<p>Ahh. I never was a poet of the world around me. Thanks.</p>
<p>All I know is that when I think about the unbelievable amount of complexity that goes into selecting a freshman class at MIT or any other school that uses holistic admissions, it makes me really glad that my life's calling is to do something much less complex. :D</p>
<p>I mean, science is complex, but it's complex in bite-sized chunks. Admissions is just one big Gordian knot.</p>
<p>"They don't have to have cured cancer. They just need to be the right match."</p>
<p>Really? Perhaps she and MIT admissions really mean that. But it seems that in today's competition to actually be a match for a school like MIT the chosen candidates have to come pretty close to something that spectacular. A while back I followed the Princeton admissions thread. Weekly a new article appeared there (cited from media sources) highlighting amazing members of the incoming class. If I, as a prospective student, had extrapolated from that I would have assumed that I must need to be an Olympic athlete, to have started a multinational business, begun an international foundation, or worked for years for a cure for a disease endemic in the third world.</p>
<p>Of course kids hear about more average students who get in, but the message is: "This is the kind of student we love here at Ivy X," or at least "This is an example of the kind of student who will be your classmate here at Ivy X." So if the kid feels that he's bright but not quite that special, he may assume that even if he gets in, he'll be an anomaly and feel out of place.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>"They don't have to have cured cancer. They just need to be the right match." Really? Perhaps she and MIT admissions really mean that. But it seems that in today's competition to actually be a match for a school like MIT the chosen candidates have to come pretty close to something that spectacular.<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>Exactly. For all her brave talk, Marilee Jones hasn't made any significant changes as to who gets in. The school is still full of academic superstars with lots of achievements to distinguish them from the ordinary superstars. The article makes this point when it says:</p>
<p>"None of which is to say Jones is dumbing down MIT. Interesting but indifferent, creative but lazy, still won't cut it. Intel Science Fair winners and other academic superstars still prowl MIT's campus, and average SAT scores are still through the roof. Very few applicants outside the top 10 percent of their high school class get in."</p>
<p>Also from the article:</p>
<p>"Jones hopes someday to see MIT make standardized tests like the SAT optional for applicants. A growing number of colleges have stopped requiring standardized tests, though none of MIT's reputation, and for MIT to do so would send shock waves through the field. (Jones acknowledges that persuading MIT's faculty to go along is a long shot and is doubtful it will drop early admissions as Harvard did)."</p>
<p>If she really wants to get rid of the SAT, she should do so tomorrow. She's the dean; she can do things like that. What's the point of all this timid "hoping"? Same with dropping EA. Harvard has opened the door and Princeton has followed them through it, but MIT is apparently not into taking bold action. </p>
<p>It's clear that this is mostly a lot of talk on Jones's part coupled with a little VERY modest action - mostly window dressing. If admissions pressure is a big problem, MIT is still much more a part of the problem than the solution.</p>
<p>I agree with Marilee that it's a problem across the board, and colleges only bear part of the responsibility. Still, they must be the ones to lead in the reformation or no one else can follow, for fear of adversely affecting a child's future.</p>
<p>At our hs, an adcom from a local college visited to speak with the juniors. She stressed the importance of particpation in clubs, and attaining leadership roles in them. One child asked, "What if you don't have time for clubs? I'm pretty busy with my schoolwork and sports." The lady replied, "Well, you eat dinner every day, don't you? That's some time where you might be able to squeeze in an activity. Everyone can find an extra half and hour here and there if they try." (note: this info. was relayed to me from kids, but they all agreed on the message they took from it.)</p>
<p>I have no data to prove this, but the kids at our HS have noticed a trend. If a student has an excellent academic index but is weak in EC's or has none at all, there is only one top university where they have a pretty good chance of admission: Johns Hopkins. Any thoughts on this?</p>
