MIT Admissions Have Become A Complete Joke

Colleges and Universities A-Z Massachusetts Institute of Technology
361

<p>
[quote]
Anyways though, phuriku, do you think that a class really helps more in Putnam preparation than a strong Putnam study group?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>With a study group, you'd have to take time out of your daily schedule to fit this kind of study in, and it'd come in low priority compared with your other classes. And when you're in a very difficult school that requires hours upon hours of study just to keep up with your regular classes, it's quite tempting to put the Putnam study off. If you were in a Putnam class, this would be of equal priority compared with your other classes, so you'd almost be forced to learn the material.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Did anyone say that a freshman seminar was required? Because it's totally not. If anything here is out of hand, it's your intense desire to turn every detail of the MIT undergraduate education into some conspiracy.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>"In choosing a FAS, try not to focus too sharply on what you think your major might be."</p>

<p>This, from the page linked by mollie, hinted that it was required with the use of the word "choosing". If it's not required, then that's fine. All you had to do was tell me. Is there not considerable pressure put upon the math major at MIT to take this seminar, though? And also to take the Putnam? It seems to me like there would be, whereas I haven't seen such pressure at other universities.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I took a freshman seminar. It was called "Designing Kid's Technologies." I played with toys. Literally. Putnam robots my ***.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Then again, are you a math major? If you are, I'll gladly put away my argument.</p>

362

<p>
[quote]
it'd come in low priority compared with your other classes. And when you're in a very difficult school that requires hours upon hours of study just to keep up with your regular classes, it's quite tempting to put the Putnam study off. If you were in a Putnam class, this would be of equal priority compared with your other classes, so you'd almost be forced to learn the material.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But aren't Putnam-quality people quite capable of finishing their problem sets in a short amount of time? (compared to others).</p>

<p>==
Also, phuriku, do you think that the 18.014 (Calculus with Theory) problem sets are rather easy?
<a href="http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Mathematics/18-014Calculus-with-Theory-IFall2002/Assignments/index.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Mathematics/18-014Calculus-with-Theory-IFall2002/Assignments/index.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

363

<p>"Woah. So a freshman seminar is REQUIRED? Well, what seminar do you think MIT math majors would pick? Obviously, this one. It's just a way to increase MIT's prestige."</p>

<p>Well, you can guess, but we don't have to. Almost none of my friends who are/were math majors took this class. Freshman seminar is not required. It's just more fun to take your advising with a whole bunch of other freshmen.</p>

364

<p>"Then again, are you a math major? If you are, I'll gladly put away my argument."</p>

<p>okay my boyfriend's a math major he hasn't heard of this seminar til this year and he is a junior. easy.</p>

<p>on the other hand 18.014 is an intro class for first semester freshmen. Whereas the class he linked was Honors Analysis. We don't have such things as 'honors' classes. We do, however, have regular ol' Analysis. </p>

<p><a href="http://math.mit.edu/%7Epierre/18100/home.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://math.mit.edu/~pierre/18100/home.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

365

<p>uhh, what I linked to was 18.014...</p>

366

<p>"Also, phuriku, do you think that the 18.014 (Calculus with Theory) problem sets are rather easy?"</p>

<p>They look about the same as the psets of UChicago's Honors Calculus course, which is what the typical math major starts out in.</p>

<p>The problem with these courses is that although they look easy, they're not. They're extremely theoretical and concentrate a lot on proofs, and a lot of them are thinking problems, not simply doing problems like, say, AP Calculus BC.</p>

<p>The MIT course uses Apostol's Calculus book, which I've read. It's a very good book, although I think Spivak's Calculus is much better (particularly because it's much more theoretical). Apostol is used in Caltech's first year calculus course, although I don't think Caltech's first-year course is as advanced as that one. Let me tell you, those problem sets are definitely not as easy as they look.</p>

<p>
[quote]
on the other hand 18.014 is an intro class for first semester freshmen. Whereas the class he linked was Honors Analysis. We don't have such things as 'honors' classes. We do, however, have regular ol' Analysis.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Hmm. Yeah, that looks exactly like our (non-Honors) Analysis class. Odd that you don't have a more advanced version. Then again, only 30 people each year are allowed to take Honors Analysis, and you can only get in by invitation. I know that MIT hates to divide people up into groups, and so that's probably the reason why there's not a more advanced course. Treating people equally has its disadvantages though... particularly because even the people at MIT are NOT ALL EQUAL. Some are better than others, and ignoring this fact is going to hurt the most advanced students in the end.</p>

