<p>
[quote]
^and that is...?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Precisely my point.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Never said I was against AA for girls, but just pointing out what's wrong with it
[/quote]
But you have not said what's wrong with it? Every flaw that you brought has been refuted.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Aiight perhaps I took it too far to say that she got in at the expense of more qualified applicants or whatnot (which is probably not true anyways), but it always ****es me off when someone says "Oh it must be because her essays were EXCELLENT!" when we all know that AA exists. Yes, she is qualified and yes she will probably make a great engineer. I wouldn't necessarily want to go to a school without any AA at all--that's one reason why many people don't apply to caltech.
[/quote]
But her essays could have been excellent is what everyone has been pointing out. Judging from your posts, you don't even know what a good college essay is anyways so you are essentially getting mad over nothing.</p>
<p>In addition, you keep asserting that she got in solely because of her gender, which is stupid because in contradicts the fact "she is qualified and [...] she will probably make a great engineer."</p>
<p>I really hope that you apply to MIT and get in and then see how it feels when people try to assert that you only got in because you are a female regardless of the fact that you showed "passion for math and science" and had good stats. You really need to be on the receiving end of this because it seems as though you are unable to empathize with other's situations.</p>
<p>
[quote]
At MIT? pretty often.
[/quote]
Ok. Fundamental flaw. These are students studying to become engineers not actual engineers. Regardless, I am not going to believe this without more explanation. Of course it is beneficial but it is not the key to success.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And besides, like phuruiku said, being able to think is an aid to memory. I agree with him there. There are too many formulas to remember if you aren't able to reason out why they are the way they are; you won't remember how to use them correctly. I mean, like in thermodynamics all the equations look very simple and they basically consist of 2 or 3 variables of a set of 10 possible thermodynamic quantities. But they are very subtle. If you haven't reasoned them out, good luck consulting your textbook. The people who aren't inclined to think through the concepts and equations and/or derive them won't do well applying them. And those people die in chemical engineering.
[/quote]
True but whether or not someone has demonstrated this by participating in USAMO/etc. prior to going to MIT is irrelevant. The applicants are accepted because the college admissions officers believe they are capable of this.</p>
<p>
[quote]
In addition, you keep asserting that she got in solely because of her gender, which is stupid because in contradicts the fact "she is qualified and [...] she will probably make a great engineer."
[/quote]
She didn't get in solely because of her gender, but it was what gave her that small "push" that got her in, in addition to the other qualified people who would make great engineers.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I really hope that you apply to MIT and get in and then see how it feels when people try to assert that you only got in because you are a female regardless of the fact that you showed "passion for math and science" and had good stats.
[/quote]
since I don't have great stats, I would probably assume that me being a female had to do with it as well.</p>
<p>
[quote]
She didn't get in solely because of her gender, but it was what gave her that small "push" that got her in, in addition to the other qualified people who would make great engineers.
[/quote]
You are still saying she got in because of her gender though.</p>
<p>
[quote]
since I don't have great stats, I would probably assume that me being a female had to do with it as well.
[/quote]
I am sorry for you that you could ever feel that way. Also, I am pretty sure that you do not even know what "great stats" are...</p>
<p>
[quote]
I am sorry for you that you could ever feel that way.
[/quote]
If I applied as a male, I would probably get rejected. If I applied as a female, there is a larger chance that I would be admitted. It is true and MIT admits is, so what is wrong with this thinking?</p>
<p>
[quote]
You are still saying she got in because of her gender though.
