<p>Before I begin, please know that I'm not looking to start any attrition warfare.</p>
<p>At my MIT interview, I was told that MIT likes and especially looks for students who take risks. I stumbled through my response to explain how I've taken risks. Only after the interview did I realize that I told only the middle portion of the story I intended to tell.</p>
<p>And only several months later did I realize that the question ("What risks have you taken?") can hardly be considered one that provides equal opportunity for all students. Irony of ironies, with MIT undoubtedly taking pride in the equality of opportunity it offers.</p>
<p>But I digress.</p>
<p>I was raised in a (perhaps hellishly) conservative household. Risks have never been rewarded; only success has been rewarded.
How can MIT expect people like me to have a fair shot at that question? All I can think is that they would want students who have had a conservative upbringing AND payed it no mind.
But that's paradoxical, for they seem to also pride themselves in selecting a range of students that creates the widest possible swath.</p>
<p>I don’t know why you would say being raised in a conservative household does not encourage risk taking. Without trying to turn this into a political thread, it seems to me that a conservative philosophy assumes that risk taking (eg, people who start their own businesses) is a key to big rewards in life. And maybe that is what they are looking for – someone who DIDN’T follow the household line, whatever it is. You have had equal opportunity take risks (eg, stray from whatever path you are being pushed down). Just because you have chosen not to do so doesn’t mean the question is unfair. You might also mean very religious by “conservative”. Again – have you ever questioned, sought your own path? Or in science or some other discipline – did you ever get an idea and try it out in the face of what everyone else “knows” or expects? Maybe MIT is trying to find students who can chart their own path, not just those who live up to the expectations of others. I think your view of taking a risk is very narrow, and has nothing to do with a conservative upbringing. </p>
<p>I have two kids brought up in the same household, and one could easily list many risks she has taken, while the other has rarely if ever taken a risk in her life. It doesn’t have anything to do with our household atmosphere, it is innate to their personalities.</p>
<p>That said, interviews at schools like MIT don’t count for much at all. So I wouldn’t worry about it making much difference one way or the other.</p>
<p>Was your house full of lawyers or doctors or something lol. You know, where the quest to gain acceptance to law and medical school is basically a risk free journey to creating the perfect paper trail of sometimes superficial achievements (such as a very high GPA from easier courseloads/instructors or declining opportunities to take more advanced courses earlier on in the college career to GPA protect. Yep, because that’s real, hard earned success at all. Trying to “look” as good as possible instead of actually becoming good. Seriously, would this mentality apply to your approach to an MIT education? good luck with that…MIT is a very tough place to apply such a “conservative” approach). </p>
<p>Anyway, you do understand that a “risk” could be something like starting or investing in an organization or taking a notoriously difficult instructor at a university (as lots of students who attend places like MIT do dual enrollment/actual college courses, sometimes at more rigorous leading university) just for the sake of learning or pushing oneself to a new level? It could merely be an “intellectual” or “academic” risk, not “behavioral”. The political leanings of your household should have no effect on this. Many “successful” people did indeed take “risks”. You don’t think the student that rolls up into Harvard and says, “I am going to take math 55” is taking a risk? What about a college student who is pre-med who rolls up at another elite institution, and instead of forfeiting their AP credit and retaking a course they are already profricient in (for the sake of beginning the quest to rack up on the “easy” A’s as you need to for med. school) to take a more advanced science course despite the more competitive and difficult environment in the advanced course? Simple things such as these constitute “risk”, and for those who want to be challenged and rise to the challenges of the “risks” they take, it often pays off. The idea of the question is to likely reveal how outgoing you are, how willing are you to perhaps be challenged outside of your comfort zone, and your willingness to just generally take on new, exciting endeavors which you may be unfamiliar with. If I was any selective school, I would want this quality in a student. It leads to a student body more likely to generate a spirit of entrepreneurial ship and innovation on campus. Having a bunch of people who just “play it safe” and never straggle outside of their comfort zone/try new things or have novel ideas can make for a lackluster campus environment. Seriously, even having or presenting an idea that goes against conventional wisdom can be viewed as a “risk”. I would want the student that isn’t afraid to test or explore their own seemingly outlandish or “yet to be proven” ideas (because this student, out of their own curiosity, will go on to contribute a body of work and generate knowledge in whatever field of interest that allows them to prove or disprove their own ideas or those of others). Such ideas have a history of impacting the world. This especially goes for science and technology oriented ideas. </p>
<p>I intended the conservatism I mentioned to be taken as neither politically nor religiously. Rather, I meant it in a more abstract sense. </p>
<p>intparent: “You have had equal opportunity take risks (eg, stray from whatever path you are being pushed down).”
