Perhaps that is a common excuse to cover for students who do not want to take the necessary course that is offered at 8am, or wants to take a light course load instead of a full one, or changes major often and late.
blossom, if you read my post #236 again, and note or recall that I attended Pretty Good University as an undergrad, you will see that I am saying almost exactly the opposite of what you are calling “hogwash.”
I said that a student at MIT probably had to exercise more initiative to obtain opportunities than I did. Maybe that is not actually the case. Opportunities were pretty much dumped in my lap, at PGU (not at great “top” university). Once the opportunities were obtained, the level of effort I had to exert was probably about equal to the level of effort an MIT student would have to exert.
You mentioned “nagging and more nagging” as needed by a student, in #232. I never had to nag anyone, though. I posted my nagging counts in #236: 0.
My opportunities were obtained because an advisor really looked out for my interests. That’s what I say is hit or miss at universities like PGU. Without the support of an advisor, I don’t believe that it would be possible for a student to get into the courses that are reserved for Ph.D. students; but that’s part of what would make a PGU undergrad education more comparable to an MIT undergrad education. The student at PGU might pick a research advisor rather haphazardly, without good advice. I suspect there’s more variability in the quality of the research labs at PGU than at MIT. Without the support of an advisor or interest from a faculty member, repeated nagging by a student would just be annoying and unprofitable. (There might be a regional cultural influence in this.)
When I wrote about getting into the grad research lab a student wanted, I wasn’t referring to the UROP experiences at MIT (please insert proper acronym, if that’s not it). I was referring to an incoming grad student getting to join the lab he/she wanted. Some fields have rotations, so that an incoming grad student moves between labs and has an opportunity to impress multiple professors in the first year, or at least the first semester. But in some fields at some top grad schools, if a student who has been accepted to the grad school wants to be accepted (as a grad student) into a research lab that is popular, the student has 4 to 6 weeks to make an impression. Not much time. I think that students from better schools probably have an edge in this regard.
In the next-to-last paragraph of #236, I suggested some advantages that students at MIT might have, relative to students at PGU. Which of those don’t other people believe (if any)?
@PurpleTitan . MUST Rolla is part of the Flagship System and is the top of the engineering studies of the University of Missouri.
@PurpleTitan . It takes longer to research than to check the CDS, figure where your stats fall and decide that’s your dream school, anyway (after all, a few kids got in with my stats.) Or post a thread asking others to tell you your chances. Yeh. Longer than posting that it’s all a crapshoot and, “You won’t know unless you apply.” But not that long. Frankly, if a kid wants to apply to a mega competitive holistic or it’s your child, isn’t it worth the effort? A few hours and you get the hang of it, first couple of times. Then you know how to zero in. Kids admit they spend months on the essay, why not know what it’s meant to show? I suspect too many kids and parents spend more time and detail on the USNews lists.
This isn’t some anti applicant sentiment. I like the age group and see how they can stretch, the compassion some have, the dedication, the inventiveness. I nag about it in the hopes the lighbulb goes off over some bright kids’ heads. Over the years, I’ve seen too many Why Us answers that bomb, essays that hit no sweet spot. It’s simply not enough, in the system we have, to try to rely on your hs stats, a couple of titles and awards.
And ya know what? No one can predict; even on the MIT blogs, there are different takes. But if it’s important, imo, you try to craft your best shot.
Someone recently said, on this thread or another, why bother, if you might get it wrong? Sheesh. In the end, even the best apps only have that 50-50 chance: you either get admitted or you don’t. But if you think you’re good enough for a tippy top (or entitled,) why not polish?
I’ve spent hundreds of hours on CC and while there are some kids I’m willing to say “yeah, he/she will get in some Ivy/equivalent”, even I’m not sure about the vast mass of ordinary excellent kids.
And if I can’t figure it out, you think a few hours research by a kid would do the trick?
While I usually pretty much agree with everything quant has to say Harvard students do not need to honk very much at all. There is so many meaningful EC activities at Harvard there is plenty to go around.