[/quote]
And it may or may not be true. I am leaning towards, yes, it probably played a role. Are you saying that it didn't just by the small amount of information that I talked about?</p>
<p>I would say that I know what "great stats" are--and it doesn't necessarily mean triple USAMO, Intel Finalist, etc. However, if you know some great big secret, please enlighten me if you wish.</p>
<p>"Some people with lower stats have an interest in things other than books. Like South Africa and the Iraq, everywhere such as...."</p>
<p>Funniest post on CC.</p>
<p>I am that person whose name belongs in that sentence. And yeah, I think it was unfair that I won that lottery and my friend who has worked his butt off in academics didn't get in. But then I remember that schools aren't only looking at academics. They also look at who they think you are, what kind of passions, if any, do you have, what extracurriculars you do, what do you actually contribute to your community. </p>
<p>And maybe, possibly, that particular college thought that I would be a better fit. Who knows? Who knows how these colleges pick people?</p>
<p>The process is not about fairness. And how does one judge what is fair?</p>
<p>"And it may or may not be true. I am leaning towards, yes, it probably played a role. Are you saying that it didn't just by the small amount of information that I talked about?"</p>
<p>Of course it played a role, just as what high school she went to, what her SEC is, her personality, coursework, nationality, etc. played a role.</p>
<p>"And it may or may not be true. I am leaning towards, yes, it probably played a role. Are you saying that it didn't just by the small amount of information that I talked about?"</p>
<p>Of course it played a role, just as what high school she went to, what her SEC is, her personality, coursework, nationality, etc. played a role.</p>
<p>Was gender the determining factor about her acceptance? Who knows?</p>
<p>
[quote]
The ideal MIT student for me,
[/quote]
Your idea of the ideal MIT student is, however, irrelevant until you sit at the table and understand what kind of class MIT wants to assemble.</p>
<p>Guys, guys...colleges can't make the best desicion possible because they don't KNOW the applicants. All they have is a packet of paper, numbers, some written material and maybe a brief interview. It's not about who's the best, it's about who they HOPE will be the best, AND about who they're sad to let go due to heavy, heavy competition.</p>
<p>Don't kid yourselves.</p>
<p>God, some of you people are so whiny. And stats-fixated (go read up on the predictive validity of the SAT for different groups some time). And bitter.</p>
<p>As a former MIT blogger, when rejected people came in whining about how "I didn't get in but this girl/URM that I knew DID with WORSE STATS and OMG IT'S SO UNFAIR and they obviously got in because of their demographics, and I HAVE A HUGE ENTITLEMENT COMPLEX blah blah blah," I always felt that we had dodged a bullet. The ones I actually felt for were the ones who accepted their rejection with some level of maturity and a minimum of whining, and without scapegoating.</p>
<p>
[quote]
No, I can't. But we all know that gender AA exists at MIT so can we stop pretending that it doesn't?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>MIT has said over and over that the female applicant pool kicks the male applicant pool's ass, that the female applicant pool is just that much more self-selected. But that would run contrary to your world view, so you don't buy it. The female students at MIT do just as well, performance-wise, as the male students (by some metrics they do better), so clearly they were as qualified to do the work, now, weren't they?</p>
<p>As a student, I'm not sure I ever encountered a fellow student - female, URM, both, or neither - who I didn't think was capable enough to be there. There were some I didn't like, but they were still capable, some of them very much so. There were some who struggled, but it was generally for reasons other than capability, and they generally had something they were very good at (like a star of the political science department who struggled to pass physics GIRs) Undoubtedly many capable people also got rejected, because the applicant pool in general is pretty self-selected, and most of the applicants are capable. But, you know, they pick the capable people that, for whatever reason, they want. I know people who had relatively low (compared to the average MIT student) stats in high school who are now PhD students at some of the best programs in the country...they obviously had what it took.</p>
<p>I will certainly say that if your sense of entitlement comes through in your app, that is a black mark against you.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Your idea of the ideal MIT student is, however, irrelevant until you sit at the table and understand what kind of class MIT wants to assemble.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Thank you.</p>
<p>And, for the record, I got 800s on both SAT I math and SAT Math IIC. It doesn't make you any sort of math god, trust me, and there were people at MIT who got worse SAT math scores than I did who were MUCH better at math.</p>
<p>Certain schools place too much weight on factors other than academics and academic potential. Some schools want diversity so much that they allow a students race/ethnicity play a prominent role as a factor in admissions. It's too bad so many schools consider diversity is exterior-a persons skin- instead of their interests. Diversity comes in many forms other than race, and it is unfair that a students race/gender plays ANY role in the admissions decision. Grades, writing samples, recs and ECs are at least reasonable factors.
I feel that the MOST qualifed should be addmitted, PERIOD. Yes, a URM who had slightly less qualifications, scored 20 pts lower, a tenth lower GPA, same # of ECs as a white student should not get special treatment b/c they are a URM. Colleges should not be allowed to ask for race.
There will always be people who, for whatever reason, get in ahead of student B even though they have worse stats. People will always be salty about it, because we do put so much effort, time and emotions into this process, and when you feel you should have gotten in when looking at those accepted, you have a right to be upset. It's justified. After spending almost a $1,000 on applications, tests, CSS profiles and other expenses, I deserve to know why a less qualified applicant was addmitted over me.
Allow people to vent a little, because its natural to be upset when your passed over for another, whether a job, a sports team, a college, for some silly reason. Especially when you've built a stronger resume the pst four years. It tends to be upsetting when people get rejected from their dream schools when their stats were on par with those who are admitted. Everyone knows being a URM is benefitial, and its wrong that people even believe it, because all that should matter is factors which the student can control, because I can't control the fact that I am white and a female, and that should play no role in the admissions process. I shouldn't be told I didn't get in because I they wanted "more diversity".