Knowing that at the end of failure is disappointment and condemnation, have I really had an equal opportunity to take risks? Risks have a rather high probability of failure.</p>
<p>intparent: “Maybe MIT is trying to find students who can chart their own path, not just those who live up to the expectations of others.”
In place of “expectations,” I’m thinking something more akin to “requirements.” Hmm…</p>
<p>intparent: “I think your view of taking a risk is very narrow, and has nothing to do with a conservative upbringing.”
Perhaps that’s a result of the abstract conservatism.</p>
<p>intparent: “I have two kids brought up in the same household, and one could easily list many risks she has taken, while the other has rarely if ever taken a risk in her life. It doesn’t have anything to do with our household atmosphere, it is innate to their personalities.”
It sounds like your household might emphasize individualism a bit more than mine does. </p>
<p>intparent: “That said, interviews at schools like MIT don’t count for much at all. So I wouldn’t worry about it making much difference one way or the other.”
Agreed! I’m certainly not worried – what will be will be…and I already know what will be.</p>
<p>I hate to point this out, but imo MIT interviews matter more than interviews at HYPS. There’s a reason MIT requires it and has the one of the most coordinated/networked interview systems out there (and even has the student contact the EC!); MIT wants personalities, too (see essay #3), that will thrive in its environment, understand its puns, facepalm at Chris’s gifs, etc.</p>
<p>But about risk-taking: I agree with the above posters. Also, what do you mean by “disappointment and condemnation”? Surely pursuing your passions, joining interest groups, volunteering, or taking the risk of being an effective leader (in a club, for instance) are not looked down upon in your household?</p>
<p>It seems to me you don’t even understand the question the interviewer is asking. And if you haven’t ever taken any kind of risk in your life (and thus the risk of failure that goes with it), then MIT might be right to turn you down. My parents were certainly not risk takers and would meet most definitions of conservative (abstract or not). That didn’t stop me from taking risks in life, often in opposition to their wishes. Sometimes they forced me to not do something where I wanted to take a risk, sometimes I took risks without their knowledge, and since I left home I just don’t tell them much so they don’t have a chance to react. Again… this is a personality trait they are looking for. IMHO, you have it or you don’t. Your parents don’t drive this, it is more internally driven. You have just as much opportunity as anyone else to take risks, don’t blame your parents.</p>
<p>Clearly none of you understands the situation I have grown up in. gatsbydies even asked specifically about it. You certainly can’t be held accountable for that; I haven’t been explicit at all in regards to it. Maybe I should have written about my upbringing for my February Notes & Updates…but I have no intention to project my misfortunes unto others, esp. in an attempt to better my position. And 250 words couldn’t scratch the surface. </p>
<p>Admittedly, this entire discussion is moot. Perhaps it’s best to end it here. Our efforts could be far better spent elsewhere.</p>
<p>My upbringing wasn’t necessarily the “best” and most full of “oppurtunities”, but even I took risks. That is not a very hard question to answer, and if you fear failure, being out of your comfort zone, being challenged, etc, MIT is a pretty bad place for a person like that. In fact, almost any school with a very rigorous STEM curriculum is.
