<p>“Do we accept results from one limited study of 15 or so kids from one local pool- possibly only one high school? Does that make sense?”</p>
<p>where is the study?</p>
<p>May I divert the thread a little, without derailing it? texaspg asked for opinions quite a while ago, about admitting students with B’s in math/science to MIT.</p>
<p>I didn’t have the opportunity to give a full response then (too busy dodging flak). So to come back to it: Clearly B’s should not necessarily be disqualifying. There are too many possibilities that could account for them, e.g.:
- a calculator dies 3 minutes into a math test that requires a graphing calculator, no one has a spare, and the teacher is unsympathetic;
- a teacher gives no A’s at all–happens sometimes;
- a teacher takes a dislike to a student, for reasons that are only partially or not at all the student’s fault (Dick Zare was interviewed by Discover magazine some years back, and quoted as saying that his eighth-grade teacher “hated his guts.” His parents moved him to a private school for the next year–after hs, he headed for Harvard–now holds an endowed chair at Stanford.)
- a student falls asleep during an exam and wakes up a little too far into it (nearly happened to a friend of QMP, who woke up in time)
- the student just doesn’t get a subject in the early years of high school, but then something clicks
- sports-related concussion interferes with concentration, but the student later recovers fully
- I had another good one, but it has slipped my mind! But there are many more possibilities.</p>
<p>Countervailing issues in next post.</p>
<p>and itraperent is making an assumption about me! 
This thread is so amusing!
No, I’m not a boy on a robotics team I am a mom of a boy on a robotics team that has several girls, not one. And the girls are very respected by boys and there is absolutely no tensions on the team because of gender or anything else. In fact, the captain is the girl who no one wonders about why she got admitted to MIT EA.</p>
<p>The other girls who got into MIT in previous years were not as good as the boys who were rejected in terms of grades, coursework, ECs, engineering passion, etc. I’m not going to list their resumes here, and it’s your right to not believe me. Again this is my personal judgement and I believe I also have a right to have personal opinions in this free country.</p>
<p>Btw, because someone asked, the boys rejected by MIT are now in great places like Caltech, Stanford, Columbia, etc. </p>
<p>You are so lucky to have such an intelligent daughter! I bet you played a big role in her developing interest in science. Congratulations! You have the right to be angry that she is mistreated by some of her teammates. Unfortunately, she’ll be always forced to prove what she can do because of the deep rooted belief that females don’t have the abilities. That’s why affirmative action to benefit girls hurts those girls who don’t need it.</p>
<p>My son has been admitted to some very fine places, including U of C. Stanford is his first choice so far (has a likely letter from them, although it states unambiguously that he’ll be admitted.) I’m curious about MIT’s decision (next Thursday) and won’t be surprised if he doesn’t get in. It will just confirm my belief.</p>
<p>Hi
It moves faster than I could ever think.
About Freshair audio, I was surprised that she had no clue until she went off to job hunt that women did not need apply.
What sort of guidance are given back in her days at Stanford? What is male female students ratio?
There was no ladies room on the floor when she was appointed.
All stories and how Terry Gross handled sticky situations, which resulted the judge softening as interview progressed, was fascinating but again, is it any real help to students of today?</p>
<p>If anyone is interested, there is an archive on NPR site.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How’s this? What if the human race was just one affinity group? Instead of “us” vs “them”? Is that possible, Canuckguy?</p>
<p>I hope that in general the situation between males and females today in STEM fields is not as dire as intparent’s example. Haven’t heard issues from sons about these tensions so interesting to hear this from the mom of a daughter. My late MIL would be 93 this year(just died last year). Her father was a physician. She and her sister studied biology at the master’s and doctoral level. They did research but MIL settled into teaching while raising a family(first not working at all when her children were young). Not uncommon in that era. There are some girls/women that have always had aptitude in math and sciences.</p>
<p>"Btw, because someone asked, the boys rejected by MIT are now in great places like Caltech, Stanford, Columbia, etc. "</p>
<p>I know girls who got into MIT and the above schools too (some into all of these along with MIT). That does not mean anything.</p>
<p>You really need to list individual results when you make a claim about mediocrity amongst girls.</p>
<p>Hi
This is to the poster who have being ridiculed.
If your student is accepted to Stanford, one of the recent attacker could become your strong ally.
