<p>How bout you just don't go to college. You seem to be doing fine on your own. There are never any requirements to self-learning. Let's give your spot to kids who actually need it and would benefit from it.</p>
<p>"I took 6.75 classes two semesters in a row, and I'm even female. Hey, if you want to do it, you can do it."</p>
<p>I in no way think men are smarter than women, and I certainly don't think that whites/asians are smarter than any other race. Don't take me the wrong way. I have, on the other hand, seen some minorities and women get into schools like MIT who aren't on par with the typical MIT student, and those are the exceptions I was referring to. There are, of course, very smart women and minorities at every "elite" institution, but due to affirmative action, I think there are also many females and minorities who lie at the 90 percentile marker or lower (in terms of intelligence with respect to the rest of America), whereas I don't think there are many Asian/white men who fall below 98 percentile. </p>
<p>Plus, with Caltech, which is totally anti-affirmative action... well, you don't have many minorities at all. 1% black, 5% hispanic was last year's incoming class. So why shouldn't I be skeptical of MIT's 8% black, 12% hispanic class? Same with Caltech's 30% female population in comparison with MIT's 45%. (I think MIT should show us admissions statistics for minorities as well as women, so everyone could see what's really going on behind the scenes.)</p>
<p>Just my personal opinion. <em>braces himself</em></p>
<p>"How bout you just don't go to college. You seem to be doing fine on your own. There are never any requirements to self-learning. Let's give your spot to kids who actually need it and would benefit from it."</p>
<p>Hey, I have to make a living in the superficial world, too. Plus, college's purpose is social as well as intellectual. I think working with other people in the same field as you is pretty beneficial as well.</p>
<p>(sakky, my response to you is coming later when I turn un-busy. :D)</p>
<p>Good answer re why college phuriku :)</p>
<p>lol phuriku, you revealed the connection between my old name and my new name. I'm trying to change my Internet name, but I'm still emotionally attached to simfish (hence why I'm alternating).</p>
<p>Anyways phuriku, I think it's important to make a distinction between "active interest" and "potential/latent" interest. In "active interest", I mean someone who is actively interested in other fields of study. In "potential/latent" interest, I mean someone whose personality type is such that he may enjoy a particular field of study, even though he doesn't realize it (and may not even take courses/self-study that field of study, unless he was forced to do so). Caltech's curriculum, for example, has non math/science courses that draw the attention of people who were originally planning on doing math/science (after all, 50% want to major in physics/math, and then learn enough information about themselves to change). Consequently, many students get exposed to fields that they may have never heard of before.</p>
<p>Since students usually apply to college due to a perceived connection between the college and the student's active interests, it may be good for the college to offer courses in the student's potential/latent interests, in case that the student gets dissatisfied with his original active interests or in case the student finds an interesting connection between active and potential interests. That's why a lot of professors in other fields who work at Caltech get the support of students who are very good in physics/math.</p>
<p>The main question is then this - should those with "potential interest" in other fields be forced to take courses in those other fields, even if it means that those who don't have "potential interest" in such fields must go through those courses as well?</p>
<h1>Again, part of the problem is with the American school system, which covers so little (and the culture, which puts a sharp binary distinction between school/learning and non-school/non-learning).</h1>
<p>By the way, this thread is now the largest in the MIT forums. It still needs 24 more to surpass "Caltech vs. MIT for Engineering". It still needs thousands to surpass sarorah's "I have a new game", but I doubt it will surpass that. :p</p>
<p>I myself applied and was rejected, but there are no real hard feelings because I never really wanted to go there anyway (thought it would be antisocial). So this is not said out of jealousy or anything.
