<p>Marilee Jones, MIT Dean of Admissions, has written a "guest MIT blog entry" tonight, musing on the state of college admissions (which she regularly talks about trying to change) and the concepts of resilience and initiation. I found it moving, wise, and exceedingly human, informed by her being both an admissions dean and the mother of a HS senior who is applying to colleges this year. I post the link here in the hopes of giving it a wider audience.</p>
<p>Thanks for sharing, it's great. I wish all the students who are waiting for decisions will read it.
Susan</p>
<p>Thanks mootmom - Ms. Jones is really something.<br>
Sometimes I regret the road not taken and then snap back to reality When I remember it wasn't my road. MIT has very special people there.</p>
<p>If she really wanted to make the process more transparent, she could start by publishing SAT distributions broken down by race and other special categories such as recruited athlete, legacy, etc. so that students could really evaluate proper reaches, matches, and safeties in their own specific applicant pool.</p>
<p>Interesteddad,</p>
<p>C'mon. </p>
<p>The international kids know the score- the best one or two from a given country might get in. Among national students...every kid should also see it as a reach. Exactly for whom would MIT be a safety??? Does it really help to know that if you are a URM/2400/Intel Finalist/first generation college student you are admitted at 40% or even 80%- how many of those are there? Recruited athletes??- this is MIT. Legacies, admitted at a higher rate because of the genetic predisposition towards math brilliance, etc...not because they are given a nod (and I say this as the mother of a child with multiple, truly unreal legacy connections and decent statistics and profile who was waitlisted..). </p>
<p>MIT is what it says it is- a meritocracy first and foremost. A kid earns their spot by being spectacular at something, probably in math or science, and evidently by demonstrating that when things are not perfect for them, that is okay, too....</p>
<p>MIT is a reach for everyone. Period. It is not a match or a safety for anyone. Period. IF you were in RSI, are an Intel Finalist, etc..okay, then you are one of those annointed few. Will having that information destress the general student applicant population- I think not...most kids who get into MIT that I know have not fit that profile(and I interviewed for 15 years....).</p>
<p>I am thrilled to hear her make these comments. I think it all needs to be said and as she says herself, some of it could only be said by someone experiencing the process as the compassionate parent of a beloved child. </p>
<p>Now, if your point is what can she- one person- albeit one person at a school of specific note- do to contribute to decompressing the process-I think she has done it (not decompressed the process- done what one person can)- she is inviting discussion. It has to start somewhere. </p>
<p>Maybe just once you can acknowledge that someone someplace other than Swarthmore can possibly do something right once in a while? It would certainly enhance the credibility of what you have to say, at least in my eyes!</p>
<p>We have done a huge disservice to the kids. We have them chasing after a false prize (the "which college do you go to" prize).</p>
<p>I thought what Marilee wrote was great. I really like the following paragraph...</p>
<p>"I know that doesn't make you feel any better, but it's why I get up every morning, to do my part to clean up the admissions process and take it back from the marketers and Big Business, to help return education to its rightful role in the scheme of things. I often tell my audiences, and usually they gasp, that "it's just college, nothing more, nothing less". We adults all know that where you go to college does not make your life in America - you make your life through your choices and intentions. This is not cliche... it is really true. The best people I have ever worked with - the smartest, the most creative, the most resourceful - did not go to Ivy League schools or the MITs of the world. Many went to schools you have never heard of."</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>wow! Thank you for posting this link- very moving and profound. </p>
<p>Everyone should read this, and perhaps do what I just did. Send it to your guidance department suggesting they print it and pass it around during these VERY STRESSFUL days. </p>
<p>Marilee sincerely writes from her HEART as a MOTHER, and someone who sits around that table, having to make those difficult decisions.</p>
<p>Re: Interested Dad, I have gleaned much from from your posts over the years, but your comments were harsh. Many could benefit from reading this; parents and students alike.</p>
<p>You don't want to be so biased for Swarthmore that you read like Par72...who has only one school on his radar screen :)</p>
<p>Thank you for posting this, mootmom. I think we all forget that admissions deans are moms and dads, too. I hope many kids get to read this so they can also touch the human side of parenting, even for the high and mighty.</p>
<p>I think things (i.e. comparisons/contrasts) are being read into ID's post that simply aren't there.</p>
<p>My wish for the Admissions process would be a way for kids to truly be able to identify THEIR top school choices....kids today are lobbing apps in everywhere....raising the overall number that need to be considered. Early decision shuts out financial considerations... early action is a start...but some sort of system for the RD cycle that would let hs kids identify their top schools in a similiar manner that medical school applicants have. At a minimum, it would provide a vehicle for a west coast kid to easily state they really do want to come east.... or vice versa. I think that kids should still be able to apply to 10 schools +/- , but the ability to state which of the 10 are their top 2 or top 3 would encourage kids to have a reach, but to also really lock in a match so the disasters are avoided..... perhaps have a new series of deadlines....all 123 choices have to have the app by 12/1 and schools have the ability to turn down a 123 position to a candidate's package that doesn't match up by 12/15 so they know to keep their application packages alive elsewhere....
