"Whether the problem sets at MIT are HARD or not, whether the education is “drinking from a firehose” or not, whether it’s a “pressure cooker” or not, depends on the ability of the student (at the specific point in time–ability can grow, but it takes time). If my admissions philosophy were followed (ha, ha, likelihood very low), there would be more students for whom the problem sets were not so hard, more students who could give good advice to the students who needed help, and less benefit to being an extravert. "
This is Quant Mech’s post. Arguing for MORE students for whom the problem sets are not so hard.
I was responding to this. Which of my assumptions is incorrect? Quant Mech believes (and it is his/her right) that MIT should be more of a “the top math students in the world get in” kind of place. But MIT is not the “Institute of Theoretical Math and Physics”. And a lot of the disciplines that are part of its mission require really strong math skills but really strong other things. And so- its admissions strategy/algorithm/practices are in keeping with its mission- not Quant’s mission.