Of course, many of the aspects (e.g. essays, recommendations, extracurriculars, interview) of an application to a super-selective college are not really observable on these forums, subjectively graded, and (even if one can see them) hard to tell without being an insider at the college admissions office whether they are competitive in the context of that college’s entire applicant pool and that college’s admission goals.
So it is not surprising that most forum posters and most students have difficulty figuring out what (beyond baseline academic stats) would make an application competitive or non-competitive at a given super-selective college. And since the baseline academic stats are the most visible and comparable aspects, that can lead to the “AP arms race”, “test score arms race”, or worrying about a single B in 9th grade, even if it that extra AP human geography course, 20 SAT points, or that B versus A grade really does not matter in the overall context of the student’s application to a super-selective college, assuming that s/he is already strong in those aspects.
@ucbalumnus, indeed, and they are difficult for any one applicant to observe as well (besides his/her own app). Hence the process of getting in to an Ivy/equivalent is opaque (in the RD round).
@blossom: I’m counting Ivies/equivalents as the elite.
And UMich/Cal reject some OOS applicants with near-perfect stats these days. Same with Vandy.
BTW, the numerator/denominator for PKU/Tsinghua in China (or various IIT’s in India) is probably even smaller than for Stanford (in fact, I’m pretty certain that’s true for the Indian IIT’s) yet the process for getting in to those schools isn’t opaque at all. So it really is an opacity issue, not a numbers issue.
Now, to be sure, if someone really really wants a guaranteed pathway to an Ivy/equivalent (or near-Ivy) degree (and are good enough to meet requirements), they exist.
Columbia Engineering guarantees a transfer to anyone who meets their (stringent) requirements through their 3-2 program. UVa guarantees admissions to all VA CC grads who take certain courses with certain grades and a certain overall GPA (though not to all majors). W&M also has a guaranteed transfer plan. WashU takes almost everyone who meets their 3-2 engineering requirements. Some of Cornell’s colleges use to say that if you reach a certain GPA at certain CC’s, you had a good chance of transferring in, but I don’t know if they say that any more.
And of course, you can earn your way in to (the not-Harvard-College) Harvard Extension School.
UCB has admission by division, and major within the engineering division. For some engineering majors, near-perfect stats applicants (whether in-state or out-of-state) have a fairly large chance of not being admitted.
UCB’s holistic admission reading process is somewhat less opaque, because it is described in the Hout report ( http://academic-senate.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/hout_report_2005.pdf ), but applicants still do not know how the quality of their essays and other subjectively-graded factors compares with that of the applicant pool that they are competing with.
However, Columbia does not promise as good financial aid for Combined Plan 3+2 transfers as it does for frosh and other transfers.
https://undergrad.admissions.columbia.edu/apply/combined-plan says that “We do not guarantee that we can meet 100% of demonstrated financial need for all admitted students.” For comparison, https://undergrad.admissions.columbia.edu/apply/transfer says that “Columbia meets 100% of demonstrated financial need for admitted transfer students”.
Re #245 from collegedad13: I appreciate the general vote of confidence. Thank you. I do think that the strength of academic qualifications should be paramount for admission to an academic institution, while preserving the possibility of rejecting students on character grounds. For example, if a International Mathematics Olympiad Medalist had spent his last two years in high school sneering at all of his fellow students, that would be reasonable grounds for MIT to reject his application (though I doubt that has ever happened–the sneering, not the rejection). If the IMO Medalist was simply an introvert, I don’t think he should be rejected on the grounds of projected lack of contribution to the MIT community.
Quelle horreur! Cue the objections!
When I mentioned the ECs at Harvard, I had in mind the Harvard Lampoon and the Harvard Crimson. I know there is pretty intense competition to join the staff of the Lampoon. I presume that the same is true for the Crimson. While there are no doubt outlets other than the Lampoon for writers of comedy and satire at Harvard, c’mon, Harvard students are accustomed to being the best of the best–so they probably prefer the Lampoon to the other outlets. Ditto for young journalists and the Crimson. I have heard that the undergraduate orchestras are quite competitive for a student who cares about chair placement–as what Harvard student would not? :).