<p>Wow -- and people in my life label <em>me</em> a perfectionist. Wrong. Comparatively speaking, I am nowhere near the perfectionist that some on PF are. Granted, this is an MIT-subject thread. No expert on that, I've weighed in only tangentially. But the discussions have enlarged to include "the admissions process" in general & its many faults.</p>
<p>yes, people, it's imperfect! Gordian Knot indeed. Herculean task, anyone? (while we're on the classical themes.) I mean, I literally picture that. Colleges attempting to hold up the globe (selecting from the entirety of those interested) while managing to assemble a representative sampling of promising young minds. </p>
<p>Their have been students on CC admitted to elite U's with what they describe as "so-so" (I'm quoting) teacher recs. There have been those rejected from those same U's with Pulitzer-prize quality recs, written by teachers with a great deal of know-how about college admissions. Enough with the blaming of the teachers. It's one of many factors. And even with the best factors all lined up in a row, a candidate can miss being selected for geographical or other reasons beyond his or her control. (Again, even merely the CC student & parent postings reveal this -- let alone the wider world we encounter.)</p>
<p>GFG- I disagree. From my area kids w/excellent academics but weak EC's get into Cornell, Chicago, Swarthmore, Haverford, Brandeis, Wellesley, Dartmouth. There are others.... this just off the top of my head.</p>
<p>Part of the problem is the definition-- your town's idea of a "top academic student" who should be a shoe-in anywhere starts to look more and more like a bright kid who likes to read once you go outside the confines of your own HS. Doesn't mean everyone at MIT has cured cancer; doesn't mean that everyone at Princeton won physics Olymipiad....</p>
<p>
In all fairness, Cur, I think that my kid's high school teachers ended up spending a lot more time interacting with them and getting to know them than I did during the teenage years. Pretty much around the age of 14 my kids started spending most of their hours at home with the door shut, and any conversation I was having would be monosyllabic on their end. Whatever they did at school all day was summed up to me as "ok" or "nothing." I could have written a treatise on their attitudes toward household chores, but as to how they were functioning in school I had to rely pretty much on what the teachers reported to me. </p>
<p>But I was able to read every one of my kids' recommendation letters, and I could see their personalities clearly shining through. My kids were in public schools where class size was as high as 48 students, and some of their teachers were young and inexperienced -- but they clearly had come to know my kids during the 4.5 hours they typically spent with them each week. The kids had the common sense to ask teachers who they liked and respected to write the letters, and they also talked to the teachers about what types of colleges they were applying to and what the colleges were looking for. </p>
<p>No one can read minds, but a teacher who spends a year with a kid in a classroom is going to get a sense of what makes that kid tick. They may be "overworked" but part of the volume of work is the demands of the classroom and their constant interaction with many of the kids in their classrooms. I think most teachers are very much aware of the top performing kids in their classes, as well as being painfully aware of the troublemakers and kids doing poorly. It's the ones the the middle -- the quiet and courteous B & C students -- who probably get overlooked; but they aren't the ones seeking letters to get into elite colleges. </p>
<p>MIT has too many kids with high end GPA's and test scores to make decisions purely on objective grounds. The best and most reliable source of information as to what each kid is really like may be in those teacher recs. Yes, a teacher can end up providing a poor rec out of spite or ignorance -- but I think that most teachers probably try to be positive and to emphasize what they perceive as the student's strengths. Who else are they going to ask?</p>
<p>
[quote]
At our hs, an adcom from a local college visited to speak with the juniors. She stressed the importance of particpation in clubs, and attaining leadership roles in them. One child asked, "What if you don't have time for clubs? I'm pretty busy with my schoolwork and sports." The lady replied, "Well, you eat dinner every day, don't you? That's some time where you might be able to squeeze in an activity. Everyone can find an extra half and hour here and there if they try." (note: this info. was relayed to me from kids, but they all agreed on the message they took from it.)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is the sort of message that makes me see red. It is outrageous on so many counts I would like to know who this adrep is and get her fired from her college.
