<p>mollieb, thanks for the additional link. I do appreciate it.</p>
<p>And I think the kind of kids who do it because they love it can be distinguished from the ones who are mindless academic automatons. :)</p>
<p>Marite, I'm sure Ben will correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that Marilee was talking about applicants in her quote -- that high school student research is now something polished and sterile rather than the blowing-things-up-in-the-basement that MIT-minded kids used to do for fun. The spirit at MIT is (and always has been) extremely collaborative for undergrads -- we're all in the same boat together, everybody grab a paddle, etc.</p>
<p>Mollie:</p>
<p>I understand, but schools--at least the kind my kids attended--have been stressing collaborative learning from kindergarten and downplaying, perhaps even disparaging, the blowing-things-up in the basement. My kids were told time and again that "this is the way science is done now."</p>
<p>More important, MIT's known involvement in RSI and liking for Intel winners and the like sends a very different signal from the one that Marilee tried to convey in that interview. It does not mean that the solitary high school experimental physicist or chemist won't be admitted; but the message that gets sent out to the general high school population is different.</p>
<p>marite, I don't see a disconnect between Marilee's quote and Ben's quote.</p>
<p>It's quite possible to <em>collaboratively blow things up in the basement</em> and the MIT hacker mentality is all about kids doing that sort of thing.</p>
<p>I think what MIT woud ideally like to see is kids coming up with their own ideas and bouncing them off one another so that kids take ownership of whatever it is they are doing.</p>
<p>I think the "Rocket Boys/October Sky" model is the sort of thing that MIT is looking for. Yes, they had a science fair project (and they had a teacher/advisor/mentor who helped them) but they really took ownership of it, dealt with the dynamics of group collaboration on their own, etc.</p>
<p>MIT's sponsorship of RSI is an interesting point--although each student has a mentor, I think there is also a lot of encouraging the kids to talk over their half-baked ideas-in-progress with one another.</p>
<p>A big part of the value of RSI is not solely that each kid works with a mentor (kids wouldn't have to all come together on a single campus for that) but that there is community of peers sharing their ideas, their progress, and their frustrations together.</p>
<p>A big value of RSI is the peer community.</p>
<p>EDIT: If you recall the movie "October Sky," those kids literally did blow things up in the basement together! It was not a solitary activity.</p>
<p>And on one hand, that increased trend toward collaborative science in the younger years is a great thing -- because that is how science works, and lord knows there's some great science that's done by putting a bunch of great brains in a room together.</p>
<p>On the other hand, I think it's a shame that fewer people are blowing things up in their basements. (Although I'm sure many parents disagree. :)) There's so much time to learn how to be a contributing member of the scientific community -- I think there's definitely a place for learning and discovering at one's own pace, and going down some crazy scientific alleys, rather than being pushed along by a mentor.</p>
<p>I can see the merits (and disadvantages) of both approaches. I hope there's a place for both in the intellectual lives of science-minded kids.</p>
<p>EDIT: Ooh, well said, wisteria.</p>
<p>Mollie</p>
<p>Thanks, and I see your points. But Intel winners have a huge leg up at MIT and other schools like it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'll look for them when I have a little more time on my hands. But this thread isn't about my table manners or how I talk to grown-ups, so though I do apologize if my jokes offend, I will respond briefly to your questions:</p>
<p>The qualifications are not a simple checklist "yes" or "no", you can meet each and every one of them to varying degrees. These qualities all carry different weights (say, maybe ingenuity is considered more important than work ethic... twice as important? 1.5 times as important?) so it all falls into a simple function of 6 variables that has the potential to yield a unique value for each applicant. Crop off the top 1500 values returned and there you have it, the admits.</p>
<p>I totally forgot that we've published our guidance counselor handbook online with the launch of the new site. This may be helpful...</p>