<p>By the way, we cover the entire regular Analysis course the first quarter. (That's why the Spring Quarter of Honors Analysis, the link I gave you, looks like graduate measure theory. It's past what most people would even call analysis.)</p>

367

<p><random and="" irrelevant=""></random></p>

<p>By the way, did the MIT Analysis Lecturer 1's name remind anyone of this?</p>

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p></p>

368

<p>
[quote]
Is there not considerable pressure put upon the math major at MIT to take this seminar, though?

[/quote]

Not that I am aware -- freshmen choose seminars (or choose not to take seminars) over the summer before they come to MIT, without input from anyone else.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Treating people equally has its disadvantages though... particularly because even the people at MIT are NOT ALL EQUAL. Some are better than others, and ignoring this fact is going to hurt the most advanced students in the end.

[/quote]

The most advanced students just take graduate courses, and I've never heard anyone complain that he or she wasn't adequately challenged. MIT doesn't need a filter for the most difficult classes, because students will filter themselves according to ability.</p>

369

<p>
[quote]
Hmm. Yeah, that looks exactly like our (non-Honors) Analysis class. Odd that you don't have a more advanced version. Then again, only 30 people each year are allowed to take Honors Analysis, and you can only get in by invitation. I know that MIT hates to divide people up into groups, and so that's probably the reason why there's not a more advanced course. Treating people equally has its disadvantages though... particularly because even the people at MIT are NOT ALL EQUAL. Some are better than others, and ignoring this fact is going to hurt the most advanced students in the end.</p>

<p>By the way, we cover the entire regular Analysis course the first quarter. (That's why the Spring Quarter of Honors Analysis, the link I gave you, looks like graduate measure theory. It's past what most people would even call analysis.)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The requirements for the math major are misleading. Most math majors come in with a crapton of credit. We do have more difficult versions of analysis, including 18.100B, which many freshmen take their first term.</p>

<p>MIT does not treat people "equally" beyond the fact that we're equally given the choice to take whatever class we want. I wanted to take, say, 18.023, applied multivariable calculus (I'm a measly physics major). Many of my friends took 18.100B, real analysis, some of them took 18.701 or 18.700, algebra... yet others took 18.905, graduate algebraic topology. All as first term freshmen. </p>

<p>Almost all the math majoring freshmen I know in my dorm have taken 18.100B their first term, are taking it currently (their second term), or came in with credit for it. MIT is powerful in that it gives you the ability to choose how hard you want your classes to be, so you're right in that MIT doesn't divide up students.... students divide themselves up. I'm okay not taking real analysis, I can afford to take it later if it pique's my interest. I'd rather take, say, quantum physics, my second term, and I'm free to do it.</p>

<p>I fail to see how you comprehend freedom and versatility as a negative thing.</p>

370

<p>Okay, then. I still don't know why there wouldn't be a more advanced section of classes. It only seems sensible to me that there should be a regular class and an advanced class, the advanced class covering more material and in a smaller time frame. I don't think grad classes could compensate for this.</p>

<p>If what you're saying is true, I'd actually take MIT's side in this. The more choices for the student, the better, something that my own school fails at in certain areas, since you can only take some courses 'by invitation'. It's a silly policy really, because no one knows your abilities better than yourself, and having other people judge what course you should take is really obnoxious. (Fortunately, self-study does me well.)</p>

<p>
[quote]
Not that I am aware -- freshmen choose seminars (or choose not to take seminars) over the summer before they come to MIT, without input from anyone else.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm not saying that they're pressured by anyone in particular, just that they'll be pressured to keep up with the supposed pace of MIT, since MIT's supposedly the best school in the world. I certainly would feel pressure if I were a math major and I was going to a school where the top students almost always took and did well on the Putnam. MIT's reputation of doing well on the Putnam is the cause of this, and although it may not be MIT's fault (though I'm sure it's a thing MIT likes to see), it's most likely the case that the more ambitious people will be pressured into taking this seminar.</p>

