Why is there crapshot in MIT admissions???

Colleges and Universities A-Z Massachusetts Institute of Technology
21

<p>college admissions is an inherently subjective process. this is not made better by the fact that there simply do not exist enough spaces for all qualified applicants. complaining that admissions are a crapshoot is tautological. moreover, it is not the project of any college admissions process to be completely deterministic. it is necessary for college admissions officers to make judgment calls about whether prospective students possess desirable characteristics that are necessarily impossible to objectively quantify or even define (e.g. passion, integrity, etc.).</p>

<p>meaningful conclusions can only be drawn by comparing admissions processes <em>against each other</em> relative to some well-defined common metric. that is, the most insightful analyses of this issue will evaluate whether mit's admissions processes do a better or worse job achieving some very specific, predefined goal (i.e. not merely admitting "talented" students, whatever that means) relative to other schools' processes. readers can then decide for themselves whether or not this goal is itself normatively valuable.</p>

22

<p>New leader asks if people can "fake it"? Yes, of course they can, but most of them not very well. I have done enough interviewing to certainly have noticed some who were desperately trying to fake it. Very few of them can, but certainly some might.</p>

<p>Around here, a very common extracurricular activity is working for charities, helping to raise money for African underprivileged kids. Last year I interviewed four or five candidates who were doing this. I often asked why they had gotten involved. In most cases, they ran an obviously oft-used rationale. I pushed harder, and was quite surprised when this year, I found one candidate who actually did care deeply about African charities (he was originally from Africa himself). He was able to articulate passionately what he was doing and why, and to go much deeper than the platitudes available on the brochure. The others were all doing it because they, their parents, or their school thought it would help them in the admissions process.</p>

<p>With practice you can often see faking it. The question really is "how does the match manifest itself". You can fake what activities you belong to, and how you express yourself, but it is much harder to fake how you live your life, and (to a much lesser degree) how you describe your life.</p>

<p>I had a kid a little while ago, and I asked him "So, what do you like to do for fun?" He thought about this for a moment and said "I like to read Physics textbooks." "Fair enough," I said. "We all enjoy academic pursuits, but what do you do to relax that isn't academically related, if anything." He said, "I don't understand the question. I like to read physics textbooks." "OK," I tried again. "When you get together with your friends, when you see them, after school or on the weekends, what do you get together to do then?" He thought some more and said, "Well, I don't really have many real friends, but when we do get together, we like to read Physics textbooks." </p>

<p>One part of life at MIT is that it is very collaborative. Indeed, much of the lives of the physicists I know is that their work is highly collaborative. In order to succeed at MIT, you have to be able to work with other people, and this candidate just couldn't. There was no match, he did not get in. And yet, I am not sure that there is a strong match for that kid. I don't really know of the campus anywhere in the world where teenagers get together to read physics textbooks. I am sure that in his head, he matched strongly with MIT. I don't doubt that he was devastated when he did not get in, but he did not really match as well as he thought he did.</p>

23

<p>
[quote]
I don't really know of the campus anywhere in the world where teenagers get together to read physics textbooks.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Really? Where have you been?</p>

24

<p>It's unusual, but if it happened anywhere, it would be at a place like MIT. This kid might have fit in better than you'd think. Too bad he didn't get the chance to be surrounded, finally, by other people who loved physics, and see that they do other stuff as well.</p>

25

<p>Now that there is a comment in this thread about young people who self-report that they read physics textbooks for fun, I just have to post Albert Einstein's description of his teenage years: </p>

<p>
[quote=Albert Einstein, in "Autobiographical Notes," in Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist, Paul Schilpp, ed. (1951), pp. 17-19 © 1951 by the Library of Living Philosophers, Inc.]
. . . I worked most of the time in the physical laboratory [at the Polytechnic Institute of Zürich], fascinated by the direct contact with experience. The balance of the time I used in the main in order to study at home the works of Kirchoff, Helmholtz, Hertz, etc. . . . In [physics], however, I soon learned to scent out that which was able to lead to fundamentals and to turn aside from everything else, from the multitude of things which clutter up the mind and divert it from the essential. The hitch in this was, of course, the fact that one had to cram all this stuff into one's mind for the examinations, whether one liked it or not. This coercion had such a deterring effect [upon me] that, after I had passed the final examination, I found the consideration of any scientific problems distasteful to me for an entire year. In justice I must add, moreover, that in Switzerland we had to suffer far less under such coercion, which smothers every truly scientific impulse, than is the case in many another locality. There were altogether only two examinations; aside from these, one could just about do as one pleased. This was especially the case if one had a friend, as did I, who attended the lectures regularly and who worked over their content conscientiously. This gave one freedom in the choice of pursuits until a few months before the examination, a freedom which I enjoyed to a great extent and have gladly taken into the bargain the bad conscience connected with it as by far the lesser evil. It is, in fact, nothing short of a miracle that the modern methods of instruction have not yet entirely strangled the holy curiosity of inquiry; for this delicate little plant, aside from stimulation, stands mainly in need of freedom; without this it goes to wreck and ruin without fail. It is a very grave mistake to think that the enjoyment of seeing and searching can be promoted by means of coercion and a sense of duty. To the contrary, I believe it would be possible to rob even a healthy beast of prey of its voraciousness, if it were possible, with the aid of a whip, to force the beast to devour continuously, even when not hungry, especially if the food, handed out under such coercion, were to be selected accordingly.