<p>Okay young Pebbles, here's the crux of my uneasiness: a very long time ago I earned an undergrad degree in history. It was easy and fun, because at the undergrad level, the ability to b-s well gets you far, even in a very highly ranked dept. I tired of the lack of rigor, so I went back to study science, eventually got PhDs in biochem and molecular bio. I learned the value of quantification and measurement. I get nervous when places like MIT decide the measurement tools are so imperfect that they must rely on subjective categories like "work ethic" (Why doesn't an AP record stand in for that?) What about "ingenuity"? I'm under the impression admit staff doesn't want to read novels about how a kid spent a summer inventing an electromagnetic rail gun and a huge hovercraft. Helping humanity? Ben says tutoring one kid will do; well, that's what Mu Alpha Theta does, but now I hear that listing ECs like that look like padding. Etc etc. My point is, things like the SAT seem like necessary evils to me; they are far from perfect, and they certainly can't stand alone, but at least a kid isn't standing on shifting ground if she/he can submit data that isn't subject to a thousand different interpretations.</p>
<p>I have to go read some history, nebulous or not. Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, great book.</p>
<p>Ben, the new website is outstanding! It's a model of efficient and elegant communication. The interface is a joy and it's full of thoughtful and inspiring information for parents, students, and recommendation writers! (Your fine webwork and eloquence with words is terrific testimony to the fact that MIT grads don't have a monopoly on passion and excellence. Oberlin should be very proud to claim you! As an aside, I liked the gracious way Matt used to highlight other terrific colleges at the end of his blog entries a while back. I think an important part of destressing kids about this process is reminding them that there are lots of great schools out there and the quality of education is primarily about the attitude you bring to making the most of wherever you land.)</p>
<p>I'm proud to say that I've written recs for several students now attending MIT and the new website paints a vivid picture of MIT that makes me excited for them all over again.</p>
<p>I will soon be writing more letters of recommendation (to MIT and a number of other schools) and I appreciate the advice and insights from the sample letters discussed here:
<a href="http://www.mitadmissions.org/topics/schools/writing_evaluations/index.shtml%5B/url%5D">http://www.mitadmissions.org/topics/schools/writing_evaluations/index.shtml</a></p>
<p>I very much admire Marilee's initiatives and I am grateful for the humanity she is working hard to bring to the process (though I must say my own children would be totally mortified if I shared such personal details about them as Marilee does about her daughter here: <a href="http://www.mitadmissions.org/topics/before/helping_your_parents_through_this_process/a_post_for_parents.shtml%5B/url%5D">http://www.mitadmissions.org/topics/before/helping_your_parents_through_this_process/a_post_for_parents.shtml</a>.)</p>
<p>Oh no, don't get me wrong. I love the SATs.</p>
<p>LOVE.</p>
<p>midmo,</p>
<p>Lets try a what if with the SAT. What if one student sight unseen, no practice and no test prep/tutoring scores 2300 while another student studies, takes multiple practice tests and attends a prep course and scores 2300. Which, assuming no other differences, would you select to admit. Natural ability vs. work ethic/drive. Its in the thousands of different bits of information that are contained in the rest of the application that allow interpretation of the " right fit". The other highly regarded school on the west coast might be a better choice if you think "statistics" should play a bigger role in the admission mix. Notice I am saying different not better or worse. Both are wonderful institutions.</p>
<p>Well, I've wandered away from my book, just for a moment. I don't disagree that work ethic trumps native ability. A thousand times over, attitude beats natural talent. I think you have made a common assumption about performance on the SAT with which I disagree, though. In my opinion, great scores on the SAT are often a reflection of prior hard work, lots of reading, much challenging coursework. Hard work builds the brain. I'm no expert on this, but my S did zero prep for the SAT, I mean truly zero, but scored well above 2300. Not because he was born able to take those tests, but because he is a most dedicated intellectual, and in a sense has been preparing for stuff like that since he learned to read. I don't mean for this to sound like bragging; I have other kids who do not share this kind of drive and I think they are just as wonderful. But truly, I think that the SAT is not so subject to artificial prepping as many believe. Or at least no one should assume that everyone who does well has taken advantage of prep courses, or was just born lucky enough to test well.
I don't want MIT to ignore all the other info in the app. Most certainly not! I didn't mean to imply that. I just don't think all of the measurable data should be discarded.