I mean, what would you do? Show up to a top science program and take all easy instructors, join no clubs, never become a leader, never start up an initiative/organization. I assure, everyone else in the student body will not be so “conservative”, they’ll be going places. Seriously, when you look at folks like Goldwater Scholars, Fulbrights, and Rhodes scholars, these aren’t just people who kept to themselves, and gamed and studied their way to a stellar grade point average. They deeply engaged whatever they were studying (even if it meant taking one or several interesting courses where they could possibly get less than a gasp!!!..A! In fact, honestly many such people don’t think about that before hand. They choose courses and paths that interest them and do the absolute best they can and usually come out successful) , assumed leadership roles, and created things, etc. These weren’t folks who just looked good on paper with things that can easily be inflated (such as GPA and a long checklist of loosely connected ECs). They strove to be the very best by pushing themselves and taking action when needed. All of this constitutes “risk” and I really don’t feel bad for anyone who gets denied from or feels uncomfortable with an institution that essentially thrives of such students because they lack such characteristics. Try an institution where more students “play it safe” and thrive off of superficial success and a “hoop-jumper” mentality. That place isn’t MIT, Stanford, Caltech, or even somewhere like Harvard. </p>
<p>And finally, indeed we should end this if since you don’t understand understand it. </p>
<p>bernie, I understand your position - yet I can’t help but feel as if you are degrading the “conservative” values (whatever they mean, as I don’t think we have a clear consensus) the OP’s environment produces.</p>
<p>Sure, risk-taking can be a positive thing - your post has given ample evidence of that - but there are times when it is probably better not to be too open to risk-taking and better to “go with the flow.” You’re right, MIT is probably not that place; instead, it actively embraces risk-taking, leading to its interview question, which, of course, is to determine if someone is a good fit. And good fits for MIT thus are risk-takers.</p>
<p>To the OP, hopefully you’ve found at least something helpful in the last few posts that might have clarified things a little. :3 You’ll find out what happens regarding decisions in a few weeks - good luck!</p>
<p>I’m an MIT alum. I also grew up in a very conservative household, and I’m also, personality-wise, one of the most risk-averse people you’ll ever meet.</p>
<p>I strongly disagree that MIT selects only risk-takers, or that only risk-takers are good fits for the MIT student body. If I were asked a question like that in an interview, I probably would have turned it around to highlight my careful, methodical approach to science as a strength that’s highly in line with MIT’s production of rigorous STEM leaders.</p>
<p>I still am having trouble understanding how the OP was limited in risk taking. The OP could have started a new club at school, organized a new activity within an existing club that had never been done before, given a speech in front of a group that they were nervous about, asked a local professor if they could research with them (scary to make the ask, that would have felt like a risk to me in high school), joined an organization where they didn’t know anyone but wanted to learn more about the subject, or ran for office in a club or organization when you didn’t think you had a very good chance of winning. Heck, one of my kids wrote an essay for college apps on a topic like this about how she befriended a new kid in high school the other kids were making fun of and bullying, and helped bring him into her social circle – it was a social risk for her.</p>
<p>The risks do not need to be grand… if it took you out of your comfort zone, then for you it was a risk. I do think it is a good question for MIT to ask. People who never stepped off the prescribed path even once in their first 18 years of life probably aren’t going to be cutting edge scientists.</p>
<p>I actually understand the “conservative” values. It just doesn’t make sense when you attend somewhere like MIT and also shouldn’t make it so that an individual walks perfectly in the lines. Not even political and/or other types of conservatives actually do this.</p>
<p>And Mollie: Your risk was then going to a place like MIT that is very rigorous. A completely risk averse person does not go to places like MIT, Caltech, Berkeley, or Georgia Tech with tons of confidence. You have to be willing to work hard and challenge yourself at levels unlike you saw in high school to do decently at such places. It’s not like going to some other less intensive school and being something like “pre-med” and just choosing all the easy instructors or science courses so as to impress adcoms (who, at such places, are much like birds that like shiny things even if it’s fake. You pretty much obey the requirements, have the stats, interview fine, and you have a chance. The main risk is applying, especially if you don’t “look” perfect). These sorts of schools make it impossible to dodge a challenge and perhaps put the possibility of a near perfect GPA in jeopardy (so if you are the type that hates the risk of not appearing smart or being exposed as academically/intellectually