I also noticed the same trend. We had a girl, also an URM, who did 1 summer internship for minority engineers, and that was all, got good grades in math, and was suddenly accepted. Most of the kids at our school were ****ed. I'm sure many qualified applicants are accepted, and I know very smart people who go there, but they prevent themselves from being a truly quality institution by accepting many people way below the caliber of their school. While its more selective than Berkeley, (where I go btw), at least at Berkeley we can say everyone who got in deserves to be there (state abolished affirmative action).</p>
<p>oh, get off it, people. if this is going to become a sob fest about being rejected for someone less qualified, I'm off.</p>
<p>P.S. IT'S A LOVELY DAY OUTSIDE. IN THE SPIRIT OF THINGS LETS TRY SOMETHING NEW GETTING ALONG HMM??</p>
<p>pebbles: Did you really get into MIT? You're female, right?</p>
<p>Nope. I'm just pretending. I actually couldn't get into MIT. That's why I'm going to University of Chicago see you there!</p>
<p>you are lucky i am in a good mood</p>
<p>You better be joking. :( I just had one of my professors tell me that I should take my free ride to Purdue and forget UChicago. I have a week to decide. Don't mess with my emotions.</p>
<p>I'm actually in an ironic mood (don't ask), so don't mind me.</p>
<p>But you did use evidence that MIT's the best because it 'sweeps the Putnam'. That pis.ses me off. I think anyone who uses that argument just can't be fit for MIT because it's bad logic. But I have some pretty "interesting" arguments as well, so meh. (But I'm apparently not good enough for MIT, so I have an excuse ^-^)</p>
<p>Meh, I think dolitwak replied to the topic post without looking at any of the last replies. His sentiment contributes nothing new. But since College Confidential has a high turnover rate, the sentiment will merely be reiterated year after year.</p>
<p>Even I had the same sentiment 2 years ago. But I honestly am "meh" to it now.</p>
<p>I actually hold my passionate views on affirmative action for a reason. I think it hurts the qualified minorities and women a lot because they don't get the respect they deserve. I also think it gives them excuses that they'll use later in life to justify their failures. For example, if you follow the news closely, you probably noticed that a black professor at MIT was going on a hunger strike because he didn't get tenure. He blamed the fact that he didn't get tenure on his ethnicity. You think MIT would really racially discriminate against someone (besides whites and asians)? Of course not... it would be suicide. But he's able to hide behind his race and say that that was the reason for him not getting tenure... not a personal failure at all.</p>
<p>The few minority students I'm acquainted with are well aware that their admissions into "elite" institutions was because of affirmative action. It almost seems like they brag about it. In the future, I'm almost sure that these people will use their ethnicity as a way to get anything they want without actually achieving anything. MIT's affirmative action policy encourages this. "It's okay to not be on par with the average student, because YOU'RE BLACK. And black people are stupid, right? So we have to give them advantages in admissions. Women, too. Hah. They couldn't even survive on their own without our help." The sad thing is, some of the smartest people I know are women and minorities. It's unfortunate that MIT gives them an excuse for failure, though, because once someone has such an excuse, he'll take it. (I also believe schools shouldn't give advantage to first-generation students (I'm one myself) and people in poverty (I'm one too). This gives an excuse for failure as well.)</p>
<p>I don't feel sorry for the people who are victims of it in the sense that they don't get in because a minority takes their place. They can get just as good an education somewhere else or by independent study.</p>
<p>"But he's able to hide behind his race and say that that was the reason for him not getting tenure... not a personal failure at all."</p>
<p>I was highly skeptical of him at first as well, but the issue is a lot more complicated than that... he's objecting to the review procedure he was put under (and some racial tension that resulted from it) not just to the discrimination he believed he suffered.</p>
<p>and sorry if I messed with your emotions. i'm a very emotional person myself. I KNOW WHAT THATS LIKE AND IT'S NOT EASY</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I in no way think men are smarter than women, and I certainly don't think that whites/asians are smarter than any other race. Don't take me the wrong way. I have, on the other hand, seen some minorities and women get into schools like MIT who aren't on par with the typical MIT student, and those are the exceptions I was referring to. There are, of course, very smart women and minorities at every "elite" institution, but due to affirmative action, I think there are also many females and minorities who lie at the 90 percentile marker or lower (in terms of intelligence with respect to the rest of America), whereas I don't think there are many Asian/white men who fall below 98 percentile.
[/quote]
Ah, but I'm one of those women everyone likes to fulminate about -- 690 on the SAT in math, not even valedictorian of my piteous Midwestern public high school, never took (nor heard of) the AMC, extracurricular involvement in fluffy things like band, choir, and theatre. I even got a B in a math class once.</p>
<p>By my high school record, lots of happily judgmental people on the internet would conclude that I wasn't worthy to be admitted to MIT. By my college record, I was.</p>
<p>I would add that I have a problem with the numbers, anyway -- do you really think there are twenty-five million people in this country who are smarter than the women and minorities at MIT? That's mind-boggling. Think about all the people in the US who don't even have the ability to succeed at any college.</p>
<p>As KirbusPrime said earlier in this thread,
Once you're at MIT, your SAT score ceases to be a predictive factor in your success. SATs and other crude indicators of what's in your head pale in comparison to your sheer force of will.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Ah, but I'm one of those women everyone likes to fulminate about -- 690 on the SAT in math, not even valedictorian of my piteous Midwestern public high school, never took (nor heard of) the AMC, extracurricular involvement in fluffy things like band, choir, and theatre. I even got a B in a math class once.</p>
<p>By my high school record, lots of happily judgmental people on the internet would conclude that I wasn't worthy to be admitted to MIT. By my college record, I was.</p>
