<p>And intparent - I don’t model for my kids that the NPAs of the world are worth listening to. Let stupid people say stupid things, and let them fall on the floor and don’t pick them up. That I think is far more empowering to a young person than modeling for them that every “opinion” someone has about them needs to be responded to. I would say - you’re off to MIT, dear! Leave 'em in the dust.</p>
<p>I still don’t understand why do much time is being spent on MIT. It is ONE university of thousands offering STEM degrees to both men and woman. We have both male and female engineers in this family working in a variety of engineering environments. In addition, of my 12 neighbors, 9 are engineers. NONE of them works with a graduate of MIT and we are in New England. </p>
<p>There seems to be some fascination with MIT and what it has to offer and what it does and doesn’t do.</p>
<p>I’m not sure in the big scheme of things it really matters at all.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>yes yes yes YES!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Until my snowflakes made my gray, I was a blonde bombshell. Believe it or not. My snowflakes do not believe it. My affinity group = Clueless, Legally Blonde not Star Treck… though watching the original show as a girl, I had a huge crush on Spock, maybe my first tv/movie crush ever. However, I can discuss all the shows you mentioned and … many many more because of the snowflakes interests in them. Anyway, I tend to think blond bombshell, although a stereotype, has power and status in society both back in ancient times when I was one and today. Good looks help. IMHO blond jokes are jokes about individuals who usually have power and status. No one is really going to seriously discriminate against blondes - though we could definitely discuss whether some segments of society, the academy in particular, discriminate against Elle types.</p>
<p>intparent, if you think that I question your daughter’s abilities, nothing can be further from the truth. I’m always happy to see smart and successful girls and wish this society would encourage more girls to study math and engineering. I think I already said here that you have all reasons to be proud. Obviously, our kids are on different robotics teams because the girls on my son’s robotics team are treated with respect. Has she applied to MIT? In my view, she is very qualified. When I spoke about “mediocre” girls (again mediocre by MIT standards), I didn’t mean your daughter. How could I? I don’t know her, and I trust your opinion. No need to be so defensive.</p>
<p>I am quite enjoying “Celebrate Our Common Humanity Day”. We have a huge cookout and fireworks planned. All the neighbors are coming. </p>
<p>After QM’s post yesterday, I woke up wondering: Would Spock get into MIT? SHOULD Spock get into MIT? </p>
<p>Maybe this particular meandering needs to wait till tomorrow. I have lots to write that no one wants to read on a holiday.</p>
<p>Well, as a blonde intellectual, I can promise the surprise when I showed up to present my papers was a bit… offputting, to say the least. Still, I never felt it damaged me enough to color my hair black.</p>
<p>At any rate, if you can’t laugh it off a bit, you will die from it. When the teachers, who were clearly LESS intelligent than my dyslexic daughter would try to “put her in her place” by making her read out loud, she could either be devastated by this cruelty, and it WAS intentional cruelty, or she could get very, very funny about it. Funny it was!</p>
<p>Look, we’re all “up against it” in one way or the other. Part of getting “past it” is to take it on as your own and refuse to allow it to demean you, as you must know, since you are a GLBQT advocate.</p>
<p>jym
</p>
<p>Below is the thread I am participating on. I can understand how baffling it all must be if you are just now joining in. Hope you are having a wonderful Celebrate Our Common Humanity Day with your friends!</p>
<p>QuantMech</p>
<h1>1364
</p>
<h1>1365
</p>
<p>poetgrl: my friends say to fight prejudice - “put a face on it”</p>
<p>I think this sort of thread may “put a face on it”?</p>
<p>adding:</p>
<p>I think you are absolutely right we have to learn to “deal with it” and teach our children “how to deal with it”. One way I want to accomplish that is–</p>
<p>do my very small part, in my small corner of the world, to create a society where they have less to “deal” with and that seems to be the direction society is going? It may be too much to hope for with the grandchildren, but maybe the greats won’t have to “deal with it” at all?</p>
<p>I still love Legally Blonde.</p>
<p>I wish “mediocre” could be eliminated here. It’s hierarchical thinking. Not used in an accepting way. Not reflective of holistic. I don’t spend much of my CC time on nicey-nicey, but wow that value judgment bugs me.</p>
<p>I am never going to use “mediocre” on this board again. Now I’m off to party! See you all tomorrow.</p>
<p>What’s the affinity group for those who believe MIT is admitting hordes of mediocre female students? How about the affinity group for people who are “baffled” when 3.9/2200 are admitted and 4.0/2350 isn’t?</p>
<p>QM - I note with interest that extroverted, class-president type personalities have been described on here with as much, if not more, derision than robotic clones. Pushy, arrogant, aggressive, insincere, self-promoters. Is that equally objectionable to you? To those who have described extroverted personalities as such, isn’t it possible that you’re ascribing negative character traits to someone who is just naturally outgoing and forceful? Or do negative stereotypes only cut one way?</p>
<p>Er, trade QuantMech to Vulcan Science Academy in exchange for Spock to MIT and one case of duty-free Romulan ale.</p>
<p>I know I’m probably the only one hung up on this, but…</p>
