<p>^^Thanks for the post, Mollie!</p>
<p>“I’ll pause here to add that I frequently saw kids with perfect SAT scores and perfect grades and a gazillion AP classes get rejected. Why? Because often these kids knew how to grind, but brought nothing else to the table. And that’s not who we’re looking for at MIT. We admit kids who show genuine passion. Sure AP’s can be one of many passion indicators - but I emphasize one of many.”</p>
<p>This paragraph gives me the impression that kids with perfect scores/grades will be examined under a microscope. I wonder if kids with perfect scores/grades and a gazillion AP classes should think twice before they apply to MIT.</p>
<p>
Everyone who applies to MIT is examined under a microscope.</p>
<p>Having great stats isn’t a hindrance (if you look at the admissions statistics, you’ll see that probability of admission does rise with higher SAT scores and better class rank), but what Ben is trying to say here is that it’s not a guarantee, either. Stats alone are insufficient qualifications for admission to MIT, because the applicant pool as a whole is so qualified.</p>
<p>What I do not like is the following sentence:
“Because often these kids knew how to grind, but brought nothing else to the table. And that’s not who we’re looking for at MIT. We admit kids who show genuine passion.” especially the word “often” used in the sentence. It just give me a bad feeling. For the most cases, kids with so call perfect stats are passionate about learning, that is our experiences. It is very difficult to study that many APs without love of learning. It would be torture for anyone without love of learning.</p>
<p>Ben explained it very well. Don’t take 10+ APs (or even 5+ APs) if your primary reason is anything other than passion. I took 14 AP exams in 2 years, but impressing colleges was only my secondary motivation. I really enjoyed doing it. The regular classes at my high school just weren’t challenging enough for me, and I really loved the AP subjects I studied (except for English Literature, admittedly). </p>
<p>If you know you wouldn’t be happy taking 10+ APs, then don’t. If you are a great match for MIT and demonstrate that in other ways, you will have a very good chance of being admitted. Don’t push yourself beyond what you enjoy to the point that you become a machine. MIT builds machines; it doesn’t admit them. Despite taking 14 APs in two years, I was still a very creative kid who went around getting into all kinds of mischief. I disrupted my classes all the time in hilarious ways. I loved high school.</p>
<p>mushmouse - MIT definitely does not fit applicants to stereotypes. MIT will not look at a student with perfect “stats” and assume that kid is a “machine”. They will look at the essays and recommendations to determine whether any applicant (with or without perfect “stats”) is a good match.</p>
<p>I took:
AP World History
AP Biology
AP US History
AP Language and Composition</p>
<p>Will be taking:
AP Chemistry
AP Literature and Composition
AP Calculus ab</p>
<p>Offered:
AP Spanish
AP Psychology
AP US Government and Economics
AP Physics
AP Statistics
AP European History</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are joking righ!
Or are you trying to discourage kids with perfect scores/grades and a gazillion AP classes!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You can see, he means that most of admited studets happen to have these scores, but with other stuffs.
Therefore you dont have to worry if you do not have X, but Y, Z and etc.</p>
<p>Also If I add my advice
For example,
If you enjoy math and don’t have the time ( because you are taking gazillion AP classes such as goverment and history and you think they are easy) to take linear algebra, Differential equation, or other classes that you would enjoy from your local university, then you have a problem.</p>
<p>Because I am the living proof, I audited five college math classes and right now, I know more about my major plus it helped me and I am already doing advanced math work.</p>
<p>Most importatly
If the AP class is easy, then it does not neccessarily mean you are enjoying the class.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>OK here I’m going to have to agree with mushmouse’s squeamishness. It really sounds legitimate. I don’t know who is being quoted, but I’m just responding – “often” definitely sounds a little disgusting to me. First off, as has come up in another thread, brought up by Jessie, “passion” has become an overused term. And it’s kind of ridiculous and presumptuous to me that one can blanket why people have taken several challenging classes and done well in them. “Passion,” I maintain, isn’t really something that comes until you actually deal with top quality resources for many years. There can be a special energy or inclination in high school, but calling it “passion” makes it sound much more developed than what I think most intelligent students admitted to great schools really can boast of. </p>
<p>I don’t think anyone can really generalize why students take several challenging classes, ace them and such things without talking to these students. An application says something, and only something. I think it would be much less offensive/illogical to say that some students weren’t offered admission because there are only a few spots, and the AOs made a choice as to what kinds of various indications of energy they decided to humor. </p>
<p>To be clear, I am not objecting to MIT, but to whoever made what I call a sweeping characterization of certain kinds of students as machines.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Honestly the only way I can see this attitude favorably is if one emphasizes the word show. It is certainly one thing to be passionate about studies, take a billion AP classes, and another to care enough about the application process to market one’s “passion.” This marketing factor isn’t “bad,” and Ben Jones probably meant all this for the best, but the way it’s phrased, it certainly sounds like an amused admissions officer scanning over tons of whiny high schoolers and wisely picking out who <em>really</em> has passion. </p>
<p>I have seen Ben Golub post time and again, and I think one of his points is indirectly that it’s extremely easy for even a trained admissions officer to be just plainly unable to detect the right kind of “passion” even if it exists in tremendous proportions. I doubt AOs admit people who do NOT have something amazing to bring to the table, but I believe one must be very humble about the art of discovering “real passion” vs. “just stellar academic achievement.”</p>
<p>Regarding my latest posts: I understood Ben Jones’s point (just figured out it was his post), and my impression is that the line quoted out of context of the rest of his post comes across as extremely arrogant, but the rest of the post clarifies his attitude, which sounds OK.</p>