<p>I would add that I have a problem with the numbers, anyway -- do you really think there are twenty-five million people in this country who are smarter than the women and minorities at MIT? That's mind-boggling. Think about all the people in the US who don't even have the ability to succeed at any college.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>On a side note, perhaps those students with few opportunities might benefit more from getting into MIT (as opposed to say, going to a mediocre state college - and state colleges in the midwest aren't UMichigan/Berkeley quality) than those students with many opportunities who wouldn't benefit as much from going to MIT per se, as opposed to say, another institution where these students can carry on their research activities.</p>
<p>Speaking of which, looks like someone who turned down Caltech for UWashington just won a Goldwater Scholarship...</p>
<p>
[quote]
Once you're at MIT, your SAT score ceases to be a predictive factor in your success. SATs and other crude indicators of what's in your head pale in comparison to your sheer force of will.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That being said, while it's clear the SAT score ceases to be a predictive factor in student success - then what of the Intel Semifinalists/those who take post-calculus math classes/those who get super high scores on the AMC tests? Are these factors ever measured?</p>
<p>is it you?</p>
<p>"Ah, but I'm one of those women everyone likes to fulminate about -- 690 on the SAT in math, not even valedictorian of my piteous Midwestern public high school, never took (nor heard of) the AMC, extracurricular involvement in fluffy things like band, choir, and theatre. I even got a B in a math class once."</p>
<p>I would say that you got in because of the fact that you're a female, but you deserved to be there anyway. SATs are never very accurate, and contest math isn't real math. I probably hold that opinion the strongest around here.</p>
<p>(Hell, I got denied by Caltech for that very same reason. My profs thought it was a shoo-in because who the hell takes prob. theory, diff. eq, number theory, calc 3, linear algebra, and discrete math in high school? Well, I don't give a crap for the SATs or the AMC, so I didn't get admitted.)</p>
<p>"I would add that I have a problem with the numbers, anyway -- do you really think there are twenty-five million people in this country who are smarter than the women and minorities at MIT? That's mind-boggling. Think about all the people in the US who don't even have the ability to succeed at any college."</p>
<p>I never said that women and minorities at MIT are dumb. I don't think so at all. I just think that on average, they're less intelligent than the men at MIT. But averages are never things to judge by, and there are people like yourself who prove that you can't judge people by putting them into groups. But I think that's one thing that MIT's affirmative action polices do: place people into groups and admit them by what group they belong to.</p>
<p>And InquilineKea, you got into Caltech? Wow. I never knew that.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And InquilineKea, you got into Caltech? Wow. I never knew that.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, no, I was talking about Pavan Vaswani (his name is on the list of scholars anyways, so there's no privacy issue here). Did you remember that I went early entrance to UWashington after 10th grade, instead of going through the entire process of submitting applications? (I'm kind of glad I did, after realizing how much BS I'd have to go through in an IB school, and after realizing that self-initiative means a whole lot more to education than what institution you go to)</p>
<p>Anyways, let's see if tetrahedr0n, who turned down Caltech for UMichigan, will see the same thing.</p>
<p>==</p>
<p>
I tend to agree with this -- I think the really superstar kids can do just fine for themselves given a certain baseline level of resources. (Of course, those kinds of kids like to come to the MITs and Caltechs of the world so they can swim in a sea of smart kids.) In my personal experience, I believe strongly that, had I gone to Ohio State instead of MIT, I would not be in the PhD program I am in now.</p>
<p>The problem, as I see it, is that it's difficult to tell when you're picking a college whether you are a superstar or not.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Plus, with Caltech, which is totally anti-affirmative action... well, you don't have many minorities at all. 1% black, 5% hispanic was last year's incoming class. So why shouldn't I be skeptical of MIT's 8% black, 12% hispanic class? Same with Caltech's 30% female population in comparison with MIT's 45%. (I think MIT should show us admissions statistics for minorities as well as women, so everyone could see what's really going on behind the scenes.)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Phuriku, you've turned the debate into a debate about AA. If you're going to do that, why pick on MIT specifically, when the fact is, the * vast majority * of private universities use AA? </p>
<p>Again, this gets back to what I've been saying in this thread all along - why single out MIT for what the Ivies and Stanford have been doing for decades? Rationally speaking, if you don't like AA, one should draw fire upon * all of these schools *, not just MIT.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I never said that women and minorities at MIT are dumb. I don't think so at all. I just think that on average, they're less intelligent than the men at MIT. But averages are never things to judge by, and there are people like yourself who prove that you can't judge people by putting them into groups. But I think that's one thing that MIT's affirmative action polices do: place people into groups and admit them by what group they belong to.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>"Intelligence" is a rather loaded word, don't you think? </p>
<p>Yet, I am aware of the studies that demonstrate that men occupy a disproportionate percentage of the 'geniuses' (however that is defined) in the world, compared to women. Of course, on the flip side, men tend to occupy a disproportionate percentage of the mentally retarded. In other words, men seem to have a wider distribution of intelligence compared to women. </p>
<p>But, frankly, what college-age women tend to have over college-age men is maturity. Let's face it. Women mature faster than men and tend to be more dedicated towards education, at least at the HS and undergraduate level. It has been demonstrated that a higher percentage of women nationwide complete high school and complete college than do men, to the point that many universities are seriously contemplating AA for men (and some of the LAC's already do). </p>
<p>I don't know what the male/female graduation rate is at MIT or Caltech, but I would contend that a lot of what it takes to successfully graduate from any college is not really 'intelligence', but maturity. There are a lot of brilliant but immature men out there who just don't want to do the necessary, albiet boring, blocking-and-tackling activities necessary to complete their degrees, i.e. handing in assignments on time, attending class, and so forth. One of the most brilliant men that I know once did little more than stay in his room and play computer games for months straight and not studying, and as a result nearly flunked out of college (he did turn himself around).</p>