<p>QM, why is your complaint always with the unqualified jugglers/tightrope walkers/rutabaga growers? Why not the unqualified soccer players/pianists/poets? None are STEM related, and MIT admits some of all of them.</p>
<p>Obviously the first group is more rare, plausibly more “interesting.” But it seems to me that the first group isn’t admitted at the expense of the IMO qualifiers. Rather, maybe they take 1 ventriloquist instead of that 10th soccer player.</p>
<p>To finish my thought - if it’s believed that the pushy, arrogant self-promoter types deliberately took on that persona (believing it would be rewarded in admissions), then why can’t the less-than-socially-skilled types take on another persona? It seems like there’s an unspoken theme that the pushy types should tone it down, but not that the wallflower types should pump it up.</p>
<p>collegealum, #1523</p>
<p>“I will point out that I often see less talented boys taken over more talented boys as well.” - Absolutely agree! However, my assessment took this into account.</p>
<p>“The female pool in the country is talented enough that MIT shouldn’t really need AA for girls.” - they have to use AA for girls to get to 50-50 ratio, because, if they used the same admit rate for boys and girls, the ratio would be 30-70. </p>
<p>“Caltech is the only place I’ve heard that doesn’t have this.” - actually, I did the same calculations for Caltech’s common data set and it’s obvious they practice AA for girls, but to a less extent than MIT. The numbers looked reasonable to me. I believe girls need some boost, because the current system discourages them from STEM fields. What I was saying all along was that, in my opinion, MIT has taken it too far. But because they are a private institution, they have a right to establish whatever policies they want. I’m just saying I don’t believe those policies are good.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Be sure the girls actually think so… in fact, one of the worst offenders of pushing my D to the non-technical tasks on her team was a mom of one of the boys. She knew my D could write well, and would snag her for fundraising and newsletter work every time D entered the lab. And that parent would say she is being VERY respectful, even though she was still shunting D off to work the boys did not want to do, and keeping D from engaging in the hands on build and testing. D wanted to help her team, and did a lot of that other work, but it was a blatently sexist assumption that she should do those elements. And the boys and mom did not see it… She still is friendly with almost all of the boys on her team (and one even asked her out last week – she politely declined, then told me later that this kid “defines misogynist”). But she knows they will push her aside for their own opportunities to do the “fun stuff” if they can. Just saying that you may think they are treated respectfully, but it may not actually be the case.</p>
<p>My D did not apply to MIT or Cal Tech (visisted Cal Tech, though). She thought they were too much like the atmosphere of her robotics team (sorry, but the “male peacocks” were a factor), and she did not want to give up access to classes in the liberal arts & having college friends who are strong in those non-tech majors. Hence U of Chicago & Harvey Mudd.</p>
<p>sylvan8798, “And did these inferior girls do poorly at MIT?”</p>
<p>these girls did or still do fine at MIT. That wasn’t the point. Knowing these girls, they will become good professionals in their fields, but they are unlikely to push the limits of science. What I was trying to say is that the boys who got rejected were likely to become leaders in science (and will probably become them anyway). It’s MIT’s right to provide an opportunity for some mediocre girls to become mediocre scientists and professionals (I’m not saying that all girls at MIT are mediocre!). There is a perception in the world that MIT’s mission is to nurture talents to lead science and technology to new levels. Their admission policies suggest something else.</p>
<p>intparent, what you describe is reprehensible. I don’t think it’s even possible on our team. In fact, parents don’t interfere. I came to my conclusions from personal observations on many random occasions, including end of year picnics. I can see how the kids interact. The current captain who was elected by boys last year is a girl I know since early childhood. We are friends with her family and I have almost daily conversations with her mother. This is the context for my conclusions. If I found out that something like what you describe was happening I would talk to my son about it.<br>
I am sorry she chose not to apply to Caltech and MIT. I think she would do well. U of C is a great place for math and physics. We visited several times because it’s close to where we live. My son was considering them until he got the letter from Stanford, which also is offering more aid than Chicago.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think it is highly unlikely that there are five boys or girls in any one town in any one age group who are “likely” to become leaders in science. But, this does really reflect a certain attitude one sees. </p>
<p>Like the ubiquitous “We are an important class of high school graduates and we will change the world in ways never seen before.” Honestly, I went to a high school where we were likely to produce a tremendous number of successful people, and we are a very successful group of people, but “leaders in science?” Really? I mean its good for parents and kids to dream, but even our ivy feeder, back when they existed, produced few true leaders in any of the fields, a lot of money, a lot of happy people, but “leaders?” like you claim? They are so rare.</p>
<p>Of course, I’m sure our parents were convinced we were all headed straight for the nobel, as well. ;)</p>
<p>In the sciences they are international. </p>
<p>I doubt even one of those kids will become a “leader” in science.</p>