[/quote]
</p>

26

<p>eg:
[quote]
It's unusual, but if it happened anywhere, it would be at a place like MIT. This kid might have fit in better than you'd think. Too bad he didn't get the chance to be surrounded, finally, by other people who loved physics, and see that they do other stuff as well.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Do you actually go to MIT? Or are you just saying this from the various impressions you have garnered through the internets and RL.</p>

27

<p>QUOTE from 1MX
"on MIT's site it says that competitive applicants can have up to 12 people read their file. I'd say that takes any 'crapshoot' out of the process."</p>

<p>That may not necessarily mean that takes any 'crapshoot' out. Seriously, there are about 18000 applicants. From that 13% will be admitted. Would you really read all those applications without doing at least some crapshoot?
Consider this:
You do better on homework A because that was the first hw you did in the morning.
You will do poorly on hw D after taking two hrs of doing homeworks A, B, and C, because you will be TIRED!!!!
Same with admissions. Admissions officer A reading application X in the morning after a nice cup of coffee will yeild completely different results from that of admissions officer B reading the same application in midnight after spending the past 8 hrs reading applications.
PS: Thanks a lot Mikayle. That example made real good sense. Many thanks!
For all those idiots like eg1 who misinterpreted that great example Mikayle gave: I feel very sorry for you. You just don't seem to understand how people are. Just because Albert Einstien does it isn't a normal thing. Yes, I know teenagers get together to study, but mostly for important tests or quiz bowl, etc. I really doubt if the gang of teenagers just get together to stufy for fun . . .</p>

28

<p>OK, I have been regrettably correctly quoted, so I need to explain a bit. My statement:

[quote]
I don't really know of the campus anywhere in the world where teenagers get together to read physics textbooks

[/quote]

is of course complete balderdash. The missing words were "For FUN". Allow me to rephrase "I don't really know of any campus anywhere in the world where reading physics textbooks is considered the height of social recreation, and the thing that the students most want to be doing." Yes, when I was at MIT, I got together with my friends and read Physics textbooks, but that was lower on my list of things I wanted to do than (say) go to a movie, and substantially lower than, for example, sex.</p>

<p>I also did not mean to sound like a negative interviewer. I try very hard to ensure that my interviews are relaxing and as fun as possible for the interviewee (which goes a long way to making them fun for me). That being said, I am an international EC, where the admit rate is 4% or roughly one out of every twenty seven candidates. Every year I meet brilliant, talented, wonderful candidates, who WILL NOT GET IN. That is why match is so important. It is not my job as an EC to say "don't take this applicant", but it is my job to report the conversation in enough detail, so that the admissions office has a real grasp on what I perceived as the match, and why. So in a case like this, I can report that the candidate's ultimate idea of recreation is to read physics texts alone, and the Admissions office can admit him if they think that he is an Einstein, and reject him if he is merely very, very bright.</p>

<p>This isn't always easy. Last year I had to write a quite negative interview letter, which was a real struggle, because I had quite liked the student, but there was a strong negative match. It took about 7 hours to get the letter right, to be fair to the student (and not damn with faint praise), and to explain what factors about the candidate led me to the negative conclusion. This was a lot of time; usually I can get an interview report out in 3-4 hours, but given the competitiveness of the pool, I owe it to my interviewees to represent them fairly. And indeed, MIT does grade the interview reports to let us know how we are doing as interviewers.</p>

<p>Back to the OP's comment though. Of course there are elements of a crapshoot. MIT could fill the class several times over with wonderful, talented, brilliant students who apply. But I would challenge the idea that there is somehow more of a crapshoot in this than in any other selection decision that someone is involved in (applying for most jobs, going for most promotions, etc.).</p>

29

<p>Mikalye, you may be correct that the student you interviewed was not a good match for MIT--it's even probable that you're correct, since you interviewed the student--but your post, even after correction, was not at all convincing.</p>

<p>The applicant says that he enjoys reading physics books with friends for fun. Your comments about MIT are: "One part of life at MIT is that it is very collaborative. Indeed, much of the lives of the physicists I know is that their work is highly collaborative. In order to succeed at MIT, you have to be able to work with other people, and this candidate just couldn't." So how did you reach the conclusion that this candidate couldn't work with other people?
Similarly, on the MIT admissions blog-o-site, there used to be a claim that a student who said he enjoyed solving differential equations with a group of friends was a poor fit for MIT--because MIT students needed to collaborate on problem-solving. Sorry, what?</p>

