The Swarm of the Super-Applicants

Parents Forum
81

<p>Shoshi, you can't have it both ways. 50 years ago girls who were good in math didn't apply to MIT.... at least not in signficant numbers. Talented minorities (who knows if they were brilliant.... I'm sure many of them were) weren't applying in large numbers.... they were going to local U's if they were going at all. Scores of kids from Pakistan and India and China etc weren't applying..... couldn't afford it, had never heard of it, how do you spell Cambridge anyway?</p>

<p>So now MIT draws from a global talent pool..... but the size of the class has stayed the same. Other than tossing a coin, they need to devise new and better ways of predicting academic success from an every widening pool of talent.... some of which will turn out to be highly predictive and others which won't be.</p>

<p>However, the decked is stacked against the brilliant but lazy or the brilliant but indifferent or the brilliant but unmotivated.... no matter how you define it, not because MIT is being elitist, but because the work load is damn hard, and just getting through the core courses before you can start to specialize requires phenomenal time management skills. So-- we all know brilliant but lazy kids out there, and it would be great if they could all end up at elite colleges where they could grow out of their apathy.... but that would be denying a spot to a kid who is just as brilliant but is prepared to step up to the plate to accomplish something significant.</p>

<p>At MIT my son met kids who could spend 19 hours a day in a lab devising new and better ways of moving an artificial limb; of developing composite materials which made prosthetic devices more comfortable and cheaper... of figuring out cheap ways of getting vaccines which need refrigeration to remote parts of the world. No doubt there are thousands of kids just as brilliant someplace else, which is great. No doubt there are great minds languishing on the couch playing video games, and those kids might well be more creative problem-solvers than the kids plugging away in a smelly lab on Mass Ave. However, it would be hard to argue that society would be better served by ditching some of the metrics that most elite colleges use and by admitting kids based on a "gut feel" that kid A is a talented late bloomer, kid B is a brilliant but unmotivated Einstein, kid C would have, could have done great things in HS if only....</p>

<p>So some of the kids who are already achieving at some high level get in.... the others get in to places equally wonderful; some of the late bloomers actually bloom, others (like family members I know and love....) spend their lives underemployed griping that their boss is a moron, they could do his job, but "I refuse to sell out on principall".</p>

<p>I pity the adcoms who get paid to try and sort it all out.</p>

82

<p>I love this line: "His SAT scores are high except for math."</p>

83

<p>Blossom, I'm not trying to have it both ways. I think this system is hypocritical, rigid, and harmful to our kids. Again, I'm not picking on MIT and honestly, I don't know much about the school. But with a larger-than-ever talent pool, it would seem to my unschooled mind that there's greater rather than lesser flexibility to look beyond the 2400 SAT 4.x gpa (or the 2300, 3.7). That schools don't use their power to do this leaves me unimpressed. They have the power to change the crazy competitive environment they've created but they continue to feed it and then claim to want it to be otherwise. </p>

<p>I find it interesting that you can't think beyond the categories of "brilliant but lazy" or "brilliant but indifferent." How about a brilliant one-sided kid? Or the kid who has maxed out of high school years before it started? The kid who is engaged in outside pursuits that allow room for greater creativity and personal growth?</p>

<p>Looking beyond MIT, I can say with personal knowledge that there are plenty of not particularly bright athletes and otherwise connected kids taking slots at elite schools. Why not take a chance on a kid who gives an adcom the "gut feel" that he might turn out to be special?</p>

84

<p>
[quote]
How about a brilliant one-sided kid? Or the kid who has maxed out of high school years before it started? The kid who is engaged in outside pursuits that allow room for greater creativity and personal growth?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That is actually a very common profile for MIT students. MIT is not looking for the BRWK, but the kid who has a passion for the kind of subjects MIT offers--i.e., is lopsided. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I think this system is hypocritical, rigid, and harmful to our kids.

[/quote]

It is only harmful if you are fixated in getting your kid into HYPSM.</p>

85

<p>Sorry, marite, but that's just plain not true. The trickle down effect from the fervor over HYPSM has changed the climate at every single school we've visited and we've visited quite a range of different schools. The expectations are greater everywhere and the frenzy is ever present. </p>

<p>If the one-sided profile is so common at MIT (I'd think it would be), how is it that the earlier post that set me off talked about 2300ish SATs and a 3.7 gpa? That doesn't sound very one-sided to me.</p>

86

<p>Why can't a student have great stats and be one-sided at the same time? Who says?</p>

<p>I have one of those. I know whereof I speak. He has been an all-math all-the-time since he could read (early). He had high stats, took 9 college courses, 6 APs, graduated early. His idea of fun was reading another math book. Can't play a sport or an instrument, minimal community service. Did not apply to MIT, however (too many people just like him).</p>

