<p>Hi
I was answering to the poster who questioned where else to go if not MIT Stanford Caltech.
I did not mean to disregard any state schools.
What I wanted to point out was that if students are gifted in such telling way from young age and, have choices and support of parents who could be able to send them out of state, across the country, or abroad, if students so wishes why should not choose that path given accepted to such institutions?
I am not talking about just any strong students who are going to thrive just fine and go on to more selective schools then on, might be as the professor you have linked as an example.
For that matter, do you know this person? Have you met him, or studied under him?
Do you know how he teaches, speaks, looks, lives his life beside of this profile?
If so please do elaborate.
When this professor have applied to UG schools, things must have been very different. I would like to know what other schools he was accepted to, why he chose where he chose, what was the highlight and low point of his experiences, what advise would he give to gifted students of today.</p>
<p>Alh, clarification sidebar. MIL would only say it privately to DH or me. It would have come out at the end of a breath. In all the years I knew her, there was only one time she got annoyed at someone enought to rant (again, privately, to DH and me.) That was her code of behavior. She never had that person back into her home. Preferred to not associate with that person again, at anyone else’s home.</p>
<p>My very Southern Lady mil would call “pwt” and not invite that person again. </p>
<p>I made the comment that MIL did this. Not all Southerners and not all Southern Ladies. Not the affinity group. MIL would have taken the comments about hygeine and later, privately, to DH and me, tsk-tsk’d the issuer. Privately. She would never have indiciated any disapproval directly to another, not even a widening of the eyes. She would have not invited that person back. </p>
<p>Should she have said something to the person ? (Interviewer/poster.) Perhaps. That is the evolution of all this, now. When something goes too far, many of us will call the sayer on it. That was not her era. She would be 99, if still alive. </p>
<p>I mentioned pwt in that context only. I hope we won’t be literal and assume MIL would have thought M was pwt. She thought that sort of talk was pwt. Inappropriate and judgmental, serving only the sayer, not nice.</p>
<p>ps. pwt has a very specific historical context, origination just after the Civil War.</p>
<p>I think I can identify with the “small group of naive, unsophisticated types who think that those schools are the only ones worth going to or the only ones with resources” (in pizzagirl’s words). I’ve been in educational research long enough to have some idea about needs of gifted students. It is a fact, that too often their needs are dismissed and potential is unrealized. Historically, institutions like MIT were the route for these students. Although many talented people who went to state schools have become successful anyway, many became underachievers. Gifted students need an environment that will provide the best opportunities for them to flourish and that includes peers of comparable abilities. </p>
<p>To me it seems like MIT has changed its mission to include mediocre students because they fill some niches (URM, females, etc.) on campus. By mediocre I mean as compared to the typical MIT population, not typical community college types. It’s MIT’s business, but, based on what I read, the quality of education had to suffer because these new groups are not as prepared to handle the load. Thus, all students are affected. Future will tell if there will be fewer Nobel prize winners among the current crop of MIT students. </p>
<p>Just to clarify I’m not against affirmative action, but it is taken to extremes sometimes. I think it’s a bit too much when a girl’s chance to be accepted is double of a boy’s chance. That’s according to MIT’s own stats. I just can’t believe that girls are twice as likely to be qualified as boys. </p>
<p>I’m sorry, English is not my first language. I don’t mean to offend anyone.</p>
<p>,Hunt, I’ll have to ask my brilliant mother about nekulturny- never heard it.<br>
Language’s usage, how it twists and turns for a conversation is interesting. To me. Lots of flavoring. When someone says, “That’s idiotic,” I don’t think they literally mean the sayer is an idiot. On CC, we often see certain attitudes labelled “whiny.” Without thinking someone means literal tears are flowing.</p>
<p>Ok, so what sort of “gifted educ” are we talking about? A nice high bar for classroom syllabi, tasks and discussions at a Harvard? Or some sort of shepherding?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I oppose affirmative action but will note that according to [MIT</a> Office of the Provost, Institutional Research](<a href=“MIT Institutional Research”>MIT Institutional Research) , the graduation rates of women at MIT are slightly higher than for men, which suggests that MIT is not admitting many mediocre students because they are female.</p>
