<p>My post #36 should say "I think his use of perjoratives to describe high-scoring high school students (“selfish crybabies”, etc.) is highly inappropriate."</p>
<p>I agree with Mollie in post #39.</p>
<p>Piper, I know a PhD from Harvard Medical School who loves to fly bi-planes and shoot skeet with me, but I digress. As I understand it, Admissions trys to first determine if an applicant is strong enough to keep up with the rigorous course load at MIT, which, is very intensive. Then, Admissions trys to narrow down this large pool of qualified applicants into a class. You, clearly made that cut and also had what it takes to create the right flavor in a class at MIT! So, congratulations. At this point all I was wondering is if my S would make the first cut, knowing his weaknesses. Otherwise, we know MIT is just a reach. A & M is probably where he will end up going.</p>
<p>Incidentally, I know a tenured professor with a PhD from MIT who got his undergrad. degree from MIT too. He says he never did any research before he came to MIT. He started off solving problems for a book his professor was writing. Eventually, ended up doing his PhD and authoring another book with him that might still be used at MIT. So, there are all kinds of examples out there. So it is not just hypersmart students who do research in middle and high schools who become researchers.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I apologize for using those words. I was trying to suggest that some high scoring applicants may be rejected by Admissions at top schools because they lack emotional maturity. Perhaps, I am wrong.</p>
<p>"I know a tenured professor with a PhD from MIT who got his undergrad. degree from MIT too. He says he never did any research before he came to MIT. "
That makes him/ her at least 45-50 years old now? Which means he entered MIT around 25-30 years ago!
Times have changed and MIT now has thousands and thousands of tip top applicants from all over the world, in addition to those from the US. It is MUCH more competitive now than even 10 years ago, let alone 20-30 years ago.
My hubby, who is a Stanford grad, would have no chance of acceptance there these days, with his SAT scores from 1970.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>menloparkmom, Several MIT students and alumni, such as mollieb and Piper, I think are suggesting that they were accepted without conducting research in middle and high school. I see nobody but you arguing this point.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Mollieb, What’s crazy is the absence of humility. Do you really expect me to say, my son should be accepted to MIT because he is hypersmart? </p>
<p>Let me put it this way, how many kids do you think have ever been accepted to MIT who claimed, “I am a hypersmart child prodigy looking for admission to MIT”, in their essay? So I said, C’mon give me a break. </p>
<p>Also, thanks to everyone for all your answers, you have all been very kind and helpful.</p>
<p>menloparkmom, I dont know how it is now, but in the past, MIT rarely allowed it’s undergraduates acceptance to it’s graduate programs. The fellow I am talking about had a 4.0 GPA in his undergraduate engineering degree at MIT and was one of few people who went on to get a Masters and PhD at MIT at the time. As far as his scores were concerned, I think he had a 790 in Math. In addition, if I recall correctly, he had a 770 in Physics and a 750 in Chemistry. Really, I cannot speak to whether he would or would not get into MIT today.</p>
<p>Well, of course most people don’t state it so baldfacedly in their essays, but the whole point of the application is to allow students to showcase their smarts, their activities, their awards, their passions – to brag justifiably in a controlled format.</p>
<p>We try to do a lot around here to convince people that MIT admits aren’t all crazy geniuses, but it is absolutely true, at the same time, that MIT admits are all very, very smart, and the ~1500 people admitted each year are actually among the brightest high school seniors in the country and in the world. </p>
<p>In a broader sense, I think really smart kids need to learn how to simultaneously know that a) they are among the brightest people their age in the country and b) they are not nearly as bright or talented as others, and there’s always more to learn and grow and do. That’s real humility – knowing your strengths and being honest about your weaknesses.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>OK, I think I understand your posts better now. </p>
<p>I don’t think anyone would describe themselves as “hypersmart”. In fact, that reminds me of the when Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling interviewed for Harvard Business School. When asked by a professor if he was smart, he said he was -------- smart. You can google the quote for the adjective to smart. That sort of attitude is more of a Harvard thing, the self-promotion I mean. </p>