by 12/1 the early readers at the top schools are done ... their own real early programs are now in the hands of the admin officers..... let the early readers do the 123 screenings.......</p>
<p>perhaps the contribution MIT can make to this process is a mathematical analysis of the statistics of these kids that are high flyers that are applying to Harvard, Yale, Princeton, MIT, Stanford, Dartmouth.... or
the high flyers that really want Williams or Amherst but can't commit to ED. How many cross admits are there really? Would that reduce the MIT EA pool to 1500, 123 round to 3000 and then, over time the rest of the RD round apps would diminish for the Top 50 or 100 schools but stay the same for all the other schools.....
May seem like I am babbling, but I know there are swaths at the data that would yield an approach that would make this seem less random.</p>
<p>"I know that doesn't make you feel any better, but it's why I get up every morning, to do my part to clean up the admissions process and take it back from the marketers and Big Business, to help return education to its rightful role in the scheme of things."</p>
<p>This goes back to a similar article about a return to normalcy in admissions and, to an extent, to high school preparation. It also echoes the essay by Fitzsimmons of Harvard advocating for kids to enjoy a "normal" life and stop accumulating the extradordinary awards. </p>
<p>Yet, I find parts of the this position to be disingenuous, especially the blaming of merketers and big business. Marketers - I assume MJ means high priced consultants= only exist because they can convince parents that the system CAN be gamed and that the system is opaque, except for the few "in-the-know." And whose fault is that? Nobody else than the college admission offciers. Why did hordes of Asians devote the young life of their kids to SAT ultra-prep and schlepping them to one solitary activity to another, making sure that Suzuki would be part of the "education" while shunning away from team sports, and arranging for friendly "internships" at hospitals? Because it damn worked so well! The admission responded to this type of candidates and accepted them so massively that it ended destroying any demographical integrity. </p>
<p>If the admission officers wnat a return to normalcy, they could start by STOPPING to reward the students who STILL seek to present the SUPER STUDENT pedigree. And, most importantly, to echo I-DAD, words, to start providing complete details about why kids get chosen or rejected. It would be easy for MIT to take the lead: don't they have the best mathematical minds to process the applications versus admission statistics. For instance, Rice CAN tell us the importance of ranking in admission by telling us EXACTLY what the percentage of vals get accepted, of sals, of numbers 3, of number 4 ... no suprise here. By the way, anyone who DOES not believe that ranking is extremely important shoulc check RIce numbers. </p>
<p>On the subject of financial aid, why do sschools insist in keeping the formulas of the Consensus Approach hidden? If the government can provide EVERY details of FAFSA, why does this group insists on keeping the data secretive? It seems to me that they could have learned from their previous bout with the antitrust laws! </p>
<p>While I applaud Mrs Jones for what she says, it would be a lot better to let us know what she DOES to change the system. The best way to root out the evils of admission she does recognize is to open her books a LITTLE bit and give specific examples why they select a goat herder of Nepal over someone from Andover or from Detroit's innercity!</p>
<p>I'll try to write a longer response later, but have this quick comment. Because so many of the applicants who apply to MIT are 'qualified' in the sense that they are capable of doing the intense work, what good would it do to know that "there was just something in Student A's essays that spoke to us, while we didn't get quite the same feeling from Student B's essays". From everything I've learned about their admissions process I think it often comes down to something as basic as this.</p>
<p>I like Marilee and her thoughtful musings on the college admissions process in which she is a major player. But spare me the wringing hands and elevated blood pressure experiences. </p>
<p>The fact of the matter is that all the angst Marilee describes and is evident in forums such as CC is totally self-imposed. It is a choice that the student and/or parent makes. And in my opinion, it is a choice based on the false assumption that a fulfilling college experience, a quality education and a successful career trajectory will be only be assured by attending an "elite" college.</p>
<p>And keep in mind that the stress felt by many families at this time is merely a culmination of many years of singleminded efforts to compile the perfect resume intended to wow the likes of Ms. Jones.</p>
<p>There is another way that is stress free, is in many ways more fulfilling and harkens to the days that Marilee fondly reflects on when she was a youth. And she didnt turn out too bad did she?</p>
<p>I'm with over30. Does it help a rejected candidate to know that although he had near perfect stats, his teacher recommendations made him sound robotic, whereas a kid with slightly lower numbers who was described as a warm and kind friend with a passion for science but who loved to read fiction was accepted? </p>
<p>Parents who think they can game the system end up torturing their kids. Would it help after the fact for the parents to realize that their obsession with grades made their kid an unhappy HS kid vs a kid who was allowed to follow their own interests? How is this helpful? All this does is create next year's admissions nightmare.... every kid claiming that they read Tolstoy in their spare time and that they value their friends more than their grades...</p>
<p>I think parents and kids read what they want to into the published information and no amount of transparency is going to change that. However, I agree with Interestdad that MJ should do a better job of publishing the academic stats of MIT's recruited athletes. We'll all sleep better at night knowing their SAT scores.</p>
<p>My understanding was that MIT is one of the few schools that really doesn't recruit many athletes at all. I assume they must search for some kids to field the "big" sports, but for the lesser sports, there is not much, if any, recruiting done.</p>
<p>The college admission process is just little league baseball all over again.</p>
<p>When I coached little league it was very obvious who the best players were.