For some reason, S seems uninterested in that west coast school. Too narrow? I don't know.</p>
<p>I would add that although I also believe the SAT is a necessary evil, graduate admissions (and particularly graduate admissions in the sciences!) are even more holistic than undergrad admissions -- the GRE is required, as is a transcript, but the actual scores are generally brushed aside in favor of evaluating the applicant's research experience and faculty recommendations. A terrible GRE score or a string of D's on a transcript can take a candidate out on the first pass, but a perfect score or GPA is definitely not what triggers an interview invitation.</p>
<p>And yet graduate admissions decisions are surprisingly consistent -- when I was interviewing for PhD programs last winter, I saw the same group of kids at every interview. Somehow, the criteria, though subjective, were effective enough to pick out the 100 "best" candidates time after time.</p>
<p>...and on a somewhat unrelated topic, can anybody guess which CC member wrote the "work/play balance", "life after MIT", and a few other sections on the new website? (Hint: It's not benjones!) :D</p>
<p>Mollieb,
The subjective nature of grad school candidate assessment is more successful than the same approach would be at the undergrad level for a simple reason: thousands of HS counselors are submitting their opinions about potential freshman, whereas rather few college profs are writing assessments about their best students--and the writers are probably known to the readers, at least professionally or by reputation. I know lots of profs, and I guarantee you their opinion of other profs is much higher than their opinion of HS guidance counselors. And let's be fair, some schools' counselors hardly know the kids they are evaluating; why should their opinion be given a lot of weight? So, subjectivity can work at the level of grad school, but is much less reliable for undergrad admissions. (My S's school has over 2000 students in grades 10-12. He has never met the principal! Let us pray the counselor has something to say.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
So, subjectivity can work at the level of grad school, but is much less reliable for undergrad admissions.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Maybe my experience is just very dated. Or not relevant to a scientific field. But about 20 years ago I entered the Rutgers MBA program with nothing more than my BA transcript & GMATs as the entry requirement. Back then, 1 out of 3 got in, so perhaps it wasn't selective enough to require candidates to jump through hoops.</p>
<p>I always thought that grad school admissions could rely more on quantitative measures because there is so much known about each college the applicants come from as opposed to the vast number of high schools kids attend.</p>
<p>
[quote]
always thought that grad school admissions could rely more on quantitative measures because there is so much known about each college the applicants come from as opposed to the vast number of high schools kids attend.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It depends on fields and schools. Some departments, especially those with a heavy load of applications, may use them as cut-offs. Some econ departments are said not to look at anything under 700. In other cases, GRE are practically ignored unless they are very good or marginal (which, at top schools, can be anything below 90%). They are also given less weight in the case of international applicants (unfamiliarity with our system). And different members have their own partiality as to which score they will give greater weight to.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <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> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>Not if MIT achieves the "transparency" that she is also promoting.</p>
<p>70 out of 1000 is not a major reform. It's a token gesture.</p>
<p>Maybe I'm just an odd duck, but I'd vote for less transparency in the process. Don't publish average or range SAT scores. Don't tell us that 90% of your freshmen were in the top 10% of their high school class. Don't list the number of valedictorians. That way, no kid is going to stress over what they don't have and try to figure out if 760 is "good enough" on an SAT.</p>
<p>I think we're overwhelmed with information. If you don't tell us exactly "what you're looking for", kids will stop trying to give it you and then may just "be themselves", do what they want to do for EC's rather than what "looks good" and realize that there is a bit of a crapshoot element to the entire process. Then they can apply and see what happens without turning themselves into neurotic pretzels.</p>
<p>
[quote]
70 out of 1000 is not a major reform. It's a token gesture.
[/quote]
But most admits have the spark and the stats. </p>
<p>Anyway, midmo, I certainly don't think that GC recs for undergrad are as useful as professor recs for grad school, but I think teacher recs for undergrad can be just as useful, so long as teachers write helpful</a> evaluations. Different components are given different weights in the admissions process -- extracurriculars are very important for MIT undergrad admissions, but there's hardly even a space for them in the MIT grad app -- but I think what works for the goose works for the gander.</p>