<p>However, if things are working the right way with MIT admissions, given how competitive the admissions pool is, the people admitted should have pretty impressive credentials–in general, far beyond grades and test scores. Admits don’t necessarily have research, but it is very common for MIT kids to have regional and maybe a few state awards of some kind in math and science in high school. And it is common for them to try to go far beyond the letter “A”, to try to get the most out of their classes. That should come through their recs. This is not to say some admits didn’t stumble and get a “B” once in awhile, but in general, it’s clear they went above and beyond academically…</p>
<p>Somehow I get the feeling that OP’s S is not encouraged to apply to MIT. I’d say that if he manages 11th grade with ease with that moderate course load, does some research or competition, and enjoys 8+ hours of sleep each night, he certainly should consider MIT seriously.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Or parents’ friends are.</p>
<p>I read somewhere here on CC that if results of scientific competitions were announced after April 1 each year, passion for research might disappear in some students.</p>
<p>"We try to do a lot around here to convince people that MIT admits aren’t all crazy geniuses, but it is absolutely true, at the same time, that MIT admits are all very, very smart, and the ~1500 people admitted each year are actually among the brightest high school seniors in the country and in the world. "
thank you mollie. Thats all I was trying to get across. MIT attracts many of the smartest students in the whole world, and the accomplishments of many, inside and outside the classroom, attest to that. The ones I know, who were accepted at MIT in the last 3-4 years- were never considered anything less than “extraordinary” , compared to their fellow students, many of whom are very bright indeed. They never needed to declare how smart they are- it was obvious.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yep, you read my mind. I think S should focus on Texas A & M, where he can expect a full ride, as a NMF. If he demonstrates potential for research, he can take a shot at MIT for grad school. Thanks to everyone for helping with the decision.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It depends on the major, but this is definitely not the rule across the board. MIT undergrads dominate in many MIT PhD programs, including computer science and mechanical engineering. It’s mostly the pure sciences that encourage their students to go elsewhere - but this holds true for any undergraduate institution. Mollie can speak more to graduate admissions, though - I’m only super-familiar with the CS process.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This was the smartest thing that you said all thread, all the way back on page two. I’m sorry that you’ve now decided to push your son into settling for the achievable, rather than letting him make his own decision.</p>
<p>My parents also pushed me to settle for our state school (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign) instead of applying to MIT. I was very fortunate that I got in, and even more fortunate that I decided to follow my dreams and come here rather than letting them make this decision for me. I’ve grown as a person even more than I thought was possible because I came to MIT for college - and I know from discussing with my experiences with my friends who did attend UIUC that I would not have gotten a comparable experience anywhere else.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As someone who has placed at a number of major science competitions, I find this suggestion insulting. Of all the people I know who have been successful in science research, nearly all either conducted it on their own, or found a mentor with minimal/no outside assistance. Personally, I drove to my local university and knocked on about 15 professors’ doors before I found a place in a lab - my “help” was google and a phone call to the department secretary.</p>
<p>And no, my parents are not scientists - watching my mother (attempt to) solve math problems is one of the funniest things out there.</p>
<p>
I absolutely apologize if this came off as insulting. But I don’t think it’s insulting to note that many people interested in science and engineering are the children of scientists and engineers, or that it’s logistically easier to find a research position if your parents are working in technical careers. </p>
<p>If anything, it makes people like you (who didn’t have the advantage of using connections) even more impressive.</p>
<p>
Same for me, but replace UIUC with Ohio State.</p>
<p>It is my firmly-held belief that I would not be in the graduate program I am currently attending if I had gone to Ohio State for undergrad instead of MIT. It’s not just the opportunities I had as an MIT student, although those were of course tremendously formative and amazing and useful. But it’s something about being encouraged to work hard and be excellent – it actually makes you excellent.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is easier to get into excellent grad schools from U. of Texas-Austin than Texas A & M. It might be a good compromise.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is what I advise to both prospective undergrads and even people considering graduate school (depending on the field and the feasibility of doing meaningful research while also doing all the other things that one really must). </p>
