MIT admissions dean resigns over resume fraud. Ouch!

Parents Forum
1161

<p>
[quote]
I never said the math ability of the 730 Math SAT kid and the 800 Math SAT were exactly the same. I said that both scores were in the high end of the ballpark needed for MIT

[/quote]
</p>

<p>730 math SAT is below the 25th percentile at MIT. Not high end in their pool.
Their mid-50 percentile is 740-800 as of the 2005-6 Common Data Set.
92 percent of students had math SAT of 700 and above.</p>

<p>more: Caltech's mid-50 range is 770-800, Harvard is 700-790, Harvey Mudd is 740-790.</p>

1162

<p>Siserune....thanks. I did not do a good job in my wording of my post late last night and I now see how that statement reads with a different meaning than I had meant. Yes, a 730 is not in the higher PERCENTILE of the MATH mid 50%tile SAT RANGE of accepted students to MIT. I totally agree. What I truly meant was that a 730 is in the "high enough" MATH SAT range to be considered for admission to MIT. Sorry that I did not do a good job of stating what I meant. When I said "high end of the ballpark"...I meant that a 730 is within the high range of math scores that an applicant to MIT needs to be admitted. </p>

<p>A math score of 730 is admitted at a lower rate than a math score of 800 to MIT as your mid 50%tile shows. Both scores are accepted to MIT. It is easier to get in with an 800 math score than a 730 one, but those with a 730 do get in. </p>

<p>What I was trying to say is that candidates with either a 730 or an 800 are both in the ballpark range of admitted students to MIT. Therefore, in evaluating such candidates for admission, a kid with a 730 math score might be preferable to a kid with an 800 if the kid with the 730 has a lot of other things going for him/her, including even math achievements, and I think either candidate may be successful at MIT. I don't see the significance of the difference of those scores in terms of being a good candidate for MIT, and I think the real significant difference between such candidates lies in many other factors in their total application package.</p>

1163

<p>From today's Philadelphia Inquirer. It doesn't mention Marilee Jones specifically, but is very relevant to this topic:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.philly.com/inquirer/magazine/20070505_All_set_to_regret.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.philly.com/inquirer/magazine/20070505_All_set_to_regret.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>"All set to regret" (TITLE)</p>

<p>Like Boy Scouts, celebrities and others who speak before thinking must be prepared - to douse the fires of outrage with a convincingly tearful "I'm sorry." Here's everything you need.</p>

<p>The apologies keep on coming, washing over us like a teardrop tsunami.
Don Imus. Alec Baldwin. Gov. Corzine. And that's just in the last few weeks. Think back to last year's cornucopia of contrition, with apologies real and pseudo from the likes of Mel Gibson, Michael Richards and Rush Limbaugh.</p>

<p>So many apologies, so many of them artless. Afraid that your own stammering mea culpas won't move the meter on the forgiveness dial? Be prepared: assemble an apology kit today. Whether you're a self-absorbed celebrity or a tactless in-law, you'll be ready to clean up those nasty little stains that loose lips and dumb deeds can cause.</p>

<p>Here's what to put in your kit:</p>

<p>Squeeze bottle of artificial tears: To make you look sorry.</p>

<p>Box of tissues: To wipe away the artificial tears.</p>

<p>Book of apology quotations: Borrowed regret is better than none.</p>

<p>Note paper: The smallest size possible, to avoid apologizing too much. Say it quickly, get in, get out.</p>

<p>Disappearing ink: To make sure the words don't linger embarrassingly.</p>

<p>CD of Brenda Lee's "I'm Sorry": To set the mood.</p>

<p>And if all that doesn't help you to craft a decent apology, try this: Be sincere.</p>

<p>If that doesn't work, we're sorry.</p>

<ul>
<li>Michael D. Schaffer</li>
</ul>

1164

<p>Obviously a 730 math SAT who has other external evidence of talent (patented invention, published article in a journal, an olympiad medal; not just a nice essay or glowing recommendations) is more impressive than a plain vanilla 800 math SAT.</p>

<p>I'm pretty sure that was also the opinion of MIT admissions long before the modern era. If you created an invention or won the Westinghouse Science Talent Search they would have accepted you in 1964, even if grades and SAT's were not perfect.</p>

