<p>Ben, I am sorry if my commentaries resonated as petty personal attacks in the majestic halls of MIT. </p>
<p>While you might be entirely correct to counter our comments with a bit of bile of your own when writing, "How pathetic to take shots at the one admissions dean who is probably on your side more than any other," and adorning "us" with a label of "people with no concept of what they're actually talking about." it is also a testament to the difficulty of conveying the "messages" clearly ... or the unwillingness of the outsiders to give credit where it is due. </p>
<p>It may might very true that it requires a LOT of internal discussion for an institution to decide to reduce the lines for EC from 10 to 5 or drop a specific listing of AP, but one can wonder WHAT precludes to go a step further.</p>
<p>Oh well, the beauty of being a Monday morning quarterback is that we never get sacked, on or off the field.</p>
<p>The reason you haven't seen this article posted anywhere is because the AP has it marked to be held until Sunday, 9/17. If a paperhas printed it, it shouldn't have.</p>
<p>The note on top of the story says: EDITORs: Experts agree the anxiety surrounding college admissions has intensified sharply in recent years, as a growing number of students fight for slots in the most selective colleges. The trend is taking its toll on students emotionally and even physically. The Associated Press will explore the latest developments in the admissions game in an occasional series of stories over the next several months. This is the first installment.</p>
<p>Now, this is an interesting thread. I have a S currently in the process--supposedly--of preparing an EA app to MIT. He is scheduled to interview in a couple of days. I WISH I could get this kid frantic. He has a great record, probably has a decent shot, and shows literally NO nerves. He told me he has no intention of spending several months devoted to "getting into college" stuff. Does laid back arrogance get you any points? Maybe its just the midwest.
BTW, in reference to some of the earlier posts, I really didn't think MIT was looking for "regular kids" with "regular" class loads. We have lots of "regular" schools out here for students who don't want to be different. I lived in Massachusetts for 15 years of my adult life. I do think the atmosphere there is a bit of pressure-cooker, and not so good for scholarly kids. Just being surrounded by lots of other top student types no doubt makes life very different than here, where no one cares a whit about your accomplishments if they don't take place on the football field. But really, what can MIT do about that?</p>
<blockquote>
<p>But Jones, Edwards says, won't hesitate to reject an accomplished student if she doesn't feel the personality and MIT fit each other. She's also set aside about 10 percent of her precious admissions slots for people with some kind of spark that the system generally does not reward.</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p><code>There are 70 students in each class (of about 1,000) who would never have been admitted in the old days,'' Jones says.</code>They don't have to have a million activities. They don't have to have cured cancer. They just need to be the right match.''<<</p>
<p>When the number starts approaching 700 out of 1000 instead of 70 out of 1000, then we'll know that she's serious about what she says.</p>
<p>
[quote]
When the number starts approaching 700 out of 1000 instead of 70 out of 1000, then we'll know that she's serious about what she says.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>like if that ever happens you won't be the same person complaining about the unmeritocratic and absurdly arbitrary admissions policies of this same school and its dean of admissions. </p>
<p>besides, 10% of an applicant pool would be a pretty hefty chunk of "perfect matches".</p>
<p>"like if that ever happens you won't be the same person complaining about the unmeritocratic and absurdly arbitrary admissions policies of this same school and its dean of admissions."</p>
<p>My sentiments exactly. If Jones ever succeeds in doing away with the SAT, ignores AP and discounts academic ECs, the only kids who will have a chance are those with connections or the savvy to read the minds of Boston academic czars. On the other hand, MIT won't be worth going to once recognized measures of merit are thrown out. (Isn't that why the SAT was invented in the first place? To democratize, or meritocratize, east coast colleges?) (Made up word there, I know)</p>
<p>I don't know much about the inner workings of the MIT admissions office but I do know this: seeing and talking to Ben Jones and some of the other admissions people, I truely believe they look at the whole person and have always been impressed with their professionalism and humanity. I only have a data set of one, but in that case all of the positives about the person apply. No international honors, no perfect scores, no fancy prep school, no major inventions or any of the other popular expectations of what makes a MIT student. I am the proud father of a regular kid who could care less about test scores and awards but has an intense intrinsic interest in learning. That interest combined with excellent but not a perfect resume seems to have been her "right match". Her only stress came from our feeble attempts to hide our knowledge of the competive nature of the top schools. I suspect this is more common than we are lead to believe.</p>
