<p>Our Associate Director of Admissions, McGreggor Crowley, got his MD/PhD from Harvard Medical after graduating from MIT </p>
<p>Many of our office are MIT math alums, and believe me, none of them were “weakest links” at MIT. Our other Associate Director, Matt McGann, was SGA President in addition to graduating from Course 15. </p>
<p>Relax, folks. We have a lot of experience. We know how to evaluate scientific achievement. We’re not going to reject two Nobel prize laureates out of spite. But we’re also not going to take every kid who competed at the IMO just because they competed at the IMO, because then we’d be overrun by math kids and have no space for everyone else! </p>
<p>MIT does not discriminate against achievement in math and science. It’s just that so many kids with so many remarkable achievements in math and science apply to MIT that we often have to look beyond those achievements to differentiate among them! </p>
<p>So think of it this way: </p>
<p>Would we reject the Nobel laureate for the novelist? No. But given two Nobel laureates, would we take the one who is ALSO a novelist? Yes.</p>
<p>From what very little I know of it, often people end up in admissions because they both really like doing it and are very good at it. It’s not an easy job. And, many people who are talented in any given field find they wish to leave it after a few years. I seriously doubt that any of the admissions officers at any of the more selective schools are ‘weakest links’ in any meaningful use of the term.
And a LOL for MITChris - one little part of me wants to say “But what if it was a really, really bad novel?” (Jut because I have an old friend who is brilliant and wrote a really long , really dull fantasy novel…)
It helps me, as I start looking toward my child’s admissions process , to not get into “Would School A pick student A or student B?” because, as I understand it, that’s not at all how it works. Admissions folks read applications one at time and decide one at a time (admittedly with a view toward the class they are constructing).</p>
<p>@MITChris Great post. What a brilliant class you guys picked! So rich, diverse, so talented. Congrats. I hope my D get off the WL and join this amazing MIT Class of 2014! Thank you for you help MITChris.</p>
<p>Sorry Chris. I didn’t intend that in any literal sense. It was supposed to be a sarcastic response to the poster implying that the Admissions Office is populated by non-technical people with “an impulse that academic stars are boring.” Perhaps it required an emoticon at the end…</p>
<p>Collegealum’s post was not “too literal” – it really was on the money. And collegealum is not necessarily jabbing at current admissions officers, but rather at the attitude of the poster being responded to. </p>
<p>First off, let’s not take things like the IMO, Nobel laureates, etc lightly. I don’t like math competition problems myself, and know for a fact they’re just one way to shine, but having studied the subject in quite a dedicated fashion for years, I know there’s something incredible to be said of people who win the Putnam, and you don’t just do it because you’re a little clever. Nobel laureates “designing laser beams at 10” being compared to creative folk with good grades who get top scores is an utter joke in terms of word choice and in my own opinion disrespectful. </p>
<p>I’m not for glorifying these achievements and calling them the end-all, as that would be misdirected, but there is nothing boring about a Nobel laureate really. Nothing boring about a Fields Medal to someone who has half a clue what the magnitude of the matter is. </p>
<p>I think the idea of building a class that will impact the world certainly may not mean using any given standardized measure. But let’s remember that the word “qualified” is butchered and massacred unto meaninglessness on CC. </p>
<p>All in all, the best attitude in my own humble opinion is to regard exceptional academics with the respect it deserves, and evaluate individuals rather than using sweeping terms like “qualified.” If someone were to go “Oh, IPhO medal? Good, academically qualified, sort of like a laser beam! Let’s move on!” I’d have to quit taking the individual very seriously. </p>
<p>I have always found the best way to really get a sense for what someone’s interested in and how much energy they have to do good things is to talk to them about what they like. It spills out if someone’s flaky, and you get a taste of their personality. I am neither for glorifying awards nor diminishing them with laughable analogies.</p>
<p>Overall, lots of helpful info MITChris! This is in no way directed against you admissions folk. After all, I’m just an outsider hoping maths/sci/engineering education remains wonderful.</p>
<p>I was going to bring this up, but an exasperated Piper has spoken already…</p>
<p>As always, I think using statistics as a justification requires more care than people take; plus, I always prefer considering individuals by themselves.</p>
I’m hoping they do this in the interview (talk about fun stuff, I mean). I’m looking forward to it.</p>
<p>Can I get my interview when I’m visiting MIT this summer (this is for a '15 app)? I live in a really ‘weird’ location (Doha, Qatar), I don’t think I can find ECs here.</p>
<p>We have ECs all over the Middle East. Not sure about Qatar atm, but you should email <a href=“mailto:interview@mit.edu”>interview@mit.edu</a> to find out! </p>
<p>Also when you apply we’ll auto-assign you an EC based on closest location.</p>
<p>I suspect that you can get an interview at home. I will not say for sure, as EC’s do move about over the summer. I signed up 8 new ECs in my region prior to the new season, but I lost several in one city, leaving me with a fair-sized city uncovered (augghhhh!). So I cannot say for sure who will be in Doha come the autumn, but I will say that for the current season, we have had had more than 20 EC’s in the Southern Gulf region (Bahrain, Oman, UAE, Qatar, Yemen), so I suspect, without promising anything, that you will get assigned to a local EC.</p>
<p>Examples of academic stars include being a Siemens Finalist, qualifying for the USAMO, and so forth. Like with everything else, being “starry” in this way is a good thing, but it doesn’t secure you a spot in the class. Of the nearly 900 academic stars who applied, less than 500 got in. </p>
<p>Does “academic stars” include USNCO qualifiers or National AP scholars after junior year or went to some prestigious summer programs like RSI or TASP?</p>
<p>That’s a great post. The one thing is how do I communicate the person behind the paper? I mean I have experiences in setting up my Science Olympiad team, being on my Robotics team, and plenty of other things that I think really make a difference. How do I communicate these?</p>
<p>yo chris, if you can’t answer this, then its cool, but I was just wondering which “academic superstars” are rejected. Suppose you have two hypothetical kids. Applicant A: USAMO, A in all math/science classes but B in all humanities classes, 2200ish (just for the sake of a number, 700 CR 800 M 700 W), you get the drift.<br>
Applicant B: USAMO, 4.0, 2400, etc. BUT, he can’t hold a conversation on anything not related to math.
Would either of them get in?</p>
</p>