1165

<p>Post #1145: "Schools also want to build a class of different types of students. It is not enough to be qualified intellectually."</p>

<p>What are exactly these types? Can you let the applicants know what the exact percentage of each type? How do you assume that the ones who are intellectually qualified belong to a single type? Do these types apply to graduate schools and real world job application? If the colleges cannot tell these exact types then the above criteria is vague and it creates the basis loophole for lying and cheating for both applicants and the admission offices.</p>

1166

<p>siserune, yes, that is true! And I'll add to that ....25% of those admitted to MIT have a math SAT of 740 or below and not all of those students have published, won an olympiad medal or the Westinghouse or Intel awards either. Another poster came across as concerned that MIT was accepting "lesser" candidates and gave SAT scores as an indication of what "lesser" meant. </p>

<p>MotherOfTwo...that is funny and actually so true! That's what I was saying earlier about not just saying "I'm sorry" but making amends and showing an understanding of those who you may have hurt and also making some changes to show you won't be doing this kind of thing again. It would be nice if the Marilee's of the world take such steps publicly (as public figures who were "caught") and not just a one liner of "I'm sorry."</p>

1167

<p>coolweather...I'm not saying that the different types are categories of students who are NOT qualified intellectually. I was saying that ALL who get in must be qualified academically. Since SO many are, other things set each one apart. Colleges aim to create a balanced mix of students and so the balance might involve gender, race, socio economic background, geographic background, types of academic interest area, type of personalities (leaders, followers, creative, etc), various activity passions, types of achievements, and so forth. I don't think a college needs to quantify how many of each type they want. It is easy to look up the academic qualifications of admitted students to a college. One needs to be in range. After that, other qualities set one candidate apart from another.</p>

<p>I think you took what I said as there were academically qualified candidates and then "other qualified" candidates. That is not what I was saying. ALL must be academically qualified to get in. But that alone is not enough. There are too many who meet that criteria.</p>

1168

<p>soozievt - "I don't think a college needs to quantify how many of each type they want."</p>

<p>If you cannot quantify then your criteria is vague then.</p>

1169

<p>Admissions to elite schools is not an exact science. What do you suggest that they do coolweather? Say they need 1500 freshmen and they have 10,500 applicants. How should they pick them? Should they just order the apps by GPA and SAT scores and take the highest 1500 off the pile? </p>

<p>The fact is, way more than 1500 applicants to MIT have stats in the ballpark of admitted students to MIT and within the ballpark of the level of students that they feel are capable of succeeding at MIT. So, what then? </p>

<p>Colleges are admitting PEOPLE, not just their stats. Yes, one has to have the stats to even be considered. But way more people have the requisite stats in the right ballpark for an elite school like MIT and so the adcoms then examine all the other aspects of the candidate. Certain criteria make a candidate attractive. Still, there are too many. Then they build a class and try to balance various types of people to fill that class, ALL of whom have already met the academic criteria of admission.</p>

1170

<p>coolweather, sorry we cross posted.</p>

<p>Colleges CAN identify criteria that they look for in a candidate and many do. I said that they cannot quantify how many of each "type" they want in the class. Also, besides that, people don't all fit into neat little categories. Again, they accept people, not just data points.</p>

1171

<p>
[quote]
H and I attended a public university (many, many years ago!) and H and S thought it was hilarious that S used the same textbook (although a later edition) that H did for a math class. I don't think the material at our public U was different from what S is getting at an Ivy.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Where MIT uses a standard textbook they might cover it at double the pace or with many more problems assigned, than at a typical state school. Caltech might ask you to learn a programming language on your own within a week because homework assignments will be given in that language. If there is any "curving" of grades it is harder to receive an A (for the same work) at a top school because one's competitor students are smarter and harder working than at a state school.</p>

<p>While you can, with some effort, get a better-than-MIT education at a state school with a good library and a few good professors, the level of courses is where the difference in admissions selectivity becomes most visible.</p>

1172

<p>An easy example might be this...
One thing they want to balance is geographic diversity. I don't think, however, they have a set number of students that they want from North Dakota or Alaska. In one given year, they might get many highly qualified candidates from those states and take a few and in another year, might just take one or two given the candidates they had to select amongst. </p>