<p>Wow, sorry to have opened the pwt discussion. Actually, I thought it was very genteel and most likely stood for “person without tact.” Perhaps we could convert it to that henceforward.</p>
<p>And thank you again, very much, lookingforward, for explaining that you were writing about the interviewer. I am happy to overlook the specifics of the abbreviation. We all have or have had elderly relatives whose manner of speaking was of their time and place; and times do change.</p>
<p>Belyavsky, is graduation rate the best measure of MIT’s success as a leading STEM institution in the world? How about the number of leaders in STEM? The number of people who start up successful companies, win significant prizes, become CEOs etc.?</p>
<p>As a woman I believe females should be more encouraged to choose STEM fields and become leaders. However, this needs to start early, so that they can compete more fairy in the admission process. Now, it seems they are given an unfair advantage. Again, some boost is fine, but not to the extent that a hundred talented boys are denied admission each year so that MIT would come closer to the 50-50 gender ratio. </p>
<p>lookingforward, nekulturny means uncultured.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly. There isn’t anything wrong with helping a student prepare and relax. It’s the plastic, pre-mixed, overly prepared kids with all the right answers that don’t pass muster. Which is why I don’t ask the same questions to any particular student in a given school year. Which seems to stump those who talked to classmates that were interviewed eariler and come prepared only to find I’m not asking those questions.</p>
<p>We’re not looking for the right answers, we’re looking for glimpses into the person behind the stats on paper. The real, flesh and blood kid, warts, flaws and all are the most interesting to interview and are the most interesting reports to read.</p>
<p>The problem with some “coached” kids is some are too afraid to get off the script, the others stumble trying to remember what to say. </p>
<p>For those old enough - remember when the ubiquitous interview question (job or otherwise) was “What is your greatest weakness” and after awhile every coached candidate replied with “I work too hard,” or “I’m sometimes passionate about something to the exclusion of all else.” So when, in the 2008 debates, Joe Biden used that response and Barack Obama, having earlier said that he had a messy desk and was sometimes unorganized, replied “Oh, I thought you wanted real answers, not canned ones,” my husband and I nearly fell out of our chairs.</p>
<p>So take it for what it’s worth. Coaching to help a student get comfortable is great. Coaching to create a perfect candidate will backfire. Flaws make students more human and memorable. Plus - I’d rather a student sheepishly tell me that they secretly read Harry Potter if they really do, than try to impress me with tales of reading the Wall Street Journal, or the biography of Ghandi, or Anna Karenina if they really don’t (or do it only as a class assignment.) </p>
<p>Like I said, the minor characteristic students think unimportant, might be the one pearl that makes the difference. So sure, coach, but don’t turn them into something they’re not. </p>
<p>March decisions are the wrong time to find out that they should have just “presented as themselves” during the interview sessions.</p>
<p>Person without tact is such a fine alternate that I will suggest to DH that, henceforth, that be it.</p>
<p>ExieMITAlum, I appreciate your comments in #1448 very much, especially if the literary references are made up and not actual.</p>
<p>I’d like to throw in a comment for the benefit of parents who may be worrying about their son’s or daughter’s interviewing skills, and whose interviews are still in the future: In advance, I thought that QMP would have the best chances at a “top” university that did not grant interviews (at that time). QMP got into all of the “top” universities that had interviews, and not that one that didn’t. This was not because all of QMP’s interview answers were great–for example, QMP drew a total blank when asked to come up with an epigram or quotation that was personally descriptive. (Just to clarify: I wasn’t there; just heard that later from QMP.)</p>
<p>In general, more faith in both the interviewers and the offspring may be warranted.</p>
<p>Oh, off topic reference (not to disappoint lookingforward about my tendency to wander all over 
): The comment about interviewees who claim to read the Wall Street Journal reminded me of the 7-year-old British boy in the film 7 Up, who said that he read the Financial Times–except on Mondays, because that day the “stocks didn’t go up.”</p>
<p>Michael Apted’s “Up” series has just reached 56 Up. I think it is extremely interesting and recommend it.</p>
<p>Promise: No more wild digressions!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh good grief, @Yolachka - I’ve been affiliated with MIT for more than three decades, and your comments are out of line and smack of sour grapes and ethnic/gender stereotypes. </p>