Try not to burn the bridge just yet.</p>
<p>Oh, I remembered my intent for item 7: All the planaria purchased for the science project died before the student could complete the project. (Maybe that’s just my era.)</p>
<p>In any event, there are many reasons out there why a brilliant student might rack up a few B’s. I would certainly not object to MIT’s admitting any brilliant student.</p>
<p>I think that questions arise when it appears that a weaker student is being admitted, due to factors that make the student interesting or unique, but are only peripherally related to science/math/engineering/linguistics/economics/any other strong field at MIT. Here I do not have in mind issues of gender, ethnicity, socio-economic background, nor anything else that a student cannot control.</p>
<p>I was hoping to use my favorite example, of the rutabaga grower, who founded an Organic Rutabaga Growers Association. Unluckily, it appears that there is already an actual Organic Rutabaga Growers Association. Then, I thought about an athlete of championship level in curling (the Olympic sport). Would you believe that there is a Facebook group on the International Rutabaga Curling Championship, held in Ithaca, NY? I couldn’t make this up if I wanted to! </p>
<p>Other examples, such as rodeo clowns, ventriloquists, unicyclists . . . either actually show up on the MIT site as examples of interesting students they have admitted, or else when I tried using them as examples, that caused people to ask if that hobby really gave them an edge.</p>
<p>So, coming around from that long-winded paragraph: Nothing wrong in my opinion, with using an interesting EC as a tie-breaker between two applicants who are equivalently qualified. When a university advertises the interesting EC’s of admitted students, or when the utility of being unique is stressed over having the same EC’s as “everyone else,” it tends to give the impression that it may be more than a tie-breaker. This may well be a false impression. </p>
<p>If B students are admitted because they have unusually strong potential, great! That is as it should be. If they are admitted because no one else in their year did sculpture with lint from the dryer (an idea borrowed a little from Pastis’s Pearls before Swine)–phooey!</p>
<p>So, still not clear on what constitutes a “brilliant” student?</p>
<p>QM, not arguing, just sharing thoughts: ime, the sheer magnitude of kids applying with 4.0 or better, for all 4 years, puts the B student in a different perspective. The STEM who gets a B in humanities, usually fine. Just as the humanities kid who gets a B in AP calc is probably fine. When you have a high teaching bar in the actual classrooms (and a peer set that took and got A’s in that subject,) it’s hard to allow for too much deviation, without a show of compensating strengths. In many respects, we have to be fair to the kid. In a competitive environment, comparatively under-prepped kids may be better served at another level of U. Thoughts?</p>
<ul>
<li>Alh, in a sense, my U is tryng to build one on-going affinity group: members of this college community. Each freshman class constitutes the new members. The U has a broad and nuanced self-image and various sub-points to that- and seeks kids likely to fit and thrive. It does include stats, but is very much also what goes beyond stats. And it’s not the old boys thing or adding enough prep school kids or full freighters.</li>
</ul>
<p>hey, I don’t care about burning or building bridges with people I will never meet in real life. I grew up in a different country, where girls were encouraged in STEM, so I can’t really understand what’s the big fuss about. I was shocked that in my son’s high school engineering class there were no girls. I believe in encouragement that has to start very early in life, but AA to the degree I see in MIT admissions surprises me. I think it hurts those girls who are just as smart and interested in STEM as boys. They will be viewed as getting in through AA and will have to prove constantly their abilities. That’s all I wanted to say. </p>
<p>Now, another thing that surprises me is the level of micro aggression on this thread. All the assumptions people make obviously with intent to offend - that makes me smile because they don’t reach their goal. As I said, I cannot be offended by strangers.</p>
<p>HAPPY COMMON HUMANITY DAY!</p>
<p>I stayed up to see it in. Good night.</p>
<p>My, we’ve been through the that prejudiced argument that AA hurts kids who can be identified as some identity group. Or, more specifically, some posters feel labelling kids and assuming they got in based on that identity is prejudicial.</p>
<p>Nice idea, alh #1505. Actually, I wasn’t even trying to break down the barriers between groups (though that’s better)–just to ask for a day free of “robots,” “machines,” “cyborgs,” etc.</p>
<p>In my opinion, a human clone (if there were one) would be fully human, so clones are ok.</p>
<p>It’s just 23 hours, in most places in the U.S., thanks to Daylight Savings Time.</p>
<p>Wow, thanks for staying up, alh! (I did too.)</p>
<p>Don’t exactly know what to say to #1511, lookingforward. Your first paragraph strongly resembles the opinion that I originally posted. #1502 was an acknowledgment of texaspg’s point that B’s should not really be disqualifying. There could be many reasons for them (beyond the ones I’ve listed).</p>
<p>I do not favor admitting a student with several B’s over a student with a stronger academic record, if the reason for admitting the B student comes down to a unique EC or a funny essay, though. Perhaps it doesn’t. Some of the college admissions web sites might be giving misleading impressions.</p>
<p>Hi
I am trying to say is that, you might just get to meet said person if you’d help your student move in or attend parents events. Never say never.
Strange things could happen in the real life, size of the school or place does not matter on how things happen by chance.
I agree this thread have gotten too cozy-agressive. I have followed its development through this one day and already understood how it starts over and over.
I think someone who just said good night, is the wise one.</p>
<p>I will add some thoughts on the final sentence of your first paragraph in #1511 tomorrow, lookingforward. Not that you will be waiting anxiously–just wanted to acknowledge that I understood that issue, too.</p>
<p>
Many in my neighborhood are offended by peacocks. Peahens too. THe proliferation of peafowl in our neighborhood and what to do about them is a major source of ferocious debate at televised city planning meetings. People consider it tantamount to a PeaHun invasion. It’s as if people see a peacock and ask “How did he get in?” </p>
<p>The males are spectacular when they spread out their tails. And it is cute to see a mama peahen striding across the street followed by a string of peababies (peachicks?). Looks like the “Partridge Family”. My Peruvian wife calls them “Blue Turkeys”, although I think the real name in Spanish is Pavo Real.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As an MIT admit that would probably fall into the EC category you are describing, I feel obliged to comment. First, I would argue that achieving an extremely high level of proficiency in anything (literally anything, even rodeo clowning or whatever) shows a good deal of potential in any future pursuit. Second, it’s my impression that very few students are admitted to MIT with only STEM extracurricular activities. And who says these “unique” students or whatever are less academically qualified? MIT admits athletes, poets, musicians, etc… Why not rodeo clowns, ventriloquists, unicyclists?</p>
<p>PS - I am also female, did not have a 2400, and was not valedictorian. I guess I just had all the odds stacked in my favor. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Anywho, I am quite enjoying following this discussion.</p>