In the end, I have a right to be angry and to vent. I'll get over it, go to another school and have an amazing next four years, and probably be indifferent to the rejections down the road. People will get over the disapointment, eventually, because you'll realize this won't be the first or last time you'll be passed over for someone less qualified. And you know what? If a school wants so bad to have diversity, or practices reverse discrimination, screw them! That school probably wasn't the right one anyway. Be happy for the schools that admitted you because they think you're great, and brush it off your shoulder after your done with the mourning process.</p>
<p>I have seen many HYSP grads who end up going to a 3rd tier law school, med school, or grad school, and many of them ending up failing the bar exam several times. Makes me wonder why they were accepted to HYSP in the first place.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Your idea of the ideal MIT student is, however, irrelevant until you sit at the table and understand what kind of class MIT wants to assemble.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, thank you for preaching to the choir. Surely you would have realised that I am only saying that Narcissa's conception of who should get in is HER opinion, not a universal ideal. To counter this, I offered my own ideal to show why her ideal wasn't universally shared. I realise mine isn't universally shared either. That's not the point. That's merely proof by contradiction. So unless you have some particular beef with this point ...</p>
<p>
[quote]
After spending almost a $1,000 on applications, tests, CSS profiles and other expenses, I deserve to know why a less qualified applicant was addmitted over me.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Way to twist my words. </p>
<p>Please note that lower stats != less qualified.</p>
<p>It doesn't reflect well on you to have made that leap in logic. </p>
<p>The number of people in this thread who whine about other people who are less "qualified" and how "they have a right to complain" and yet have such a poor ability to make an argument without committing countless fallacies in the process -- is well, surprising.</p>
<p>Please note this was in response to the topic, not specifically to your opinions/beliefs. I didn't twist your words. If I had a disagreement with your post, I would have used your name or quotes. I am merrily expressing my opinion.
Also, I said less qualified. Less qualified, not less academically able. As in, equal academics-sats, gpa, act, class rigor, ECs, volunteering, personal accomplishments etc;. In my case, a school told me they wanted more "diverse" canidates(as in race/ethnicity).
If I pay so much money to have my application evaluated, why shouldn't I know where my application fell short? It is benefitial to know the weaknesses in ones app for future reference or for transfer app.
Why do you care if people vent their frustrations? Who cares you consider their arugments valid or not? People have a right to free speech, regardless how ignorant or unintelligent their speech may seem to you. That is quite a pertentious view.</p>
<p>Wait, first off tiff, how can you know absolutely everything about a person. How can you know how well their essays were written, what ecs they do, how they spend every waking minute? Thats right...you CAN'T. For all you know some person could be a world class sky diver in their spare time. </p>
<p>In addition, I'm really curious what school:</p>
<ol>
<li>Told you why you were rejected.</li>
<li>Literally stated, "Well we want more blacks and hispanics".</li>
</ol>
<p>And please don't say, "well they said diverse but they obviously meant that", because, and no offense meant, maybe your application was simply droll in comparison to other diverse students, color being excluded entirely. </p>
<p>Of course AA plays a role in admissions, but people need to start realizing something:</p>
<p>A SCHOOL DOES NOT ACCEPT THE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE THEY HAVE SPACES FOR IN FRESHMAN CLASSES.</p>
<p>They accept MORE. Which means that because a black/spanish person with lower SATs than you got in doesn't mean they "took" a spot, they don't sit in an admissions room and say, "Hey alright lets look at Jane Doe and John Smith. Which one should we give the next spot to?". They allocate the number of acceptees, and then a process occurs. For all you know you could've been eliminated from the beginning.</p>
<p>For example, IIRC, UMD College Park has a system where first all the apps are looked at to make certain everything is completed, filled in, etc. If not, they go to an automatic rejection pile and get alerted later (this can mean that you may be rejected in october and not find out till January)</p>
<p>Then they eliminate all the GPAs/SATs below their cutoffs.</p>
<p>Then they start doing the holistic review.</p>
<p>So until you actually WORK in an admissions office, I think no one here is entitled to claim that anything is fair, because once again, they over admit people. Unless you got your app in late and there were no spots left, you get evaluated as an individual.</p>
<p>
[quote]
2. Literally stated, "Well we want more blacks and hispanics".</p>
<p>And please don't say, "well they said diverse but they obviously meant that"
[/quote]
Well, if they do say "we want diversity" what else could they mean? we want more asians?</p>