<p>lol, whats with all these permutations of the words "duck" and "tape"?</p>
<p>Anyways, if what mollie stated is true, then I'll accept the fact that the female applicant pool is a lot stronger than the males. But I still think that this "gender-based affirmative action" still exists in the engineering/math/science fields. My mother has a masters in computer science and has said that it's rather easy for her to find a job. My father is a computer science professor at a local university and said that his committee actively seeks out females when hiring new professors or accepting PhD students. Of course, part of the reason is the scarcity of females in these fields.</p>
<p>cellardweller: "In response to Collegealum, I just don't see any significant change in admissions policy. "</p>
<p>Well, Marilee Jones said that 15% of the admitted students wouldn't have gotten into MIT before she took over admissions. She became Dean of Admissions in 1998. This would never show up in the metrics that come out because typically they give medians or 25%-75% ranges, not averages. </p>
<p>This method of reporting data was invented by the ivy leagues so they could still pretend like they had the smartest people while stocking the bottom quartile with circus clowns, kazoo players, sex columnists, athletes, and sons of senators. </p>
<p>I agree that our top Putnam talent has increased. And in general, it seems like the competition for spots in college is fiercer than ever. I don't think that there is evidence our metrics have demonstrably improved. If there is, has it improved because the metrics for all elite schools have gone up or because of the change in admission policy? It did recently come out that M. Jones sort of fudged the SAT data. The interim director reported this. If a student took both the ACT and SAT, then they would only include the higher one in their statistics. This was given as the reason why MIT dropped a few spots in the US News ranking.
I think the number of MIT admittees in the top 10% of their class has dropped slightly. I could be wrong about that, though. </p>
<p>cellardweller:"Where we disagree is that Collegealum would be very happy to have an admissions policy where high school achievements in math and science would be the only factors considered for admission"</p>
<p>I don't really think this. I do think that you should be a star in math and science and should have "A'"s in it. If not, you should have some academic accomplishment to make up for it. Performance in the humanities is important too for sciences. And extraordinary ability in music is often an indicator of very high intellect in math and science. However, I believe that things like community service, leadership, athletic ability shouldn't be anything more than small tip factors. And things like odd hobbies and a quirky personality shouldn't be even tip factors.</p>
<p>
[quote]
However, I believe that things like community service, leadership, athletic ability shouldn't be anything more than small tip factors. And things like odd hobbies and a quirky personality shouldn't be even tip factors.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If these things weren't factors, I'm not sure I'd want to go to MIT. Part of the school is its atmosphere; if it weren't for the unique qualities of MIT students (who/which are selected both for their intelligence and their quirkiness or overall interestingness), I feel like my college experience would be severely lacking in the things that matter more than academics.</p>
This method of reporting data was invented by the ivy leagues so they could still pretend like they had the smartest people while stocking the bottom quartile with circus clowns, kazoo players, sex columnists, athletes, and sons of senators.
<p>wait, wait, hold the phone...arwen15 you are a girl? i'm sorry if this comes as a shock, i guess i just assumed you were a guy. maybe this explains a lot...jk you probably have one of the most impressive resumes on CC.</p>
<p>I can't help but believe that my particular case was one of the main driving causes behind the flaming going on. I don't resent those that were accepted over me. At a certain point, everyone one is qualified, and MIT won't admit "unqualified" people.</p>
<p>For those that say they will not attend MIT over this, I say you are idiots. Am I more qualified than they are? I would say yes in some regards, but they certainly would be more qualified in other aspects that I may lack.</p>
<p>I guess I've simmered down, but I can't help but still resent MIT over this decision. Posters have characterized me as the USAMO guy, but did you not see the other tests I've done? I'm not a one-trick pony. Other than math, I reached an interesting level for one of the other subjects, but I do not wish to say for the security of my identity. I thought that I had demonstrated my grasp and passion for math and science with everything that I did and excelled at, without pigeonholing myself into just those subjects either. Call me arrogant, but I demonstrated a level of commitment in math, chemistry, biology, computing, and more recently physics (but that was not reflected on my application) that few can hope to do. Am I wrong to feel that MIT wronged me?</p>
<p>Good post hopeless, I noticed that you have USABO, USNCO, and USACO (but anyone can enter that, I don't know which level you're at, Gold?). I think you're the most qualified person I've seen rejected from MIT. But the fact that Harvard rejects US IMO gold medalist is just as intriguing.</p>
<p>Perhaps it is because they look at how you do in your environment. Do you stand out amongst your peers and in your school? Does everyone take those tests where you are from? Just wondering...</p>
<p>Yes, I compete in the Gold Division, or else mentioning it would be pointless.</p>
<p>I hope people realize that I mention these contests, not just because I take the qualifying tests, but the fact that I pass those and go onto a certain level that only hundreds of other high schoolers can claim to have gotten to for one subject, let alone several. </p>
<p>I just feel that a rejection indicates that what I did was not enough, or that I was wrong in my refusing to be a one-trick pony and diversify my interests.</p>
<p>No, but there is ultimately no point. And don't expect people who have gotten in to sympathize.</p>
<p>"I just feel that a rejection indicates that what I did was not enough, or that I was wrong in my refusing to be a one-trick pony and diversify my interests."</p>
<p>You know, you're pretty close to the finish line in terms of school. Don't change your approach now. As a famous athlete once said, "To give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift."
