<p>"Now, to make myself clear -my definition of brilliance DOES require genius IQ. Not just Mensa level, but true genius. Einstein thinking genius , not membership driven Mensa genius. Not "little Johnny scored in the genius range" genius."</p>
<p>I'm guessing you are setting the bar a bit high. I've met two in that category as well. One in a humanities field, the other is a biologist. </p>
<p>My son isn't in their class that I can tell, but I think he's pretty darn smart. He taught himself enough computer programming in middle school to take the AP Computer Science class as a freshman and says now he should just have taken the exam and skipped the class. Especially when he was young he was incredibly precocious - it really was fascinating to watch this kid figure out reading, multiplication and any number of other things without being taught. He just asked the right questions. I don't think it would be excessively exaggerating to call him brilliant - though I'm not at all convinced that any of his teachers have seen it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
BTW, I'm pretty sure a teacher can check more than one box on that MIT form.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes the second , more complete, rendition made that clear as I noted in my edit above. That makes it much less negative, but still negative IMO.</p>
<p>Edited: I still have a question though. Why do you think they ask the grade conscious question? What is the MIT preferred answer to that? Is to be aware of and desire the best grades a bad thing? Does it suggest to them that the student is not interested in learning, just grades? Gee. What a stretch. Couldn't a student be interested in both? </p>
<p>What about in college ? Is a pre-med a grade grubber if she is aware of and tries to keep stellar averages in science and math courses? Should they be grade unconscious? Is that what they are saying? Then why do the prof's keep urging them to make better grades on tests? Why do colleges reward the highest GPA kids with honors? Tie scholarships to grades? And more critically to the pre-med, why do 3.9 kids get into med school and 2.9 kids don't? </p>
<p>This grade consciousness thing makes no sense to me at all. I personally find it hypocritical to ding a kid for caring about something the school very obviously cares about.</p>
<p>"A notable weakness" --- This is the phrase that struck me on the MIT form. I think most rec writers would be more likely to crucify a kid by omitting a mention of necessary qualities, rather than coming right out & saying the kid suffers from a notable weakness. Ouch!</p>
<p>Re: grade awareness. Sometimes teachers are just incredibly sloppy about grading or actual phrasing of questions. I remember in 8th grade my d was often perplexed about getting science questions marked wrong. I've got a decent science background, H is a biomed engineer. We'd both look at the answer, agree that the teacher must have rushed & made a mistake, & d would bring it in to be rectified. This happened twice & teacher claimed he was right. From then on, we told her not to waste her time. Show us the tests & we'll make sure you understand the concept. Pick your battles. It was only a middle school science class. Losing a few points here or there didn't mean much. But in h.s., it could change a GPA.</p>
<p>I imagine that there are plenty of sloppy teachers out there. Kids who are not grade-grubbers, but who dare to question a teacher, might be labeled as such. A good teacher will be confident enough in his expertise to admit a mistake without getting defensive.</p>
<p>clearly, the problem isn't the system but the people in it. teachers who are afraid to give honest recommendations and students who take advantage of them. seal the records, I say. or destroy them. paper is plenty combustible.</p>
<p>Stickershock...good luck with the teachers..there are always those who want to ruin GPAs..."grades don't matter, just look at how wonderful I am." S had a math teacher who lost a baby in utero..quite tragic...but it also had tragic consequences on many GPA's in the class. He just trashed the kids. S now has an APUSH teacher who says he will give no "A's" first semester...his name does not go on the transcript, so colleges won't be able to recognize him as the "no-"A"-first-semester-guy." I love a good teacher...and really despise the ones who play God.</p>
<p>curmudgeon, you are right on target and close to brilliance. We know these buzzwords exist in the world of college admissions because we've all heard the same phrases at each admission session we attended. I was so sick of hearing about "passion" I was ready to blurt out some dumb joke the next time and adcom used the word. Like, "do you ever admit chaste students, because connecting that word passion with an image of my S/D conjures up some mental pictures I'd rather not visualize, sir." And honestly, would Sister Mary Frances from the local Catholic school ever choose that word when describing her best student?</p>
<p>"Well-rounded" is still important, because it is code for "smart but not socially-inept." Around here it is reserved for the brain who also plays sports. However, that concept seems to be on its way out, replaced by "well lopsided." Guess that's a smart, well-adjusted kid with several interests and at least one passion? Who knows!</p>
<p>Secondly, I also agree from our experience that teachers who aren't brilliant are not qualified to judge brilliance. I recall a phone call from a dumbfounded science teacher at the beginning of the school year. He had heard my S was bright but couldn't understand why, if he was so smart, he had had such a difficult time understanding the simple concepts taught that day in class. Was he ill? Turned out S was operating on a plane several levels above that of the teacher and on that higher level the teacher's simplistic explanation was actually incorrect.</p>