<p>The expectations are higher everywhere because there is a much larger pool of applicants to choose from, and the number of slots at HYPSM has remained stable. But some schools that did not use to be on people's radar screens have improved tremendously in quality. And there are the LACs that have always been terrific. </p>

<p>The college should fit the kid, not the kid the college. That's my motto. If your kid is totally frazzled trying to get into HYPSM, there's something wrong: not with HYPSM but with your ambitions.</p>

87

<p>wow
I don't really know how I got into college.</p>

88

<p>I'm not sure if your last sentence was specific to me or generic in its intent but this has absolutely nothing to do with my kid and probably not much to do with any kid. These kids are frazzled trying to get into college, not HYPSM, but the college that fits. I continue to reassure my kids to relax and that it will all work out for them as it certainly will, but I also acknowledge that it sucks to be going through this process. It was stressful way back when I went through it but nothing, nothing like this.</p>

<p>I understand that the expectations are higher because there are more applications for the same number of slots. That does not address my point, namely that even kids who are not panting for HYPSM are suffering under a rigid and harmful system. In addition, as I've already pointed out, colleges have greater ability to look beyond the numbers and take risks on kids who stand out in ways that aren't easily reduced to SAT and gpa and choose not to do so.</p>

<p>One-sided, by definition, suggests greater ability in one area than in another. I'm not talking about a kid who excels in math but does well in the humanities. That kid is not particularly one-sided. I'm talking about a kid who is truly, out-there-gifted in, say, math because we're talking about MIT, but does not have the same level of ability and may actually be quite average in English, modern language, or history. I would imagine that MIT would welcome such a kid but the SAT and gpa suggested in that initial post don't support that. IMHO, it's a big mistake on the part of the institution.</p>

89

<p>
[quote]
That does not address my point, namely that colleges have greater ability to look beyond the numbers and take risks on kids who stand out in ways that aren't easily reduced to SAT and gpa.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And they do! Look at the emphasis on ECs! Look at the importance of the essay at Chicago! </p>

<p>
[quote]
I'm talking about a kid who is truly, out-there-gifted in, say, math because we're talking about MIT, but does not have the same level of ability and may actually be quite average in English, modern language, or history. I would imagine that MIT would welcome such a kid but the SAT and gpa suggested in that initial post don't support that.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>An 800 on SAT-math (easy to achieve for a math-gifted student) plus a 650 SAT-V, would translate into 1450. That is not an unusual score for an MIT student. What MIT will look for is evidence of talent and passion beyond those scores. But for what it's worth, it has been shown that math-gifted students tend to have verbal scores within the range, whereas the contrary is not true. Students with high SAT Verbal scores do not necessarily have high math scores. </p>

<p>I invite you to look at the stats posted by admitted students at HYPSM. Not all have perfect stats or GPAs.</p>

90

<p>
[quote]
I would imagine that MIT would welcome such a kid but the SAT and gpa suggested in that initial post don't support that. IMHO, it's a big mistake on the part of the institution.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>For the one sided math/science kid I think there is a wealth of good schools to look at. If the kid doesn't get into MIT - RPI, WPI, George Tech, Case Western and a host of other great schools will be happy to have them. I don't think MIT has to lower their standards (which don't demand perfection anyway).</p>

91

<p>
[quote]
I'm not sure if your last sentence was specific to me or generic in its intent but this has absolutely nothing to do with my kid and probably not much to do with any kid. These kids are frazzled trying to get into college, not HYPSM, but the college that fits. I continue to reassure my kids to relax and that it will all work out for them as it certainly will, but I also acknowledge that it sucks to be going through this process. It was stressful way back when I went through it but nothing, nothing like this.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>One reason for the frazzledness is the search for the college that fits as well as fitting the kid to the college. When I went to college, most students did not worry about fit. Most went to their state university--in fact, most students continue to do so. </p>

<p>Being frazzled searching for the college that fits is no reason to bash adcoms for doing the job they do. In fact, all things considered, they do a pretty good job. Like Blossom, I would not want to be in their shoes trying to admit 2,000 out of more than 20,000 already self-selected applicants.</p>

92

<p>I give up. The point I'm trying, obviously not very effectively, to make is that I don't see taking the imperfect kid as a situation where MIT has lowered its standards but one of looking more creatively at its applicants in order not to miss the creative, out-of-the-box thinking it purports to value. </p>

<p>I know plenty of mathy kids who don't do well on the CR section of the SAT. But I am not talking so specifically about math or verbal ability. We can easily change the scenario and look at the high scoring verbal, lower scoring math kid with unusual writing or language abilities. How does HYPSM look at that kid? The numbers I've seen don't look very encouraging. Again, I think the school misses out on a tremendously talented kid this way--particularly if you're right that high scoring verbal kids tend not to do as well on the math section of the SAT.</p>