1. Sports is an EC that everyone knows is extremely time-consuming. Students should not have to add meaningless other ECs to pad their resumes.
2. She is suggesting that students cut down on family time in order to impress dummies like her--and we wonder why so many families are dysfunctional?
3. she goes against every nutritionist advice to take time eating.
4. she goes against medical advice that everyone needs some downtime.
I'm sure if I thought a bit more I could find more objections to this cretinous woman, but I'll stop right here before I burst a blood vessel.</p>
<p>Since when are sports not ECs?</p>
<p>I suspect Caltech might rival Johns Hopkins in caring more about academic index than ECs.</p>
<p>tangential question: How did you parents get to read the teacher recommendations? Did the teachers just offer to show your student what they had written, since they had nothing to hide? At our HS, the student MUST sign a waiver renouncing their right to ever see those letters. Consequently, most kids don't get to read what was written by their teachers, and no one ever sees the counselor report. Maybe that's why in my parent world there's a bit more worry about the role of this factor.</p>
<p>blossom: so not Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, Penn, or the majority of the Ivies?</p>
<p>Actually Johns Hopkins states they give the most admissions weight to essays, recommendations, secondary school record and character.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Who else are they going to ask?
[/quote]
That's not my question now is it? My question is what they ask. Not who they ask. I have no problem with teacher rec's . What are they like in the classroom? Are they leaders? Do they go above and beyond the assignment? Not - judge their motives, or judge the "brilliance of their mind". </p>
<p>I spend a lot of time with some of y'all and if time spent along with reading their workproduct is the criteria , do you think I should be counted on to judge your motives correctly? ;)</p>
<p>Cur:</p>
<p>I think the question about grade consciousness was not meant to elicit the answer that student X works hard in order to get As, but to weed out the real grade-grubbers who whine about grades or take easier classes in order to get easy As, and similar types of students. I suspect every college prof has war stories about students who argue why their grade should be an A- instead of a B+, etc... At MIT, for reasons explained by Mollie B, such attitudes would not make students a good fit: MIT expects students to experience failure or at least to take courses they don't like and will not do very well in. My H works with quite a few MIT graduates and they moan about the same course that 2/3 of freshmen take.</p>
<p>Marite, I don't disagree. Those students are a pill. But that's not what the question means to everybody. </p>
<p>To me, and I'd suggest it's the only clear and literal reading, grade consciousness means aware of grades (conscious of grades). It does NOT say aware of grades to the detriment of learning. If they mean that - say that. Ask that. </p>
<p>
[quote]
but to weed out the real grade-grubbers who whine about grades or take easier classes in order to get easy As, and similar types of students. I suspect every college prof has war stories about students who argue why their grade should be an A- instead of a B+, etc...