less than stellar or perfect, those STEM oriented schools are not the place for you. And many people will avoid these places just for that: seriously: have you seen the number of threads where students ask: “which school among these top schools has the most grade inflation or easiest” and then the OP plans to go there. These people are far more risk averse than you…). Normally, “play it safe” people considering science don’t willy nilly show up to these places like they do at certain other selective schools. Also, even with a careful approach to science, it’s not easy to go into science (especially for Ph.D training and then potentially on to academia), you have to risk creating and implementing your own ideas, so I don’t buy it. My definition of “risk” is much less narrow and thus “conservative values” cannot explain why some one cannot come up with a very simple answer. </p>
<p>Often risk and challenge go hand in hand. A person that doesn’t like to be challenged academically, intellectually, etc (like by their job) is often a person that avoids the challenge because they fear failing. They rather just stick with a scenario that should come easy. The benefits of growing/developing new skills, a sharper mind, or some new idea/creation does not outweigh the cost of potentially struggling or not being completely successful in such a situation for these folks. The personality type is also apparently linked to the way some people’s view/mindset on intelligence and learning. Like a person who has been always told that they are smart and amazing by teachers and everyone else when they weren’t necessarily working all that hard to do well will not want to enter an arena where their level of work ethic or current level of knowledge will not afford an automatic advantage. The idea is to keep up the illusion that they are still amazing by only putting themselves in situations that for sure will make them look good. Such situations can’t involve struggling or failure. <a href=“http://mindsetonline.com/changeyourmindset/firststeps/”>http://mindsetonline.com/changeyourmindset/firststeps/</a></p>
<p>I’m sure most are between a fixed and a growth mindset, but when it comes to schooling, it does seem as if, at least in grade school, a fixed mindset is more or less promoted/encouraged almost such that by time students reach college, they seek to replicate the situation in high school as much as possible (and if you are pre-professional, college is a lot like HS over again. You need to do anything to rack up A’s and also do what they tell you to do for extra curricular. A person using a “fixed” mindset approach to academics and EC’s will certainly benefit in this process where you aren’t really allowed to make that many mistakes/what appears to be a mistake). For example some students (even at selectives, non-engineering ones in particular) will claim that college courses are as easy or easier than their high school courses. The reality is often that they chose it to be that way intentionally. They often didn’t randomly select classes of interest and happened to be underwhelmed by the caliber. They chose classes in fear of what an actual college caliber course (especially one designed for “smart” students) is so used rmp and word of mouth to select easy choices that would not challenge them. </p>
<p>The interviewer probably merely intended to know instances of risk taking and learning a if any.
There is no implied hint that risk takers are better fit.</p>
<p>Yep, applying to MIT is a risk in itself - challenging oneself. :)</p>
<p>MIT looks for people who will do interesting, compelling, worthwhile things with the education it can give – this can be interpreted as risk, or not, depending on how you look at it. </p>
<p>Thanks, gatsbydies, for trying to repel some of bernie’s assertions.
I have indeed found something helpful in this discussion; my interpretation of “risk” was rather narrow (yet that’s no surprise, given how competitive MIT’s applicant pool is).
Thanks for the kind wishes in regards to my application’s decision…unfortunately it seems rather unheard of for MIT to accept 2 students from a given high school.</p>
<p>And thanks, mollie, for providing a new perspective. </p>
<p>To foxpringles: ,</p>
<p>A (hopefully) clarifying amendment to what I mean (for intparent…and everyone :p): because of the sheer size of my school, essentially every club there ever could be already exists. I would have loved to create an intramural athletic club (for a specific sport), but it’d have been too difficult…the sport I had (have) in mind tends to be rather dangerous, and very few high schoolers actually engage in it as a true sport. I do rather wish I had asked a prof for a research position, but I only started taking AP science courses this year (as a senior), so it would’ve required self-studying, in which case I wouldn’t have gotten lab experience…
I did join an organization where I didn’t know anyone in order to learn more about a very particular subject, and my EC and I discussed it a good bit…but it’s not terribly risky. </p>
<p>PiperXP – awesome profile pic! I hope your interpretation is similar to MIT’s. :)</p>
<p>Shutterstock – I don’t see what you’re hinting at, but fear not…my scores are quite good. </p>
<p>One final curiosity: is it commonplace for interviewers to say that the interviewee seems like a “good fit,” or do they only say that if they really mean it?</p>
