<p>QuantMech: Most likely because you are intensely smarter than the group and they are intimidated by your intellect?</p>
<p>“If looking out for the next generation is not the motive, then why are you so negative towards Asians? You think perhaps you may be hardwired that way?”</p>
<p>Huh? I believe in holistic admissions and I don’t believe any particular score or achievement means that MIT (etc) “owes” admission to that person. How does that make me “negative towards Asians”? I never compared my kids’ scores, GPA, or admissions success with any other kid - white, black, Hispanic, Asian, or purple - because that’s not how I roll. Indeed, I’m pretty much unaware of what other kids in my hs did, and I’m rather pleased that I was, since it was never my business. I don’t have to “see anyone else as a threat” to my kids’ success because they’ll make their own way as they see fit. It’s not a big competition over scarce resources; there are plenty of opportunities and plenty of resources out there. I don’t HAVE to divide the world up into affinity groups to make sense of it, the way you do.</p>
<p>“Males tend to hit a few specific subjects, sometimes, only one, and then go off to figure out the rest on their own having grown impatient being trapped in a study group or review session. Females tend to use study group time to socially bond and they share information much more freely and tend towards more comprehensive coverage, possibly because they “move together as a group” and the study groups last a long time (in my perspective).”</p>
<p>I’m an INTJ, and a pretty classic one. It’s a type that is rare among females than males. I didn’t use study group time to bond. I preferred to study by myself and take in and process information very internally. That didn’t mean I didn’t have social aptitude or that I’d come off like a robot in an interview. I cannot stand how people are thinking that the alternative to robotic clone has to be “life of the party.”</p>
<p>Are those who object to “robotic clones” secretly afraid that someone might perceive or stereotype them that way? I was a nerd in hs, was extremely studious and a bookworm, valued academics greatly and was always challenging myself academically, but I know I’m not robotic and that I have a personality and can be social so I would never have reacted to those words.</p>
<p>Gaack! Mmmfff! Mmmfff! (/stifles response to the final sentence of #1543, with what I think is a false contrast) I am still celebrating “Celebrate Our Common Humanity Day,” close to 9 hours into the day!</p>
<p>I welcome comments about literal robots and AI programs in the midst of my “Celebration,” from the nonparticipants, and will respond. But today, I will not respond to comments about figurative robots. Since I said that I consider clones fully human, I suppose I could reply to a comment about a “clone.” But I have to stay out of a discussion of “robotic clones.”</p>
<p>Pizzagirl, I think I answered your query in #1544 back in post #1154. On my computer, it’s on page 77 of the forum.</p>
<p>"a mama peahen striding across the street followed by a string of peababies (peachicks?). "</p>
<p>Bovertine - Can you check to see if peahen prefers male peachicks to be ahead of female peachicks?</p>
<p>unicameral - congratulations on your admission. How are all those males in your school taking it?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ha ha, me thinks thou doth protest too much…</p>
<p>See - if I were unicameral’s mother, I wouldn’t urge her to spend one minute reflecting on “how the guys at school are taking it.” Other people’s sour grapes are their problem.</p>
<p>The only possible response to someone’s success in admissions (or anything else) is - congrats, I’m happy for you. I hope I don’t offend the affinity group of people who b**** about other people’s “undeserved” admission success by calling them a bunch of losers, because that’s frankly what I think they are.</p>
<p>See, here is the thing about those 20 boys in Robotics AND their parents. Only 1 of them is realistically on par with my daughter in terms of test scores, other ECs, grades, etc. But at least half of the other 19 (and their parents) are convinced that they are MIT material, and will be shocked (shocked!) when their sons are rejected this year and next year. So based on MY personal sample (which is even bigger than 15 :)), I think parents of boys are often just as delusional as the boys themselves when assessing their abilities and chances. I am pretty sure there are going to be some sour grapes with a hint of gender politics going on this month if D gets into Harvey Mudd (still waiting to hear), and one of the boys on her team does not (99% chance he will not). That particular boy is convinced that because he has taken Linear Algebra and D is “only” in AP Calc BC this year, he has an inside edge. Her summer engineering camp last year, two years of self study for USA Biology Olympiad, top 5 individual finishes in both an academic and athletic competition at state level this year, 2 years of Davidson THINK camp, better test scores, and better grades are not on his (or his mom’s) radar. If she is lucky enough to get in, he and his parents will say, “How did SHE get in?”, and immediately start telling everyone it is because she is female.</p>
<p>"If she is lucky enough to get in, he and his parents will say, “How did SHE get in?”, and immediately start telling everyone it is because she is female. "</p>
<p>This seems to happen a whole lot when we are looking at top engineering schools.</p>
<p>So let 'em. Trees falling in the forest. Are you ever going to see or hang around these other parents again? It only reflects poorly on them, not on your daughter. Other people will know that and discount it. If other people don’t - well, they aren’t worth the time of day either. Oh dear - did I dehumanize them? </p>
<p>Thought experiment - you interview a kid for MIT, and he spends his time explaining why he didn’t get into XYZ science camp but the girl / URM /rich kid /whatever next door did just because she was a girl / URM / rich kid / whatever. Are you impressed with this kid? Why or why not?</p>