You have rock-solid fundamentals and a tremendous intellect. No one can take that away from you. If you want it, in 4 years it will be a cakewalk to any grad school in the country with an NSF Fellowship, a prestigious job on wallstreet, a top law or medical school (law school is especially stats driven.) </p>
<p>Let me put it another way. If the people reading your application had also graded your USAMO questions and marked most of them wrong because they can't do math, would you be upset? Use your own judgement and invest in your own talent in the way that makes the most sense to you.</p>
<p>You are obviously a qualified candidate for MIT. Even though it is no consolation, there is a clear element of chance when the qualified pool far exceeds the number of slots. MIT could easily fill two or three equally strong classes with this year's applicants. Were it not for a confluence of factors: highest number of applicants, stronger EA pool with Harvard and Princeton dropping early admission, you probably would have been admitted. You may see as a personal rejection, but it clearly is not. In a few weeks with your stats you will certainly get a number of acceptances into top colleges.</p>
<p>For someone to compete at the Gold level in USACO, one is generally in the top 36 or so in the US. Yes, anyone can compete, but one must earn the way up the rankings from Bronze and Silver. There are six competitions a year, and to make the national finalist level, one must be in the top 16 over the course over the year's tournaments. Definitely nothing to sneeze at.</p>
<p>Hopelessly: There are other schools besides MIT! Surely you've applied to other great schools. You just have to view it as "Their gain; MIT's loss" and move on. One thing you can absolutely count on is lots and lots of opportunities in life as long as you keep a look out for them. Ask yourself: Am I going to allow this disappointment to define me? Of course not. Now go work a physics problem or whatever it is you do so brilliantly.</p>
<p>I highly doubt Caltech still doesn't have AA
from my school 2 guy and 2 girls got into MIT
those people all got into Caltech
2 other girls who didn't get into MIT also got into Caltech.... so with a very small sample... Caltech is practicing more AA?</p>
<p>collegealum314, very well said. I don't see the benefit of MIT going Harvardized, after all there are a lot of Harvardized ivy type schools out there, least to say Yale, Princeton, Standfor, etc.. But there is only one Caltech. ... MIT's 15th decision helped solved our family delima. In my mind if I have to pay the full fairs I might as well make it worth for every penny.</p>
<p>Hopelessly, I would second mammall's words "MIT's loss". Take coolegealum314's advice. With your talent and dedication you will success anywhere.</p>
<p>rainynightstartz, take a look at whole student body in two schools.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't really think this. I do think that you should be a star in math and science and should have "A'"s in it. If not, you should have some academic accomplishment to make up for it. Performance in the humanities is important too for sciences. And extraordinary ability in music is often an indicator of very high intellect in math and science. However, I believe that things like community service, leadership, athletic ability shouldn't be anything more than small tip factors. And things like odd hobbies and a quirky personality shouldn't be even tip factors.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Being a star in math and science doesn't have to mean being an Intel award winner. It can mean a great engineering internship, a winning science fair project, the captain of the math team or computer bowl league - anything you've done to prove that you really love math and science. I'm going to go back to the excellent argument made a few posts above about chance and the discrepancy between slots available and qualified candidates. If they wanted to, they (goes for other selective colleges as well) could fill an entire class with white males from New York and it would perform just as well as any other. But they don't. If that's the way you think, why don't they just make being a USAMO qualifier a requirement for admission?</p>
<p>hopelessly, you have some great qualifications and I'm sure you got into some other great schools. With awards like that you'll succeed anywhere.</p>
<p>^^I know there are many ways to show prowess in math and science.</p>
<p>There are only about 100 USAMO winners that graduate high school per year. MIT accepts something like 1400 people, so it would obviously be impossible to make a requirement for admission.</p>
<p>There are actually over 500 USAMO finalists annually. MIT does recognize its value and it certainly is a tip factor in admission but clearly not a guarantee.</p>