<p>After Pizzagirl’s post #1404, I feel absolutely obligated to return to post: blah blah blah
(QMP says I say that a lot, too.)</p>
<p>I understand, lookingforward, you don’t like my opinions, my posting pattern, nor my rhetorical style, and probably don’t like me, either. Were you the one who referred to me as a pwt who wouldn’t be invited back? pwt = porcupine with a temper? (jk, as the kids say)</p>
<p>(Erratum: actually, I think you said something more along the lines that my actions were like those of a person who would be labeled a pwt and not invited back–or perhaps I have your posts mixed up with another’s.)</p>
<p>I believe that there is an “ignore” function on CC that permits you to block contributions from a specific poster. Please, feel free to use it if you do not care for my views or posts.</p>
<p>I mentioned upthread that I think that young people in the U.K. interact somewhat differently from young people in the U.S. (At least that was the case when I was there–perhaps no longer.) Scientists tend to interact somewhat differently, too. I recall when a colleague of mine went to the airport to meet a colloquium speaker, whom he had never met before. He said that he recognized her right away when she arrived in a crowd, because she was the one who looked like she was ready to start a fight (over a scientific issue).</p>
<p>Out of curiosity, does that tendency carry over into her writing? I’m asking because she sounds like many HS classmates, undergrad classmates, and engineering/CS colleagues who chose STEM majors/paths precisely because they hated lengthy reading and writing assignments. They strongly preferred concise to-the-point lab writeups, concise technical writing, and problem sets. </p>
<p>For them, even writing an 8-10 page paper was an ordeal and for the HS classmates…our mandatory 20 page Senior English thesis, an absolute nightmare. </p>
<p>On the other hand, I have noticed those who can talk on length on many/any topics and carry on hours-long conversations had few issues with coming up with enough material to write papers of any length. </p>
<p>I’ve also heard complaints from older Gen X and boomer colleagues and friends that they’ve noticed an increase in such types of monosyllabic one word answers from younger Gen X and millennial colleagues due to the heavy use of IMs and texting shorthands. </p>
<p>I personally disagree, but can see why older generations may cite that as a cause. </p>
<p>Also, is part of this more due to a personality trait which tends towards a view that carrying on extended conversations…especially of the social lubricating nature is “pointless chit-chat”? </p>
<p>Am wondering as I’ve had a supervisor who came down hard on employees who elaborated too much when in his view…one word monosyllabic answers were more appropriate. He’d always said “Get to the damned point!!” I personally didn’t enjoy working under him, but many of my colleagues who held similar views did.</p>
<p>It may be that kids in the UK interact differently from kids in the US, but it continues to be clunky and literal on your part to assume Mikaylke couldn’t discern different styles. Look, he was clearly referring to kids who had no social capabilities, QM. Not “Brits who have a different sense of humor” or “Asian kids who might be more deferential by virtue of culture” or “kids who weren’t the most popular at school and got disinvited to lunch tables.” I’m sorry but I do think you are being obtuse. MIT wants something other than pure intellect. They want some evidence the person can communicate and interact with others and contribute to a vibrant campus community. I’m sorry you think MIT “owes” admission to kids YOU deem as brilliant, but I also submit that not understanding that MIT wants a community versus a collection of brains is evidence of having some room to grow in EQ.</p>
<p>No, cobrat. She’s not STEM oriented. The point isn’t that she doesn’t engage in pointless chitchat. I hate pointless chitchat at work too and I’ve had to train myself to ask about people’s days, etc before getting to the task at hand. The point is she gives no signs of engagement or independent thought. She is nothing like what you’re describing.</p>
<p>Beliavsky, the fact that you can’t look around and see the real-world importance of EQ - that you need to have it scientifically validated before you can discern something - tells me worlds about your learning style and emotional insight.</p>
Which brings us back around to the question: Is this brilliance wasted if the student doesn’t go to MIT? Is there no place else where it can be nurtured?</p>
<p>Can we talk about these brilliant kids for a moment? Not in terms of MIT specifically but what they contribute. My concern is not only for society but for these kids. We are failing the best and brightest if they aren’t enrolled in universities that understand how to educate them and are not in environments that are supportive of their needs. Gifted education doesn’t end with high school.</p>
<p>Sylvan – Certainly there are universities beyond MIT that can and will nurture this population. Unfortunately we don’t hear much about it beyond the standard MIT/Stanford/Caltech/ Ivy league fare.</p>
<p>Oh please. Give me a break. There is no loss to society if some of these kids have to slum it at Carnegie Mellon or Georgia Tech or UIUC or wherever. If these kids don’t accomplish anything there with all those resources? Well, then they aren’t as bright as you all think. </p>
<p>And in the real world, there is plenty of recognition for schools beyond Ivies/MIT/Stanford. It’s only a small group of naive, unsophisticated types who think that those schools are the only ones worth going to or the only ones with resources.</p>
<p>Hi
I think the poster above is asking about schools catered to discussed students’ needs.