<p>The right match for all accepted MIT students? Um, I don't think that's going to happen until the Institute can convince applicants that "the kind of student we're looking for is fundamentally different than the kind of student other elites are looking for." And that requires a transparency very few elites provide (Reed, Brown and Dartmouth maybe?).</p>
<p>Those six things don't represent the whole story, but they're a significant part of it. We'll be covering the topic a lot more thoroughly on the site this coming year.</p>
<p>akdaddy, what you describe is what I had assumed was the norm, and seems to describe my S. If apps are really expected to be perfect, then I agree that the system is not working. Here in the boonies, though, we figured "intense intrinsic interest in learning" would be appreciated at MIT.</p>
<p>Of course, it COULD be that the transparency is there and most of the applicants simply reason "Well I know what MIT is looking for and I know I'm not a good match, but I'm going to apply anyway." Hmmm.</p>
<p>We live about as far into the boonies as you can get. The point is that there is no "norm". The "right match" would be different for each applicant. Our middle of nowhere, "lets get them out of here before they drop out", high school is considered in context, as I suspect would an applicant from one of the fine prep schools in New England. That is why I give high marks to MIT for looking at the whole applicant, and not expecting a perfect student nor giving preference to, or penalty for, something as absurd as location.</p>
<p>Ben Jones, I've read your blog entry, again. This is my problem: I know lots of people who meet every one of those six qualifications, but not all of them are academically suited for a rigorous curriculum. They are great people, but I don't think they would be a good fit for MIT, and I don't think they would be happy there. (Presumptious of me, I know, I've never attended a class at MIT, but I have participated in several conferences, so it is not totally strange to me.) </p>
<p>So, Pebbles, my question is, if lots and lots of people can meet Ben's list of qualifications, am I to assume that the readers have other requirements in mind in order to narrow the list? Or will it just be the luck of the draw? (Only answer if you have rediscovered your manners, please.)</p>
BTW, in reference to some of the earlier posts, I really didn't think MIT was looking for "regular kids" with "regular" class loads. We have lots of "regular" schools out here for students who don't want to be different.
What I meant by "regular" is probably more like what people mean when they talk about BWRKs -- bright, well-rounded kids. I think there are plenty of bright, well-rounded applicants to MIT who are passionate about learning and love science or engineering, but simply weren't exposed to those sorts of opportunities in their high school lives. I applied to MIT knowing I wanted to be a biology researcher, but my school didn't offer any ECs related to biology research -- so I did drama and choir. I don't think being a "regular" BWRK means that you can't also be intensely excited about the idea of a science/engineering mecca like MIT.</p>
<p>EDIT, for midmo, above: There's a whole section of the new admissions site on the</a> selection process -- lots of information on how MIT admissions officers read an application, summarize it, and decide in groups whether or not a given applicant will be admitted to MIT. MIT, I think, is lucky in that it has a highly self-selecting applicant pool -- Ben has said elsewhere that about 70% of the pool is academically qualified to attend MIT, and their job is to pick the students who will be happiest at the Tvte.</p>
[quote]
<code>You don't see the kind of wild innovation from individuals you used to see,'' Jones said over lunch during a recent interview.</code>`You see a lot of group and team projects overseen by professionals, but you don't see the kind of rogue, interesting stuff that we used to see at MIT.''
[/quote]
</p>
<p>From Ben Jones' blog: </p>
<p>
[quote]
MIT's collaborative spirit. If you enjoy working alone all the time, that's fine! But you're not going to be happy here.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is the disconnect I mentioned earlier. Maybe Ben Jones can explain.</p>
<p>molliebatmit: I certainly don't disagree with that! I was bristling because it seemed that there was an assumption that any kid who loaded his/her schedule with AP and college courses was just some dork trying to impress admit staff. My S took, and still takes, a heavy course load. He also hikes, canoes, camps, builds furniture for an after school program for at-risk kids, blah blah blah, but he doesn't do any of it to impress anyone but himself.</p>