<p>I think “research” is one of those words that people attach a more mystical aura to than is required. It’s a little bit similar to how people attach some foreboding tone to the word “proof” when referencing mathematics. A proof is really just an explanation that acknowledges the assumptions, for most people, especially non-logicians. “Research” is similarly not SO far away from learning stuff as one would expect. I think people get closer to being able to meaningfully “research” if they grow intellectually throughout high school and college, develop a love for something, and start thinking about how it’s important, how it relates to other things, etc. In the hurry to emphasize how different research is from school, people often forget the similarities. </p>
<p>So, to the OP, do things that you think would advance your son in a meaningful fashion. That is, encourage him to do those things. Competitions help develop high level problem solving skills, and en route, you can perhaps showcase how you’ve grown through some achievements. Research helps get into a certain “independent learning / thinking / investigating” mindset. </p>
<p>And never decide to “settle” for a school that is good. You’ll find people at that school who were easily bright enough to get into MIT, although that might not be the norm. The question is if the mentality at MIT is inspiring or tiring for him. Speaking as a non-MIT student, I find the idea of a “firehose to drink from” kind of tiring, and not particularly inspiring. That isn’t to say I don’t know how to learn at a fast pace, but I don’t like being pushed to learn at a fast pace by direct external forces very much. Of course, this isn’t the defining quality of MIT, but I’m just giving an example.</p>
<p>Like Karen says, let your son decide what works for him is my advice. The key is to paint a very clear picture of both sides, what joining either entails, and very crucially, not having someone make the decision under bias or pressure to fulfill a certain contrived perception of himself/herself.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Note also that, while Mollie means extremely well and knows what I’m about to say, that this sort of remark can skew someone towards believing they simply won’t achieve the same thing if they don’t “accept the challenge” of the more prestigious school. My belief is that almost any good school offers significant incentive / encouragement to be excellent. The people, the overall level of accomplishment, etc may be on average much higher at a school like MIT, the average student much sharper, but I do think the reverse effect can be had. Sometimes, the focus on hyper-achievement all around can be so exhausting that one doesn’t achieve one’s best. The suggestion that you are no longer smart, you’re just ordinary at MIT can perhaps make someone forget that it’s his/her unique talents, as opposed to their raw “hardcore-ness” that sees them to success. It’s often a concern of people at schools full of brilliance (I think I saw this on a Harvey Mudd thread) that their abilities will be overshadowed by their brilliant peers when applying to graduate programs, and I think this sort of attitude can be a negative product one should be careful to avoid.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think what Mollie said is still true - having company that helps you get going about research, even telling you that it is possible, often comes from scientifically minded companions. I honestly had no clue as a high schooler that people even could do what you did. Like she said, all the more power to you that you took initiative.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nah, I would agree with you there. It is worth noting however that many of the people in the final levels of ISEF, JSHS or other major fairs found mentors themselves either through talking to professors like I did or the tried and true email spam method. Nor does having connections mean an easy and instant win: one of the people I beat out at a national fair qualifier was somehow sufficiently well connected to go to MIT for two months and build a satellite guidance system. The total cost of my project? $25.13.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re from Ohio? Me too :)</p>
<p>
Well, and of course I’m not suggesting that it’s MIT or bust – my own choice between Ohio State and MIT is my basis for comparison, and while there are smart kids who go to OSU, it’s not an undergraduate academic powerhouse. A choice between OSU and MIT is not a choice between any state school and MIT.</p>
<p>And I agree that the student’s own motivators are an absolutely essential piece of the puzzle. I happen to be very strongly motivated by the norms around me in terms of workload, and I have chosen through undergrad and grad school to put myself in situations and environments that are work-intensive. I could have picked a very nice 9-to-6-type lab for my PhD thesis, but instead I chose the 12-hours-a-day-plus-weekends-minus-vacations lab. That works for me, and I know it, but doesn’t work for everybody – from what you’re saying, for example, it works for me much better than it works for you. :)</p>
<p>
Yup! Near Columbus. Although I’ve been out here in Boston for nine years (actually, I think it might be nine years today?), so Boston feels more like home than Columbus now.</p>