The only “achievement” students need to be successful engineers is strength in math and physics. MANY students have the academic strength to succeed at MIT. They just have too few slots to accommodate them. Plus, MIT is not a good environment for everyone. There are LOTS of really good engineers that went to no name schools. The notion that a student has to attend a highly ranked institution in order to be successful has been shown over and over to be patently false.
Sigh. First, I will, once again, flagellate a deceased equine: admissions to an “elite” college is not a prize given to the students with the highest GPA and tests scores. Stop assuming that this is the way it is and that this is the way it “should be”.
Second, a person may think that GPA and tests cores are the only way in which a graduating high school student can be evaluated, but that is their opinion, not a fact. I really wish the the pro-stats people would stop acting as though it were a fact. Every one of these threads is based on this premise.
Not one of these threads has started their OP with any support of this premise. It is as though “high stats = objectively the best” is a point of dogma that we should all be accepting, and that the use of any other factor needs to be defended.
So no, I do not think that GPA and test scores are either the only way to figure out college preparedness and intellectual capabilities, nor do I think that they are necessarily the best.
We need is innovative thinking and originality. Neither GPA nor standardized tests measure either in any meaningful way.
GPA is generally an indication of the ability to do classwork, and to figure out what the teachers want to see on the exams. While this requires academic abilities, it generally misses the outliers. Test scores are even worse. These are STANDARDIZED tests. They test whether a kid knows how to fell a specific format with the specific set of answers from a memorized list, or, at best, how to plug in numbers or words into a memorized template. Moreover, these are timed tests, and the ability to answer these questions in the time allotted is a skill which is mostly useless in real life.
Worse than that, GPA measures how well a kid is doing in school during puberty. That is a period during which the brain is, essentially, re-wiring itself. A very large number of kids, most kids, in fact, have a difficult time simply functioning, yet we are requiring them to work 8-12 hours a day on academics. We are, in many ways, focusing mostly on kids have gone through it the process during middle school, or those whose biology is not temporarily playing havoc with their brains.
That is yet one more reason that wealth provides a huge benefit. it is easier to deal with the noise in one’s head when one has private space, support, and food.
Even with those advantages, it’s more difficult for some.
The idea that GPA and tests scores are, somehow, an unbiased and objective measure of a kid’s abilities ignores everything that we know about human development, income inequity, educational outcomes, etc.
These have only been used because they are a quick and dirty way to deal with thousands of applicants. However, colleges which have more resources, and can afford to look more closely at applicants have often chosen other criteria.
So, yes, MIT is accepting as much “purely by merits” as is IIT, Oxbridge, or Tuebingen.
This.
That is a false dichotomy – a holistic admission process can be used with a purely merit-seeking goal (e.g. Oxbridge faculty interviews of applicants). Indeed, a holistic admission process may be necessary if other proxies or measures of merit are insufficient to distinguish the admits from the rejects.
What the argument really is about is that some posters do not like the definition of “merit” used by some colleges, particularly the elite highly selective / rejective ones that they crave.
Many do, but they don’t have to. SAT math for example, also tests critical reasoning skills, which not everyone has. (That is one reason why the top kids finish the passages with plenty of time to go back and check their work.) Point being that kids could spend months with SAT prep and private tutors, but still never score above 700.
In contrast, the ACT relies more on rote learning, but requires working fast, which not everyone can do. Ditto private prep: if one’s brain can’t think/process fast, a 34+ aint’ gonna happen, regardless of how much time is spent on it.
IMO, MIT has got this right. Standardized tests do offer admissions value to such a school.
I was not referring to the SAT or ACT (though, would point out that critical reasoning does not measure creativity and originality). I was referring to the high stakes testing in countries like China, Korea, Iran, where one test determines your future.
Err I think I am going to get a lot of bashing… but
Lot of you seem to like how MIT approach the admission process, then how come other schools can’t? Or they are taking similar approaches? I am not talking about tippy-top schools but in general good schools, public schools… etc.