<p>I'd really like to see how many of the top scorers of the Putnam from MIT took that seminar. I'm pretty confident it would put away with pebble's constant bragging about how MIT has the greatest mathematicians evar and tihs will nevar change evar!</p>

<p>Frankly, I dislike all math classes designed for contests, no matter if it's at MIT, Caltech (yes, Caltech does have a similar class), or no-name University (there's actually a class at the university on whose campus my high school is situated that prepares students specifically for the Putnam). This probably revolves around my belief that contest math is fake math, mostly due to it's hack-ability.</p>

371

<p>"We do have more difficult versions of analysis, including 18.100B"</p>

<p>lol silly I linked 100B</p>

372

<p>
[quote]
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>

<p>What school did he go to? Did he fail courses?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm not going to name the school that he went to. But suffice it to say that he did fail some courses, but had built up a decent enough GPA beforehand to avoid being kicked out entirely (he did land on probation for a semester). </p>

<p>
[quote]
I'd say you're definitely right about women being generally more mature than men at the undergraduate age, but I don't really know if you can use that in the admissions process (for either side -- affirmative action for males and for benefitting females). I think the admissions process should evaluate every person equally, and the maturity of the applicant often can't be seen clearly from an application, due to the nature of college applications in general. I suppose it could be used in some cases, though, for dismissing supposely intelligent people because their applicants showed their immaturity. I think such a case is rare, however.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm not sure why, in principle, you couldn't use such information for admissions purposes. Statistical evidence shows that women tend to graduate at higher rates than men do. So if the goal is to admit a class of students for which the highest percentage will actually graduate, you * should * be providing preference to women. Personally, I think that is precisely what all schools * should* be doing. After all, why admit people who aren't going to graduate? You're just wasting everybody's time. </p>

<p>As far as not 'knowing' whether somebody is mature or not, frankly, it doesn't matter. That's what statistical correlation and inference is all about - you don't NEED to know exactly why 2 variables are related to note a statistical correlation. Consider the link between smoking and heart disease. To this day, nobody has yet been able to prove, at a biochemical mechanistic level, how exactly nicotine increases rates of heart disease. But you don't need to know that to conclude that smoking is dangerous. All you need to know is that it has been statistically shown, through numerous controlled studies that wash out various other independent variables, that, all other things equal, smokers tend to suffer from poor health.</p>

<p>That's why smokers are charged higher premiums for health insurance and life insurance. Of course the insurance companies don't "know" who exactly is going to die and when. I knew a guy who smoked 3 packs a day and still lived to be over 90, and he didn't die of smoking-related health problems but because of a traffic accident. On the other hand, I know a healthy, fit woman who never smoked and still died of heart problems at the age of 26. So you never "know" who is going to have health problems. On the other hand, you can make a strong correlation that a smoker is probably going to have health problems. Not guaranteed, but probably. Similarly, you can make the correlation that a woman is probably going to be more mature than a man. Again, not guaranteed, but probably. </p>

<p>Actuarial insurance calculations, like college admissions, is never a perfectly calculated process. You always have to rely on statistical information which is, by nature, uncertain. But just because information is uncertain doesn't mean that you can't make probabilistic predictions. We do it all the time. For example, working out, eating healthily, wearing your seatbelt - all these things act to increase your odds of long life. You can do all of these things and still die young anyway, but the odds are lowered. </p>

<p>
[quote]
sakky, regarding phuriku "picking on MIT," we've been through this before. And I don't feel like going through old arguments, so I'm just going to say that phuriku's posts are not completely unfounded.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>We certainly have been through this before, and I still have not found any satisfactory answer as to why y'all are picking on MIT and not the Ivies, beyond a mere emotional reaction.</p>

373

<p>"it's most likely the case that the more ambitious people will be pressured into taking this seminar."</p>

<p>No one is pressured into anything, I think you assume most people are pushovers. Are you a pushover? If not, why do you assume other people are? Also, I don't even understand what you're arguing for anymore. Your argument has turned into, "MIT continues to do well in the Putnam because doing well in the past has earned them a good reputation and THIS MAKES ME MAD!!!" </p>

<p>"I'm pretty confident it would put away with pebble's constant bragging about how MIT has the greatest mathematicians evar and tihs will nevar change evar!"</p>