<p>The criteria might be "geographic diversity" and the school can identify that criteria but they can't quantify how many from each state that they will take in a given year.</p>

1173

<p>Picking up on ost 1171, is that another difference is the level of students in the class and their level of motivation and drive....part of going to a very selective school is the make up of your classmates and how that affects the educational climate too.</p>

1174

<p>soozievt - I don't advocate GPA. As a matter of fact I don't think using subjective GPA is a good way to admit students. SAT can have some limited use but not perfect. What I am trying to say is colleges need to have more objective criteria.</p>

1175

<p>
[quote]
I don't advocate GPA. As a matter of fact I don't think using subjective GPA is a good way to admit students. SAT can have some limited use but not perfect. What I am trying to say is colleges need to have more objective criteria.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>OK - I'll bite. If GPA is too subjective, and SAT has some limited use, what are you advocating as "more objective criteria" for admissions?</p>

1176

<p>soozievt: "An easy example might be this...
One thing they want to balance is geographic diversity. I don't think, however, they have a set number of students that they want from North Dakota or Alaska. In one given year, they might get many highly qualified candidates from those states and take a few and in another year, might just take one or two given the candidates they had to select amongst. </p>

<h2>The criteria might be "geographic diversity" and the school can identify that criteria but they can't quantify how many from each state that they will take in a given year."</h2>

<p>Do you actually know this for sure? 10 years ago, the president of the university spoke to the incoming class at MIT. After saying something about how great we were, he then said, "And you're not here because you're from Idaho." That is, he was saying selecting for geographic diversity is dumb and that MIT admissions does things differently than the ivy down the street.</p>

<p>I know they select for geographic diversity at every elite school except for MIT and CalTech. Unless things have drastically changed, I don't think they do it at MIT. As recently as 10 years ago, they didn't try to fill out their athletic teams/ECs either. What evidence do you have that this has changed? Even Jones never said that they tried to select for a class that would have a diversity of ECs/athletic ability.</p>

<p>And what do you mean that they select people, not stats?... MIT never selected for stats alone...they selected for intelligence.</p>

1177

<p>avwh - I don't have the correct answer. But I feel that there is something not right with the current admission process. If it is right then we don't have so many debates on CC.</p>

1178

<p>Objective criteria would not lead to a racially, ethnically, or geographically diverse student body unless those object criteria siloed applicants on the basis of race, ethnicit, and region. That is the plain and simple fact of the matter.</p>

<p>Academically relevent criteria all correlate closely with economic status, region, and thnc subcultures within the United States. That is why 40% of Harvard's Black undergraduates are first or second generation immigrants from Africa or the Caribbean.</p>

<p>You cannot be both in favor of diversity and against discrimination. You have to pick which you value more. That is why it is such a divisive issue.</p>

1179

<p>collegealum, sorry I wasn't meaning which criteria that MIT uses. I gave an easy black and white category that might be weighed in balancing a class at an elite university, not specifically meaning MIT, though this thread is discussing MIT. My point in that post wasn't even about geographic diversity. I was responding to coolweather thinking that I had said they could not quantify the criteria when what I HAD said was that they could not quantify HOW MANY students they wish to take that fit into various criteria that they are looking for in students and to balance the class. I was trying to give a simplistic example of that they might have a stated criteria that they are looking for (and I gave geographic diversity but it could have been any stated criteria) and not have a NUMBER of students that they plan to take that fits into any particular category. And in fact, I didn't even mention that a candidate might fit many categories of criteria that they want to see in a candidate and so who can even quantify how many of type X they want because a candidate meets several different types of criteria. I think MIT and other elite institutions have criteria that they seek in candidates. They weigh the WHOLE person and sometimes if one criteria is weak, another criteria is over the top with that candidate that compensates. Then there is the balance of the class as a whole. </p>

<p>As far as selecting for "intelligence" vs "stats"...I think schools, such as MIT, seek smart students, but so much more than just being smart. And, I also think that they determine "smartness" by more than one score on a test.</p>

1180

<p>Common data set for 2005-6 says MIT does consider geography: <a href="http://web.mit.edu/ir/cds/2006/cds2006.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://web.mit.edu/ir/cds/2006/cds2006.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>