<p>This thread continues to baffle me. Fwiw, I happen to be vacationing with friends which includes an old female hs friend who attended MIT in the 70s. She is fun, outgoing and not at all the stereotype of some MIT students. If someone has a question they want me to ask her I am happy to do so. Not sure the purpose, but not sure of the purpose of this thread, or the direction it has taken
.</p>
<p>" Her summer engineering camp last year, two years of self study for USA Biology Olympiad, top 5 individual finishes in both an academic and athletic competition at state level this year, 2 years of Davidson THINK camp, better test scores, and better grades are not on his (or his mom’s) radar. "</p>
<p>Good. Why should they be? Since when do people who are successes in life keep detailed tabs on what others are doing? Winners focus on their own accomplishments and goals; losers focus on cataloging others around them and comparing who’s ahead. </p>
<p>Having this kid unaware of your D’s accomplishments is a feature, not a bug.</p>
<p>I have a girlfriend who went to MIT in the mid 80s too. Smart, accomplished, fun, and by no means a robotic clone or stereotypical MIT nerd And get this - canuckguy - she is Asian too. Go figure!</p>
<p>Pizzagirl, I’m not really sure you are allowed to have friends outside of your affinity group. Sheesh! </p>
<p>Quantmech: you ought to go and watch a marathon session of the most recent version of Battlestar Galactica. Some of the best television ever made, very Shakespearean in depth and breadth, complete with cyborgs. Really, just to get your mind off of that throw away line.</p>
<p>Me? I collect blonde jokes. Sometimes it’s just best not to take these things so seriously.</p>
<p>carry on.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl, not sure why you are jumping on me… I am responding to the poster who is convinced that the girls in her “15 kid sample” should not have gotten into MIT. Just giving an example of a girl who IS deserving of admissions (and there are tons more like her out there), and how many of the boys around her treat her and react to her admissions success. Trust me, D and I just roll our eyes at these kids and their parents, and she gets on with her activities and college applications. </p>
<p>But the whole point of this thread (over 1,000 posts ago) was about that “How did he/she get in?” poking that goes on. And it is pretty annoying when the poking assumes a young woman is not qualified for a slot at a STEM school, when in many cases she is as or MORE qualified than the boys doing the poking. And the other thing discussed early in the thread is that people don’t know everyone’s ECs, recs, etc. I am happy that you “take the high road” and don’t worry about what everyone else is doing, and also don’t play the “How did HE/SHE get in?” game. But the game is going on around us, with nasty comments from kids AND parents sometimes being made. Don’t like to ignore that, especially if it is hurtful to my kid.</p>
<p>Catching up, not necessarily responding the the recent posts above me.</p>
<p>First off, if someone wants to take a distanced view- not speaking of admissions, per se, but inquiry- then they have to cast their nets further and broader than kids they know or observations of current trends or patterns. Some have skirted whether females take to hard sciences in the way males do. Personally, I have no doubt that both genders are equally adept. But, overall, the formats of classes, expectations, testing- whatever- may still reflect the narrowness of the way the sciences have traditionally been taught. Traditionally. To men. To highlight, eg, whether women like study groups more or less, bond in certain groups more or less than men, stick it out through a particular class, whether women have SATs or SAT M’s higher or lower, is to restrict the thinking to “the way it is and always has been.”</p>
<p>In this respect, I may now understand (better) why some kept coming back to the old boys days. There is still much in even academia that has not yet evolved to better fit the strengths all sorts of different groups offer. Chew on that, for a while. </p>
<p>Even the idea sports participation in hs is important, usually for the teamwork notion, is (let me put it this way for a sec) male-oriented thinking. This sort of thinking has been going on since QM and I were in middle school- that, to ensure girls’ successes, they have to be more like boys. Even the work world is still subject to this thinking or the remaining traces - that the structure that worked for the generations where males dominated, is the structure women have to adapt themselves to. I believed that for many years- it was my strength in working in a mostly male field- but I now see how lopsided the whole thing is- and just how much time will be needed before it evolves more fully. </p>
<p>Next, it’s not having high enough scores and rigor, some enrichment programs, and social facility. That’s our comfort with linear thinking. It’s not about some big pool of like-enough kids and then taking the unicyclist for the flavor that brings. It’s more about the thinking behind the kid’s choices, what that represents. More later.</p>
<p>Because I think that if Nasty Parent A makes cracks about your undeserving kid only getting into MIT because she is female (or whatever), that you are giving too much power away by “defending” the kid, giving statistics, trotting out all of her accomplishments heretofore unknown, etc. (not “you” specifically - the generic “you”)</p>
<p>It implies that it’s really important that Nasty Parent A be convinced of the rightness of MIT’s decision, as if either your daughter or MIT need justify themselves to her. I would much rather treat NPA with indifference - or derision for being so concerned with others -than worry about “convincing” her sufficiently to her satisfaction. It elevates NPA’s importance in her own mind if you twist yourself in pretzels explaining why your D was worthy. It’s of no import whatever if NPA finds your kid worthy of MIT admissions. It only matters if MIT does.</p>
<p>Great paragraph #3 in that last post, lookingforward. (The rest is quite interesting, too–I may question the thought behind the 4th paragraph, but will wait until you have a chance to write more.)</p>