[/quote]
marite, how is a kid who is grade conscious lumped in with these evil-doers? </p>
<p>Being aware of your grades, what it takes to make the highest marks, and then working to get those marks is not a bad thing. It's a good thing. A thing to praise and reward. High schools do. Colleges do. Grad and pro schools do. To suggest they don't is .....well, it's not very....."brilliant". </p>
<p>Students who work to get good marks are the best and brightest students most if not all of the time. It doesn't nean they are not enthused and excited about learning for learnings sake. YOU CAN BE BOTH. ( I recognize there are late bloomers but I seriously doubt many are at MIT.;) )</p>
<p>Being a whiny snit, constantly carping and haranguing the teacher over a 1/2 a point is a bad thing.</p>
<p>I think your response shows why I think a rec writer could get confused as to what is being asked.</p>
<p>blossom: so not Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, Penn, or the majority of the Ivies? </p>
<p>GFG- I don't know kids who get in Stanford (east coast bias here) so I have to plead ignorance. </p>
<p>I do not personally know of a kid who has gotten into Harvard without some zing factor-- started a business, written a book, several summers at Tanglewood, etc. Do they exist? Probably.... but the kids from around here who get into Harvard aren't joining clubs at school and getting service awards from the Key club.</p>
<p>Penn is a mixed bag. The rumor around here is that they are very stats oriented and of course, their numbers prove that they love ED. I know a couple of kids there who were the ultimate grinds in HS.... perfect gpa's, no real involvement outside the classroom, but all of them applied early so I don't know if that's representative of the Penn world at large.</p>
<p>Princeton seems to love EC's, what can I say. Ditto Yale and Columbia but they seem to admit more "normal" smart kids than Harvard (i.e. don't have any patents pending.... haven't won Intel.) But-- these kids aren't the serial joiners we read about here on the kids board, i.e so many activities they can't fit onto a page. They're accomplished and interesting-- but not president of every club and clocking service hours at the local homeless shelter in order to get into college.</p>
<p>Brown is too anomolous to call. Rumor is you have to be artsy to get in.... but I went there and wasn't artsy and most of my friends were in the Engineering school and they weren't artsy, and a couple were doing the combined BS/MD so I don't know nowadays. I used to do alumni interviews.... very few of my kids ever got accepted and I couldn't really discern a pattern. However, the EC's seem to be important from observation and from reading the alumni magazine (but working as a waitress is a meaningful EC according to Ruth Simmons, and her efforts to attract low income kids seems to back that up).</p>
<p>This isn't evidence... just anecdote.</p>
<p>It's not only whiny snits who are the grade grubbers that MIT wants to weed out. It's those that take easy classes for easy As rather than challenging themselves. Marilee Jones specfically said in admission sessions that MIT looks for transcripts that have As and a perhaps a few Bs. I expect that a B in AP-Calc would trump an A in underwater basket-weaving.
It's possible that high school teachers might not understand it the way I did. I credit teachers with more understanding than you do. But there's nothing to prevent teachers from ticking several boxes. If someone can marry brilliance and great memorization and good work ethics, that would be terrific. And if someone is willing to try harder to go from A-to A, I cannot imagine any adcom reacting negatively.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But there's nothing to prevent teachers from ticking several boxes.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't see how that corrects the impression that you have marite, if someone opts to tick the grade conscious box. In your mind that's a negative. That smell is there and it shouldn't be.</p>
<p>Is being aware of grades bad? Is trying to make good grades in and of itself bad? Please don't say "if it is the primary motivation". Assume it is not. If it's not a bad thing, then that's a bad query. And some kid will get dinged for it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
She's the dean; she can do things like that. What's the point of all this timid "hoping"? Same with dropping EA.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well said. Stop the hand wringing and the phony empathy (as camera shutters click & reporters take notes.) Time to take care of business or get off the pot, Ms. Jones. She's trying to sell books.</p>
<p>The quote about the admissions person suggesting that kids not eat infuriates me, too. The way college admissions works these days brings out a bit of the rebel in me, and I'm approaching the process with S2 differently.</p>
<p>S1 was focused and put in tons of time academically and in ECs. He recently told us that he hated HS, and loves his challenging college. It was the busy-work, the marching in lock-step, that bothered him so much.</p>
<p>S2 is just as bright, but is probably more creative. He needs more time to day-dream, compose music, read books that aren't assigned for English class. He worries about college prospects when he isn't perfect. He was not a happy camper as a HS sophomore last year, so we've changed our tune with him. I REFUSE to let the admissions process kill his soul, which is what I see happening with lots of kids. I hope he gets into a selective college, because that's where he'll find his peers. </p>
<p>But not "at all costs." In the end, I hope the quirky kid who likes poetry, math, physics and philosophy stays true to himself. No one else will be a better version of him -- I don't want the cookie cutter perfect kid that we could probably mold him into. I just want to say "So what?" to this whole process. Sorry for the tirade, but I hate the way things are going, and if Dean Jones has any input to the whole system, then good for her.</p>