<p>Also, we've had quite of number of teachers who operate on the improvement model when judging who is a good student. These individuals value hard work and steady improvement. In their opinion, therefore, a brilliant child would not be a good student since he would not appear to be working very hard for those high A's and would earn perfect or near perfect scores from the very beginning of the year. In their opinion, the better students were the ones who had raised their grades each quarter from a B to a B+ to an A-, and then finally to an A. That shows true work and diligence. Never mind that the brilliant child likely taught himself the material several years ago! In other words, these teachers failed to the recognize the work behind the scenes that a child may have completed to get to that level of knowledge or ability.</p>
<p>And "sense of humor"? How did that become such an exalted virtue in our society? In the last several decades it has grown to be the highest compliment of someone to say he has a great sense of humor. I appreciate a sense of humor and can see that it may indicate something about someone's intelligence and likeability. But I'd like to point out that this is not a value held dear by all other cultures. My H is a foreigner and noticed this right away when he came to the US. He fails to understand why Americans place so much emphasis on a sense of humor. I recall that a French professor I had in college once made a similar comment. To him, laughing a lot was an indication of immaturity.</p>
<p>How many brilliant kids get distracted by the really interesting chapter not assigned by the teacher and get a C on the test because they didn't study for it?<br>
Re: sense of humor...I think humor and grace are critical attributes....the ability to laugh at our mistakes and not take ourselves so darned seriously. People like to work with those who are able to get through difficulties with humor intact. I know I do.</p>
<p>Not saying a sense of humor isn't a great quality. I'm just not sure whether as a society we would or should all agree it is any more important than compassion, generosity or any number of other marvelous attributes communities need.</p>
<p>
[quote]
S now has an APUSH teacher who says he will give no "A's" first semester...his name does not go on the transcript, so colleges won't be able to recognize him as the "no-"A"-first-semester-guy."
[/quote]
My d had a similar teacher. She took honors Physics from a guy who prided himself on teaching a tougher course than AP Physics! My d's not a science kid and all I heard all year (and I agreed, BTW) was, "I didn't sign up for AP Physics! The other honors section is easier, and if I were in there I'd get an A." But no one will know that her B in honors is equivalent to an A in the other honors.</p>
<p>However, unless high schools start insisting on standard curricula and tests across sections, there's no way around this one.</p>
What about in college ? Is a pre-med a grade grubber if she is aware of and tries to keep stellar averages in science and math courses? Should they be grade unconscious? Is that what they are saying? Then why do the prof's keep urging them to make better grades on tests? Why do colleges reward the highest GPA kids with honors? Tie scholarships to grades? And more critically to the pre-med, why do 3.9 kids get into med school and 2.9 kids don't?
[/quote]
I'd say that a premed who is interested in grades to the exclusion of everything else is a grade-grubber, and I think that's a problem. </p>
<p>MIT is not a good environment or a good match for someone who is motivated only by grade-based rewards, and grade-based rewards are somewhat limited here -- nobody graduates with honors, nobody's financial aid is tied to GPA (except for outside scholarships, I guess), and there aren't even any plus/minus modifiers, so an A and an A- are worth the same. It's hard at MIT, and A's do not flow like the proverbial wine.</p>
<p>It's fine to be excited about a great grade, and to try to keep a high GPA. But for the purposes of one's continued mental health and happiness in college, it's not okay to be motivated solely by the promise of a 4.0.</p>
<p>I know...I tried to suggest that he drop the course, but S absolutely loves the teacher and loves the class...there's no talking him out of it (I also believe he has a crush on a girl in the class...so it's really hopeless). He told me that he will learn a lot and that I should drop it...one "B" won't kill him.
I just got a suggestion from a good friend that we need to pick our battles with teenagers and ask ourselves if this is the hill we want to die on. I guess I won't die on the APUSH hill...there's nothing I can do about it anyway.</p>
<p>Mollie--back in my years, there were the same deals with grades--no modifiers, a C was class average, etc.--but there was this very interesting grade modifier I only found about accidentally: an asterisk next to a grade meant that there was a letter on file to supplement the grade. A friend of mine had three of these (he was, in fact, brilliant--graduated in six years with a 4.0 and a PhD and the last I heard was doing original research for a big computer co.). Such letters were only written for astonishingly exceptional students. I knew two other students who had them--and they each had one asterisk. I have no idea if the asterisk is still out there.</p>