Off topic: I am starting an @MWolf fan club, for his consistently intelligent and well reasoned replies. @mwolf, I doff my hat to you!
Most holistic schools do. What makes you think they don’t? MIT does value things like math competitions more than others might, but their whole approach is you be you. Don’t do stuff to get into MIT. Do stuff because you want to.
I did read your post completely. Saying “Many people do ECs only for the application…after getting admission their ECs are gone!” is a bit of a straw man. Yes, some people lie. Yes, some people do things for the wrong reason. Using the fact that some people exaggerate ECs or do them ONLY to gain admission for college doesn’t negate what they might get from them and how doing them impacts their overall application (meaning that even with doing these “performative” ECs they still were able to get a high GPA, good test scores, etc.). Just because the intent was “disingenuous” in your eyes, the fact that they could achieve the same objective results as another student who spent all their time doing schoolwork says something, I believe. Ideally, the teacher recommendations or interview (less likely) will allow the AO to cut through whether the ECs were done out of genuine interest/passion or just for the application. But again, even if done for the wrong reason, the ECs likely provide some benefit to the doer. I think dismissing them because they were not continued misses something as well. And someone who is willing to do something “just to look good on paper” may be willing to do something just to get ahead at work - as an employer I’m not sure I’d have a problem with that…
Then how come so many people complaining about not getting into certain programs because non-STEM related reasons. It is very strange to hear those complaint. People complained about hook, complained about fake EC… neither of them are STEM related factors.
Again, folks I am only talking about STEM programs, please.
Lots of moderately selective public schools admit most or all of their students by stats only (GPA, rank, and/or test scores). For them, stats only is sufficient to distinguish between applicants when there is not (usually*) an overflow of applicants pressed up against the stats ceilings relative to the number they will admit. If this is your definition of “merit”, there are plenty of moderately selective public schools that are using that as their admissions system.
*Yes, CS at SJSU could be an exception these days, but it is unusual.
I see but then if you can get into good uni overseas with the same stats and ability why would you choose these schools which may cost more money.
Ah I saw you point out SJSU. I heard a lot of people talking about it but let’s say if you don’t have financial constraint, would it make more sense to consider University of Toronto than SJSU? Besides ranking they have famous faculty as well.
What are you talking about? How many teachers know about ECs done by the students? They know whaT the students tell them. I did not say lie… some do it for the resume and some exaggerate. How in the world is someone able to do 10-12 ECs in their HS years?
Again if you do 2-4 things you are passionate about that should be more than enough but the rat race that colleges put u thru make u do things which u do t even like. I have looked at several people I know who got into ivy leagues. Who in the world thinks about creating a company in 6th grade. Someone may but not 1000 people who got into ivy leagues lol
In fact the parents decide the company register it and the kid may not even know u til lTer whT it was.
You are entitled to your views however I see it everywhere. Teacher recommendations is another subjective criteria. I have seen completely wrong teacher recommendations too.
Now in full disclosure – my kids are all in very competitive programs or Ivies. I am not complaining. I am saying that they could not enjoy their childhood because of this “holistic requirements”. They wpuld have done 2-4 ECs which they were really passionate about. Instead they did 10!! Took part in multiple competitions etc. They are forced to not be a kid because of this holisitc view criteria. Let kids be who they are and follow their passions. Imposong these criteria does not make them more passionate! It puts them in the rat race it makes them high achievers… bit at what cost? The cost of their invaluable childhood!!
People complain about a lot of things, many of them highly innacurate.