<p>And apparently I'm some prestige whore for the math department even though I don't give a crap about the math department since it's definitely not my department. And I dont give a crap about math competitions since I've never been in any math competitions. And also, I don't even like math. And, not to mention, the only time I've ever used the Putnam as an example in any argument was in this thread, in response to someone bashing MIT (math included) students as something "mediocre". How does this translate into "constant bragging"? I did not take the test- I am proud of the people who did. But what is there to brag about?</p>

<p>But I WOULD like to turn this around, since you keep bringing up the Putnam. What is YOUR obsession with the Putnam (not winning it, but losing it?). If you really don't put any stock in math competitions, why keep bringing it up and keep coming up with more reasons why you hate it? I don't care. I don't think anyone else here cares as much as you do. I don't think anyone else wants to hear about it anymore. I sure as hell don't. Why does this Putnam thing just grind on a nerve? What's the deal?</p>

374

<p>
[quote]
Okay, then. I still don't know why there wouldn't be a more advanced section of classes. It only seems sensible to me that there should be a regular class and an advanced class, the advanced class covering more material and in a smaller time frame. I don't think grad classes could compensate for this.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Because we're just so hardcore at MIT that if you want to go advanced you go through the freaking graduate classes. :P.</p>

<p>To tell the truth, that's really how it works, in the sense that people don't fall into the "in betweens" generally. For standard math, all you need is 18.01 (single-var calc) and 18.02 (multivar calc). If you want to be a math major, you have plenty of venues to enter the world of math: Either you take 18.014, single-var calc with theory, or you take 18.100B, real analysis, or you take 18.155, graduate differential analysis, or you take 18.701, algebra, etc. No matter what your level is, there exists a class that's perfect for your maturity with mathematics. Even outside of being a math major, you have multiple options. Do you want to take 18.02 or 18.022 (with theory!), or perhaps 18.023 with applications? Maybe you'd prefer the 18.024 version with analysis? And that's just variants of multivariable calculus.</p>

<p>
[quote]
If what you're saying is true, I'd actually take MIT's side in this. The more choices for the student, the better, something that my own school fails at in certain areas, since you can only take some courses 'by invitation'. It's a silly policy really, because no one knows your abilities better than yourself, and having other people judge what course you should take is really obnoxious. (Fortunately, self-study does me well.)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Oh yeah, definitely all true. Some classes list "with permission of instructor" as a requirement if you haven't met the others, but all that ever amounts to is you talking to the professor and them letting you know what material you should be familiar with. It's very sink-or-swim, in the sense that professors will trust you, and if you don't really know your stuff, you just fail out. We don't inhibit people from furthering their own education.</p>

375

<p>pebbles made me cry by saying:

[quote]
And also, I don't even like math.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>you take that back.</p>

376

<p>
[quote]
you take that back.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>it's okay. it's just OKAY, though. I'm not very good at it</p>

377

<p>I agree that even the guys should care about MIT maintaining a good girl/guy ratio. Or do all those geeks want to be single?</p>

378

<p>For those of you who disliked the admissions process at MIT under the direction of Ms Jones, she has just been fired for misrepresenting her academic credentials to get her current and past positions at MIT. No wonder she didn't care about credentials - she didn't have any. </p>

<p>It is fascinating to go to MIT and look up their announcement when Ms Jones was first hired. The MIT Dean talked about the "rigorous" and "thorough" process they went through to search for the right candidate to take over the prestigious position of Dean of Admissions. Several PhDs were on the committee that chose a woman who lied about her academic credentials. They didn't even bother to ask the school she went to whether or not she had attended and graduated. That creates a new definition for thorough and rigorous. </p>

<p>Just thought you would want to know.</p>

379

<p>I'd like to have people reporting factually on this incident.</p>

<p>She resigned. </p>

<p>And while we're at it, claiming that her staff (not her: as I understand it, she did not read folders, her staff did) "didn't care about credentials" is a load of horse pucky.</p>

380

<p>
[quote]
She resigned.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>When someone phoned MIT. If she hadn't resigned herself, then in all probability she would have been fired.</p>

<p>
[quote]

And while we're at it, claiming that her staff (not her: as I understand it, she did not read folders, her staff did) "didn't care about credentials" is a load of horse pucky.

[/quote]

Dean of admission spends some time with the folders in the admit pile before they are definitely admitted.</p>