I’d assume all service university where such students could not related to majorities of students body have to be left out.
There is Olin, and Cooper Union, Harvey Mudd, Webb, Stevens.</p>
<p>OMG QM!
This is not all about you or coded messages from me secretly aimed at you. Pwt was a comment back to Alh about the interviewer. Pwt is a southern acronym and she may know it, as a southerner. Anyway, the comment is so many pages back. Please look at contexts.</p>
<p>Thank you very much for clarifying, lookingforward. I did take your remark about “pwt” to be a comment about me, because of the context:
</p>
<p>I might be considered to have a “fixation on . . . MiT’s policies,” or to “repeat and repeat,” and I definitely did reopen a 3 year old thread. The first I only do on this forum and not in real life. The second I do mainly when nagging QMP. As for the third, well, I expect to be responsible until the day I die for the papers that I wrote at the beginning of my career. Apparently, reopening old threads is not consistent with common forum etiquette. My professional life predates bitnet, so please excuse the blunder. </p>
<p>I don’t actually know what pwt stands for, although I am pretty sure it is no kind of porcupine. If I did, I would no doubt have realized that the comment was not directed at me. Sorry for bristling, and thank you again for the clarification.</p>
<p>But why assume?<br>
Ok, I’ll be very specific: why assume my extremely genteel mil would have called the questioner (you) pwt when the first error was made by Mr Loose Lips? Oh, yes, by that I mean the interviewer who suggested to an ininitiated audience (meaning all of us- I don’t know MIT’s policies, either) that there was some social judging going…to the extent that it is fine to throw verbal darts on a public forum. Darts that might very easily be misinterpreted. </p>
<p>I think that was a poor judgment call. (On the part of the interviewer/poster.) If I had been the supervisor, I would have said, please don’t inadvertently mislead or misrepresent any of us or the U. And, weigh the potential impact of your statements, as a representative of this U.</p>
Why assume that? Don’t you think there are some of these students at Ohio State, Penn State, University of Florida, University of Wyoming, for g’s sake? And succeeding at those places? And being nurtured? Why the assumption that the only place smart people can actually find other smart people is HYPSYM/Ivy/blah, blah, blah, genuflect? </p>
<p>Here is the UW blurb about the chair of the physics department:
<p>MIT’s International admit rate is probably in the 2% range since they can only accept 100 people overall and it is a big world out there. So if Mikalye wants to throw a bunch of people out of the mix for reasons like someone looked at him wrongly, it is his prerogative. There are ridiculously great candidates they can get from other countries when they are allowed to admit so few which means they have to be extremely choosy.</p>
<p>I understood the comment as directed to me.</p>
<p>PWT = poor white trash and I had to google because I had no idea what LF was talking about. No one in my family would ever have said such a thing. I am only responding to this now because I feel the need to defend my affinity group. We don’t talk this way. It is a caricature and stereotype of southern behavior - or at least of any southern social norm with which I am familiar.</p>
<p>adding: I found Hunt’s remarks about class very interesting. I think there may still possibly be an idea of “class” in the south. It is a sort of idea that has absolutely nothing to do with money. Lots of southerns with this kind of “class” are poor. And they would never call anyone trash.</p>
<p>They would also never write this for fear of insulting LF’s MIL but I see no way around this particular dilemma. I am not very classy. :(</p>
<p>Pizzagirl – are you familiar with gifted education and or that population? I’m asking because you have misunderstood the nature of my post. Certainly there are universities beyond those
I mentioned where people who are profoundly gifted can be educated. I’m speaking of institutions who have professors who understand this population and can provide the support to help these young people achieve their potential.</p>
<p>Well, I grew up in the south and have heard the term “poor white trash” all my life. I’ve never seen the acronym, though. It’s not a nice term, of course. It means the same thing, more or less as “nekulturny.”</p>
<p>By the way, I feel that I have to mention, occasionally, that it’s not entirely clear to me that brilliant STEM people should be maximally empowered. Why should I assume that they will use their powers for good?</p>