Kid in my neighborhood is going to his “safety school”. There’s not a single person who knows the kid- not his guidance counselor (apparently, from what I’ve been told) not his math teachers, not his physics teacher, etc. who thinks his college list was at all appropriate. He’s a nice, hardworking kid who will stay up until 3 am (parents are very proud of this, and regularly brag about how little sleep he gets) completing the homework that his classmates have done by 9. He sweats every point on a quiz, he is obsessive to the point of concern about “extra credit” on even meaningless assignments. Took the SAT four times- three times after intensive tutoring, even after most schools went test optional. Was heartbroken when he couldn’t take both AP Chem and Physics junior year (he hadn’t had calc yet and the physics teacher refused to let him in…)
What Adcom is going to put this nice, sweet, hard-working kid in a lab next to students who perform at the same level (as measured by grades and scores) with “normal” effort? Why torture the kid by making him run a race he can’t possibly keep up with?
Yes- 4.0 GPA, by almost killing himself in HS. And parents who are proud of his insane work habits…
So yeah, they are complaining. An Asian kid took their son’s spot. A kid with better athletic ability took their son’s spot. A full pay International took their kid’s spot. The notion that their kid- as hard-working as he is- just does NOT belong in the type of colleges he applied to- he has been punching above his weight academically for so long, they don’t understand that there are kids who just “get it” faster, deeper, with more nuance and less effort than their kid- they don’t accept that. It’s always someone else who took their seat. Why did the kid with no science EC’s get in and their kid- who was “president” of the STEM club at HS- get denied?
I wouldn’t remake the higher educational system over the “complaints” of a bunch of people who feel “shut out” from the place they think they deserve. Sometimes they are just delusional.
But I’m happy that my young neighbor is going to a great college which fits him in every way and where he will be a star and maybe have a social life after his grinding in HS!!!
Bluntly, because their children were not quite as impressive as their parents thought they were.
And it is easier to believe that someone undeserving took their child’s place.
One of my friend’s older son is a recruited athlete he used to love his sport as a little kid.
Once he got into college, he couldn’t get alone with the coach. And now school wants to kick him out… His family pushed him so hard throughout his childhood/teens, no weekend, no vacations, all the time on the fields. Travel to games every weekend. Plus the academic demands. Yes he got into great school because of his sport but he hates it now and lack of direction of life.
It might be an outlier but really, if it wasn’t the reason to get into good school, he might have found his true passion and still plays the sport.
I vote to not introduce athletic recruiting into this conversation!
Most prospective college students in the US have financial constraints that would make University of Toronto (ASE faculty) as international students far too expensive to be affordable.
Exactly!! The parents are rhe onrs who design these ECs!!
Again – my kids are in ivies or highly highly selective programs (BS/MDs)… why did they have to suffer theu sleepless nights to prove to an AO that they are compassionate and passionate and all that? If it was not for these criteria they would have enjoyed their HS years with a handful of activities they really enjoy?
And again just because prople raise money thru fundraisers… doesnt mean they care about the cause. Just because they run cross country or play tennis doesnt mean they are well rounded.
My kids would have gotten into their respective schools even if this holistic view criteria was not there. Why did they have to do things they ddid not like? Because the system demanded it of them!!
I still cannot understand how multiple people can get 2-3 publications in HS when they cannot get a 5 in that subjects AP exam? It is absolutely hilarious! Now my kids and their high achiving friends all played by the system and got in to the best schools. But is this really the way it should be?
I dont think so!
My kids teachers knew about their ECs - particularly those ECs affiliated with the HS.
So you’ve seen completely wrong teacher recommendations? Interesting - you know better than the teachers. Or were the teachers just hoodwinked but you weren’t?
I’m a bit confused though: you say “How in the world is someone able to do 10-12 ECs in their HS years?”
Followed by, when talking about your own kids: “They wpuld have done 2-4 ECs which they were really passionate about. Instead they did 10!!”
So you don’t seem to be saying it’s not doable - you seem to be lamenting that your kids chose to do it because they felt it necessary to compete and are angry that someone “imposed these criteria”.
If you truly believe that you kids “would have gotten into their respective schools even if the holistic criteria was not there” then you cannot claim in good faith that “the system demanded it of them.” If they would have had the same results without that activity, then it, in fact, was not demanded it of them. You cannot have it both ways.