<p>The pool at MIT is so competitive (19,000 applications for 1,000 spots) that we don’t have to dig into a “mediocre pile” to find qualified candidate of all races, genders, and whatever else you want to throw into the pile. What I can say is that we’ve seen students of all races who may be gifted, but come from school systems that lacked resources, need some help with adjusting. Including rich suburban students who’ve never lived away from home, and international students who have to learn to synthesize once past the “regurgitate on an exam” phase. MIT’s standards have not been lowered to fill a class. And you know better than to say that based on your interpretation of raw stats without the data behind it.</p>
<p>And let’s suppose men apply at a rate twice as high as women. So what? The goal of many schools is to have a balanced class and since women are the majority gender in the world, not sure why you think that any particular class must match the balance of applications. That’s ludicrous.</p>
<p>What I can say - because I’m going out on a limb and pegging you as the type of person in meeting who grouses that MIT turns down students with perfect scores and perfect grades for those without them - that YES - we do. Because sometimes those at the top of the charts are less interesting, or are good at regurgitating information shoved at them by adults bu couldn’t find their way out of a wet paper bag with GPS to guide them. On the other hand - some of my best stories of “underdogs” who had less than perfect stats and went on to wow us have been white males. The women and minorities I’ve interviewed, for the most part have been stunning in their accomplishments.</p>
<p>So get off that URM, Women, make MIT mediocre schtick. It’s old and has no basis in quantitative facts.</p>
<p>The fact that we’re one of the best STEM universities in the world “stems” from the fact that we admit passionate human beings, not robotic clones that fit a stereotype image of what we are.</p>
<p>Funny but true: at one interview (on campus, with a pro,) he asked the “what book?” question. D1 is very good at charming adults, an avid reader, eats books at all levels, but was momentarily thrown off. She had a rapport going, so took a stab, answered, “Twilight.” </p>
<p>He nearly jumped out of his chair, lit up like a Christmas tree, she said. Because he adored the Twilight books.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Maybe you haven’t had time to read more than a thousand posts. Perhaps, unlike me, you have a day job. However, one of the main issues some of us are discussing (and others would very much like us to drop) is our determined and uncompromising objection to the very language you are using = “robotic clones”</p>
<p>Maybe you already understand that. In which case, I apologize.</p>
<p>I’m lost. What is pwt?</p>
<p>PWT is now “person without tact.”</p>
<p>*we don’t have to dig into a “mediocre pile” to find qualified candidate of all races, genders, and whatever else you want to throw into the pile. *</p>
<p>Second that. </p>
<p>What I find is that meeting and reading apps opens one’s perspective to far greater realities about education than media reports or “No Child Left Behind” or that glimpse of some low SES city school kids, while you drive by. Folks assume all under-resourced high schools are churning out kids who can barely read and write, much less think, set high goals and meet or exceed them. It’s true the big picture isn’t good. But, elites are not scraping to pick up just any kid, as long as he/she helps their diversity stats. They have to be qualified to tackle the competitive academic environment- and they do have grades, rigor, AP scores and more. And, fwiw, when you read that LoR, it isn’t from the sterotype of a detached, uncaring hs teacher. These letters themselves are written at a level that conveys the education and standards of the writer. </p>
<p>I think we have to separate the robotic comments in the old thread from how Exie used the word. Some kids are so formula, that you get zero sense of who they are. You cannot picture them, for all the “right” answers. There’s more to say, but I’ll wait. Similarly, I had trouble following the talk about grinds-</p>
<p>Better to ignore that, Pizzagirl. It now stands for “person without tact.”</p>
<p>So what about the “robotic clones,” mentioned in post #1452 and wording objection registered by alh in #1454?</p>
<p>[Cross posted with comment immediately above]</p>
<p>Re grinds: Try [Student’s</a> Race Complaint Undecided For Princeton - The Tech](<a href=“http://tech.mit.edu/V127/N10/affirmativeaction.html]Student’s”>http://tech.mit.edu/V127/N10/affirmativeaction.html) and then search for “textureless”</p>
<p>Second hand, can’t guarantee the accuracy. (Not meaning to question Daniel Golden’s journalistic integrity, just that I am not familiar with his work.)</p>
<p>Just wanted to add that Henry Park, the student in question re grinds, was educated at Groton. (I do not know about his citizenship.)</p>
<p>It doesn’t take high level math skills to realize that a higher acceptance among women at MIT is because fewer women apply and MIT wishes to achieve a 50-50 gender balance. It also doesn’t take high level EQ skills to realize that young men wish to be around young women, and MIT would lose its appeal without a significant presence of women.</p>