last Roman governor of a region in Gaul(Modern day France, Benelux countries, Switzerland, Northern Italy, and parts of Germany) some years after the fall of the last Western Roman Emperor.</p>
<p>@texaspg - (shakes her head and sighs - 
) you have no idea. Just when I think I’ve seen it all, something different pops up. But yep - that’s pretty much why the interviews are mandatory in all but rare cases, even if we have to use SKYPE to do it.</p>
<p>@Hunt</p>
<p>
</p>
<ol>
<li>Don’t coach a student. Sorry - unless you get an inexperienced interviewer or Adcom we have a thousand and one ways to figure out if a kid has been coached. It’s annoying when detected. I want to see the student as they are - not as they’ve been prepped. And again, I can get around those “defense” and get to the truth.<br></li>
</ol>
<p>And can I say - the coached kids are the least likely to get in? Flaws, social awkwardness, etc. are fine - sometimes the most intriguing of the candidates. Rude, entitled, or “inflated” kids - those I can ferret out despite the force field adults arm them with. :)</p>
<ol>
<li>Another reason not to coach:</li>
</ol>
<p>A local private school - where parents spend big bucks to keep their kids out of the urban “public schools” and where they expect a return on their investment - lamented the lack of students who are getting into MIT. In fact none in a decade. I interviewed the last student accepted out of that school and he was exceptional. Only his acceptance had more to do with some extraordinary things he was doing outside of the school on top of his strong academic record. Personal activities the school wasn’t likely to be privvy too - but I had gotten proof of. And years later, he was such a strong candidate that Hockfield mentioned him by name during one of my visits. So it has been with some consternation and amusement that I noticed the school is trying to “recreate” the magic by turning out clones with identical academic records and ubiquitous extracurriculars, instead of letting the students choose activities that might not “feel” like an MIT worthy endeavor but might just tip the scales. They don’t know it wasn’t the school activities, but the outside ones that made a difference. Which is why I say - don’t coach - and don’t over think it. Because you can’t guess at what the Institute wants in a given year and too many people are guessing wrong and in the end, look identical to thousands of others in the pile.</p>
<p>^Not sure I agree, Exie. Next week, D will be interviewing for a chance at a VERY large scholarship at a much less auspicious school than MIT. She is going to meet with one of her hs teachers this week for some guidance. She is 18, and has no idea what to expect from such an interview. At least if she talks it over with someone she might be able to have an idea what to expect and not feel as if she is walking into a totally dark room with giant sinkholes randomly placed all over the floor. </p>
<p>I’m not seeing what is wrong with that. There are all kinds of articles, etc. on how to handle yourself in a job interview - why not a school interview?</p>