<p>If I were doing the interviewing, I'd ask the applicant:
What books?
How did you pick them?
Did you read them individually before discussing them? Or did the group read them in parallel, for the first time?
Have you ever clarified a concept for another student in the group?
Has another student in the group ever clarified a concept for you?
Do you make jokes about the books?
Have you constructed any devices after reading the books, or written programs connected with the books?
What do you plan to read next?</p>

30

<p>Quantmech,
I am sorry if my post was unconvincing. I do not spend the time on these posts that I do on interview reports, but I can assure you that in this particular instance, I did interview him in some detail and found that he was quite uncomfortable with the concept of "friends".</p>

<p>I also have noted a number of comments that indicated that MIT would be good for this (or some other student). That is indeed possibly true. In the most negative interview report I have ever written, I nonetheless noted that MIT would be very good for the student involved. </p>

<p>Regrettably, that isn't enough. Given an admit rate of 4% (again I am an international EC), sometimes brutal choices need to be made. At that point, it is only in small part what would be good for the student, and to a much larger degree what would be good for the university.</p>

31

<p>Even the most gung-ho physics students I know at MIT, and believe me, I know some crazy gung-ho physics students, do a multitude of other things besides physics, and have friends with whom they do things other than physics. In most cases, very geeky things, but that's irrelevant, the important part is that they have a life outside of physics. Given the volume of work and the intensity of the MIT physics program, I'd be worried about a kid who did nothing else - there's no way to escape from the pressure, to unwind, to maintain perspective.</p>

32

<p>Quote:
Quantmech,
I am sorry if my post was unconvincing. I do not spend the time on these posts that I do on interview reports, but I can assure you that in this particular instance, I did interview him in some detail and found that he was quite uncomfortable with the concept of "friends".</p>

<p>Thats a serious problem, but can;t that be agued in a different way? I mean look, I want to make my intentions clear. I am NOT trying to say Mikalye did a bad job of interviewing. I am sure he is an expert at that. But I am just pointing out something I just thouhgt. So I DON'T WANT ANYONE BITING MY HEAD OFF!!!
Okay, here it goes:
What if this "friend-less" person's environment is in such a way that he had to be "friend-deprived"? It has happened to me years ago. I had such good time at India, about 14 friends. We would play everyday. When I moved to USA, I had none. I went through depression as things (culture, atmosphere, education, etc) changed. I longed for a friend, but had none. Soon, I was sent to a private school which had people that were a fit to me. I had finally got the friends I was looking for, but I couldn't connect. Whenever I approached my friends, I would stutter . . . it was as if I was trying to express my happiness that I am finally not alone, but I couldn't with mere words. The happiness would blur my state of thinking. Hard to explain . . .
Maybe something like this happened to that Physics kid. How would MIT know if this might have happened or not anyhow? What if the Physics kid felt shy to express his true position?</p>

<p>PS: Seriously, I have weird questions. I know. My courcellors and teachers have often told me that I ask lots of "interresting and funny" questions. ^^"</p>

33

<p>^^Mikalye,</p>

<p>Fair enough, I understand that the interview report would be significantly more detailed, and that posting too many details would compromise confidentiality. I'd agree that it would be virtually impossible to place someone to whom "friends" was an alien concept in the top 4% of a group that is already highly competitive; and MIT would not want an intellectual poseur ( . . . and convincing me is entirely beside the point).</p>

<p>Still, I could imagine a really strong applicant being temporarily thrown by the sequence of questions, if he actually did read physics books for fun, and if he mistakenly took "non-academic" to mean "not directly school-related," at first. tokenadult has already mentioned Einstein; and I'm pretty sure that Feynman read physics books for fun (or maybe he only wrote them for fun).</p>

<p>In fact, I think that many people well below that level do read physics books for fun. The book on Gravitation by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler (the big paperback with the black and white cover) first came out while I was a student. I bought one, and read it--admittedly, not the entire book, even yet--purely for fun, even though it's very far afield for me. I don't think I'm alone, because I saw the height of the stacks of Misner, Thorne and Wheeler in a bookstore at Berkeley and another in Cambridge (and how the height varied over time), and I'm reasonably certain that there weren't enough students of general relativity to buy all of them--and other friends of mine also have that book, including one who is a lawyer.</p>

<p>Ramanujans are so few and far between that it's presumably unnecessary to worry about the rejection of someone who sums infinite series for fun.</p>

<p>^^jessiehl,</p>

<p>Your point is a good one, valid for most (including me)--yet I'd have to say that among the friends of mine who work almost uninterruptedly, quite a few are faculty members at Caltech, Stanford, Berkeley . . . and MIT.</p>

