<p>this is getting too analytical…</p>
<p>I’d think the philosophy of a school should be to accept a class that will fully milk its resources. This simultaneously means the class will as a whole benefit the most from the school, and the school will from the class. The question is determining a good answer to this delicate question. I’m for one a huge disbeliever in essays unless they’re straightforward, somewhat open-ended, and informational. Plus, I believe there is no substitute for actually talking to someone and seeing where the conversation takes one (and include academic conversation in there).</p>
<p>I also think saying “academically qualified” := “able to do the work” is so vague that it’s borderline useless as a characterization. I sure hope whoever’s using this terminology has a clear idea of what “able to do the work” means, and why it should mean that.</p>
<p>I hate to burst your bubble Piper and Mikalye, but I’ve met quite a few under qualified (relative to my standards, of course this can vary from person to person) people here at MIT who are struggling drastically; I know, because I’ve helped some of them. The admissions staff is not all-knowing :P</p>
<p>Well, I’ve met quite a few upper-middle-class students who can’t stand being not being Special Snowflakes anymore, so they get depressed when they get their first C and end up failing their classes. The URMs I’ve met seem to at least take their failures in stride.</p>
<p>@k4r3n2: Yes, as have I. Notice I didn’t distinguish between URMs and non-URMs in my previous post…thanks for jumping to conclusions though. I was merely making a comment on how the admissions process is not infallible, there are those regardless of URM status who will get in that are somewhat under qualified in my opinion</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>(1) Struggle does not indicate being underqualified.<br>
(2) My two years of experience directly contradict what a Random Person On The Internet (with just under a term of MIT under his/her belt) is saying. If you think you’re bursting my bubble, you take yourself too seriously ;)</p>
<p>Oh god, Admissions makes mistakes sometimes?!! YOU MEAN THEY’RE HUMAN?!!</p>
<p>Well, consider <em>my</em> bubble burst.</p>
<p>Technically from a credit and requirement standpoint I have a year and a half under my belt 
And in my opinion, struggling can be an indication of being under qualified when it’s struggling with things that I saw that, also in my opinion, were easy to understand at the time. Yes, I do take myself quite seriously :)</p>
<p>I never said they weren’t human, in fact that’s the exact point I was attempting to make…so thank you, I guess? :)</p>
<p>Jashper - </p>
<p>More credit potentially means a quicker path to graduation - not more time spent at MIT. If you’re one of those people who will try to use sophomore standing as a pickup line, I’m going to be amused :)</p>
<p>“Easy” is not only a matter of aptitude, but a matter of background. You’ve indicated your superior background (due to your own pursuit, sure). Your background is not the same as everyone else’s.</p>
<p>Yes Piper, I realize this, I was just trying to be amusing. I understand that I can not match your one year of already being at MIT. I’m honestly just responding out of amusement at this point, I don’t actually really care about this; it’s a good way of procrastinating for studying for my 18.03 final haha</p>
<p>But Piper, sophomore standing means you’re an upperclassman, right?</p>
<p>(Two years, for the sake of accuracy. I was originally 2011 and left partway through a term for family reasons :D)</p>
<p>Ahh, sorry, my bad, hope all is well for you now. And thanks for the tip with the pickup line, I’m going to have to use that now ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think this is a good message to keep in mind. It is fine admitting someone knowing they may struggle, but will milk their time at the school for what it’s worth. Nevertheless, I am a skeptic as to how much can legitimately be extrapolated from an application about how someone will adapt to the times. The only definitive tool I can see to be put to use is some play with statistics.</p>
<p>I’m hard pressed to understand how the admissions office bears any of the responsibility for a struggling student. The student applied. With Open Course Ware available the student can’t claim to be ignorant of the pace at which MIT courses progress. Everyone feels bad for the struggling student, but you can’t really blame the admissions office for their pain.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>extravehicular activities, huh?</p>
<p>
I think this is important – for the most part, high school students do not exhibit enough of a range of qualifications for their potential to be accurately determined. The situation gets better when undergraduates apply to graduate school, and even better when grad students apply for postdocs and postdocs apply for faculty positions, because the distinction between run-of-the-mill candidates and truly exceptional candidates is more clear-cut.</p>
<p>So what the admissions office is doing is selecting from among a pool of candidates, some of whom have qualifications overselling their true potential, and some of whom have qualifications underselling their true potential, but all of whose qualifications are within a fairly narrow range.</p>
<p>I thought of this the other day when reading a feature in the New York Times Magazine, which mentions a recent study where randomly promoting employees was found to be a better strategy for a company than promoting based on presumed merit ([here](<a href=“The Ninth Annual Year in Ideas - Magazine - NYTimes.com”>The Ninth Annual Year in Ideas - Magazine - NYTimes.com)</a>).
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yep, all’s well, thank goodness :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>AAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH.</p>
<p>(I do know of someone who tried to pick up a friend with his sophomore standing. It’s a hilarious story :D)</p>
<p>A lot of the discussions overlooked one thing: the admissions officers are doing good job, but not perfect job, in selecting students. They take quite bit of risks (i.e., uncertainties) about future of applicants. On one hand, it’s frustrating to see great candidates rejected (many then get accepted at other top schools), on the other hand, one needs recognize that whether or not getting into a top school such as mit is not that a big deal. If a student is indeed a great achiever, then no matter which school he/she goes, he/she will succeed. In another word, a “top” school become “top” mostly because it has attained a critical mass of the most brilliant students whose successes later on lend credits to their school. It’s time to dispel the myth of the so-called “top” schools.</p>