Obviously, I am exaggerating! Also, I happen to love all of the Harvard students I know . . . well, all but one. But I think some of them must develop competition fatigue after a while. I believe a Harvard Dean characterized a 25th year reunion group as seeming like the “dazed survivors of a lifelong boot camp.”
PT, no one can predict a final decision. Certainly not on a blind forum. That’s not the point. It’s about giving yourself a better shot. Controlling for what you can. We’re not on CC to tell a kid he’s sure to get in some tippy top. I like to think it’s to help the willing refine their approach, even a little. Not all kids stop at crapshoot or opaque.
And if it’s too hard to try, or can’t result in a guarantee, what does it say about that kid vis a vis a Harvard or MIT or Stanford, in the first place? I don’t think it’s good enough, (using the term colloquially,) to throw in the towel, throw up your hands and call it a lottery. That not the mindset for an intense college experience.
I’m not sure what service it provides a bright, driven kid to just point him/her to a Canadian or British U, because the entrance requirements are more cut and dried.
@QuantMech I think this is what you’re implying should happen re International Math Olympiad participants:
“Trinity has the knack of attracting the majority of the UK IMO participants, with most students at the Easter camp going on to study maths as undergraduates at Trinity…As Trinity’s population of international students has increased, so has the number of Trinitarians who represent other delegations at the International Mathematical Olympiad. In addition to representatives of the majority of European countries, we have a large Australian contingent, something to which the joint UK and Australia pre-IMO camp may have contributed.”
https://share.trin.cam.ac.uk/sites/public/Alumni/The_Fountain_Issue_19.pdf
“If you mean “Only Stanford will do” then sure- it takes more than half an hour. Again- not because the system is opaque. But because that pesky numerator/denominator problem. When you’ve got X number of students vying for Y number of seats, then you can’t ignore the math.”
As purpletitan pointed out, opaqueness has nothing to do with math. There are schools tougher to get into than Stanford outside of the US and there is nothing opaque about the admissions process. They post a qualifying score to get in, if you get higher than the qualifying score you’re admitted. Law schools in the US are similar to that, there’s a formula that takes into account GPA and LSAT and based on that, you know where you can get admitted. The National Merit program is exactly like that, in California if you get above a 221 you get semifinalist below you don’t. SFs are 1% of test takers, so even less than the 5% of Stanford. Most grad schools in the US are not opaque, only the top b-schools are. And even for them if you have a 4.0 gpa 800 gmat, you’re getting in to a top school.
But the UK system and expectations are not the US’s. If QM’s bright young friend would thrive at MIT, and would like to be there, the expectations he’d need to meet are MIT’s. And that includes something more than hs academic stats, awards, and potential.
I suggested at one point that MIT should accept all of the students who qualified for the USAMO by junior year, and wanted to attend MIT. I did some analysis to project how many students this would be. It was a rather small fraction of MIT’s admits. The opposition to that was strenuous (from the people you might expect to object).
Trinity is a wonderful college. It would be possible for a student to have the room that Newton had when he was a student there. Newton has cast a long shadow at Trinity, much like Gauss’s in Goettingen (the oe represents an o with an umlaut). This attracts top mathematical minds, and the excellence of the college’s graduates is perpetuated. They have a fine undergraduate community, as well.
Yes. I remember that.
But it’s not what MIT and others choose to do. Sometimes, IRL, we have to stop and see what is, not just what we wish it could be. Otherwise, we go in circles.
You know now that MIT needs more. In retrospect, would you have advised him, with his accomplishments, to tweak his presentation?
@lookingforward:
“I’m not sure what service it provides a bright, driven kid to just point him/her to a Canadian or British U, because the entrance requirements are more cut and dried.”
It provides them with top unis/programs that they are almost certain to get in to. For many reasons (including peace of mind), that is helpful.