<p>I agree that Chicago is willing to look beyond the numbers to find the right kid and I have a lot of respect for the school. I know a kid from dd's school who ended up there last year. He's a creative, highly able kid with all sorts of accomplishments and awards across the spectrum but his grades weren't exceptional. When he visited the school and interviewed, he was warmly welcomed and told he was in. In the end, it was the only school that accepted him.</p>

93

<p>
[quote]
The point I'm trying, obviously not very effectively, to make is that I don't see taking the imperfect kid as a situation where MIT has lowered its standards but one of looking more creatively at its applicants in order not to miss the creative, out-of-the-box thinking it purports to value.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I think MIT would tell you they are already doing this. 25% of the class has SAT CR scores under 670. In 2005 they had 1 kid with a CR score in the 400s and 4 with scores in the 500s.</p>

<p>I do think poor grades make colleges wary. Too often a kid's underachievement continues into college. A friend of mine's son got a 1600 on the old SAT in the first sitting. His grades were Bs and Cs. She tried to persuade him to take a gap year, but he didn't. He had the same issues in college as he'd had in high school. He just didn't like doing homework. He's taking a gap year now.</p>

94

<p>I just don't see that MIT is not looking for the creative kid or that it does not look beyond GPAs and SATs. In fact, it does. As do other top schools. Again, look at the stats of admitted students and at the stats of students who were not admitted. High GPAs and SAT scores are only ONE factor. </p>

<p>I agree with mathmom, too. Genius is only 5% inspiration. A school like MIT values hard work and the willingness to accept failure. But failure while taking risks, not playing it safe--or playing videogames instead of doing homework.</p>

95

<p>I was only impressed by 2-3 of those candidates.</p>

96

<p>screw this stuff. It's worthless.</p>

<p>Let's start our own college. It'll have majors in "forgery" etc....</p>

97

<p>By CC standards, most of the SAT scores, and amount of APs taken, is quite low.</p>

98

<p>
[quote]
By CC standards, most of the SAT scores, and amount of APs taken, is quite low.

[/quote]
Screw that, even by my own high school standards I'm not impressed.</p>

99

<p>Count me as a parent with a lopsided kid (and an INTP to boot!). Asked him what he wanted for his 16th birthday, and he presented me with a brief list: Intro to the Theory of Computation and Automata and Computability. He is diving into theoretical comp sci for fun -- the comp theory book goes on the bus with him in the mornings and to bed with him at night... </p>

<p>This happens every year -- we ask him what he'd like for his birthday, and we wind up on Amazon buying college texts. His comp sci teacher asked today if she could borrow his books...</p>

100

<p>Shoshi, I do not agree that there's insanity everywhere. There are dozens of well-regarded colleges who post a list in May inviting applications because they haven't filled their classes; there are hundreds of colleges who admit virtually everyone who applies beyond a certain, reasonable cut-off; for every crazed parent wondering why their double legacy kid can't get into Columbia when they and spouse got in with lower scores there's a parent who would be happy for their kid to go to Hofstra and live at home.</p>

<p>The tippy top of the iceberg is certainly more stressed than it used to be.... it's just supply and demand. The rest of the iceberg is just going along as it always did.... with an eye on demographics and wondering how it's going to fill its dorms in 8 years when this boomlet is over.</p>

<p>Moreover, the number of kids in college who have been home schooled (no grades, no gpa, no peer pressure) continues to soar, as a testament to how open-minded adcoms are prepared to be in the absence of the traditional metrics of HS success.</p>

<p>Again though... you demonstrate some naivete as to what it takes to get through a demanding college curriculum. Kids who spent HS "blowing off" classes they didn't like, whether out of boredom, a sense of superiority, genuine apathy, or whatever, have put evidence on the table that they're either immature or not prepared to go the distance for subjects they don't like. </p>

<p>I know many kids who have been on a long, long, long track to college graduation. I have yet to be shocked when I hear of a kid "stepping out" or taking a few years off, or just dropping out. These are always the kids who showed a spark of something wonderful (charisma, leadership, brilliance and lopsidedness, etc.) combined with evidence that waking up, going to an 8 am lab, handing in an assignment which is legible and on time, studying, writing a paper with appropriate foot-notes, etc. was not their thing. This doesn't make them bad people, and certainly doesn't mean they won't be successful.... but you can't blame the JHU's and Wash U's and the Georgia Tech's from eyeing these kids with the same skepticism that Harvard and Stanford shows..... maybe they'll graduate, maybe they won't, but when you've got thousands of other kids who've proven their ability to plug away, why give up the seat to the higher risk admit????</p>