34

<p>
[quote]
I'm pretty sure that Feynman read physics books for fun

[/quote]
</p>

<p>DEFINITELY. Some of the books that Feynman read as a high school student are named in Gleick's biography of Feynman. That's why I was so puzzled by the statement I quoted. I understood that the phrase "for fun" was left unexpressed, but anyone who reads biographies of scientists knows that they LIKE science.</p>

35

<p>look, college admission is so competitive nowadays I can't liken it to anything else but a beauty pageant. And it's hard to win a pageant with buck teeth. Not saying impossible, and certainly not under the impression that buck teeth get in the way of a great personality and doing good for the country. But not too many Miss Americas with buck teeth. Being socially handicapped and applying to college admissions is like having buck teeth. It's just not going to work in your favor. You might be great and all these colleges might be missing out, but they're probably not going to care, or remember, much less cry about it, when you win the Nobel Prize in 40 years.</p>

36

<p>lol, pebbles, no danger of my winning the Nobel Prize, though long past MIT admissions. Also, my teeth are pretty good! But don't a lot of MIT students read physics books for fun? If not during the academic year, then at least in the summer?</p>

37

<p>:P</p>

<p>Oh sure, this summer I lugged the full set of Feynman's lecture all the way out to California w/ me (I didn't actually end up getting through much of it but that's another story). It's just that even though nerdy is the new cool, and intellectual curiosity is certainly not frowned upon, it's pretty much expected that if you want to compete in the applicant pool, you better have something else, too. And the interview is pretty much your best shot and showing that "something else". If all you can talk about during your interview is how bookish you are, you pretty much blew it.</p>

38

<p>No doubt about any or all of this. Indeed, I have a fair sized library of recreational mathematics books, and I do read mathematics books for fun. I definitely do not hold against someone that they pursue academic pursuits for fun, indeed a great many candidates do. The problem occurs when that is the ONLY thing that a person does for fun. </p>

<p>MIT is a fairly stressful place. Nearly everyone who arrives at MIT as an undergraduate is near the top of their secondary school class. By definition, half of these bright, bright people will now find themselves in the bottom half of the class. That can be rough. Most MIT students do rely on the support of friends to get by. Indeed, the frosh curriculum is structured to encourage this. Most also find some other way to relax. Heck, 73% of students participate in the Intramural Sports program (which particularly given the stereotypical view of MIT students is a huge number).</p>

<p>So a student who has no other outlet is definitely at a significant disadvantage. Given the competitiveness of the applicant pool in general, and the international applicant pool in particular, any significant disadvantage is likely to result in a rejection letter. There are basically only two ways to overcome this:</p>

<p>1) Be a true genius. Not merely the extremely bright, top half of one percent, "average" MIT student, but rather another Einstein. Someone who is able to convey that level of scary-brightness may well get in despite "buck teeth".</p>

<p>2) Be a member of a family with a track record of donating buildings to institutions. Although MIT admissions is need-blind, I suspect (with no actual evidence at all) that along with nearly every other institution in the US, there has to be an exception for the families who regularly donate 100 million to good causes. Again, just being ordinarily extremely rich isn't good enough, nor is being able to make such a donation without a track record of actually doing so. Of course the sample size of such students is so small that it is hard to draw any statistically significant conclusions.</p>

39

<p>The thing about MIT is that you find out you actually suck at life here (relative to MIT). This is not done in a "aww... I only got 2nd in the class..." this is done in a "HOLY **** *** I got AVERAGE on this exam = C out of 300 people who took it (whom I thought I was way smarter than!)" manner. Students with big egos and little resilence will get utterly destroyed here very fast. Once you get over this, then you can start getting actually good at stuff, and by the time you graduate, you're actually pretty awesome!</p>

<p>But if all you do is read physics books, what happens when you get here and you find out that the kids accross the hall are 10x smarter than you without even trying, and that infact, it is not just that you're perseverance will carry you further, because they just always beat you without trying at all (there are many people like this here)?</p>

<p>Maybe that kid was an Einstein. Maybe not. But the point of a meritocracy is that they don't just take your word for it, they actually measure merit. If the kid plans to apply to MIT with the hopes that he'll do excellent at physics with nothing more than "I read physics books all day for fun and that's my life," I would expect things like IPhO medals and university level physics classes to appear on his transcript.</p>

40

<p>I think the further responses here will be helpful to the OP, who asked originally </p>

<p>


</p>

<p>The issue, of course, is how to show your being generally smart in the context of an applicant pool that includes a LOT of smart young people. As other replies have helpfully pointed out, there is also the issue of fitting in at MIT, however smart one is. Does this help you understand why MIT admissions are not deterministically based solely on your personal level of being generally smart?</p>