It was also obvious who the worst players were.</p>
<p>Then it were those in the middle.</p>
<p>Who were taken from the middle? </p>
<p>Those that I thought had potential. Those that were easy to work with. Those that didn't have parents who were pr****. Nice kids that I wouldn't mind spending time with.</p>
<p>It wasn't an exact science and parents complained and complained.</p>
<p>Now it is years later and what do I see. </p>
<p>Out of 100+ kids, 2 are still playing in high school. All this commotion, energy, and negative vibrations. What a waste of time. Looking back. It just wasn't important.</p>
<p>Just like the college admission process.</p>
<p>What else?</p>
<p>It was never about the kids.</p>
<p>"Does it help a rejected candidate to know that although he had near perfect stats, his teacher recommendations made him sound robotic, whereas a kid with slightly lower numbers who was described as a warm and kind friend with a passion for science but who loved to read fiction was accepted?"</p>
<p>That is not the point. When admissions numbers run into single digits, many decisions have to be made that may sound arbitrary. Most everyone can understand that Harvard only has 1,600 spots and than 24,000 may apply. However, one has to look at the combined efforts that were made by the 24,000 candidates to get the coveted spots to see how imbalanced this situation has become. </p>
<p>To keep things simple, just ask yourself how many AP constitute a n acceptable number? Just ask yourself what kind of EC are EXPECTED from candidates at our most prestigious schools to be ... simply competitive? How far above 4.00 does a GPA have to be? How far above 1400 does the SAT have to be? How close to perfection do the SAT subjects have to be? </p>
<p>And that is exactly what IS wrong with the system. 150,000 students apply to the Ivy League alone, and each one of them believes to be qualified. However, whom do we trust to ascertain the level of "needed" qualifications? Mostly to hearsay ... and this hearsay forces many to follow a path of "it is never enough," In the meantime, the super selective school rightly admit the best candidates to fill their vision of a perfect class, but also tend to reward the students who did the most. Yet, they publish pages after pages to DENY that such is the case. They advocate for a return to normalcy, but reward the candidates who follow the exact opposite path.</p>
<p>What would I like to see: inasmuch as Stanford says their students present an average of 5 AP, why not go a step farther. TELL students that the school will only look at the BEST 4 AP and will discard ALL the remaining from the file. Want to see students taking 3 SAT and no more: penalize students after the 3 tests by applying a dimninishing scale or discarding any tests after the 4th one. Why would this be so hard ... after all they put limitations on letters of recommendations, so why not limit AP to a REASONABLE level. And, no matter if this offends someone with 10-15 AP, such a number is RIDICULOUS. In the same vein, schools offering AP at the freshman level are absolutely misguided ... they should instead spend their efforts to ensure that everyone who graduates is able to write and read at a college entry level -which they do NOT accomplish by a WIDE margin. </p>
<p>This is why it is important to know more details about admissions. Without more information flowing from the schools and clear evidence that THEY do what they profess to do, we as a group of speculating applicants will continue to seek perfection and obsessively pursue to become perfect candidates and put together a r</p>
<p>Idad - To MIT's credit, athletics has nothing to do with admissions. The coaches don't even talk to admissions to keep the process pure. So, I think it is fair to say 'recruited athletes' are not at any advantage. "Reclaim the Game" summarizes admission practices for athletes and stated MIT's policy.</p>
<p>Sorry Xiggi... the schools already do this and the parents and kids ignore the evidence and information.</p>
<p>The year my son applied to MIT we attended an admissions session and were told, "it's not the quantity of things like AP's and extracurriculars, it's the quality." My kid took 5 AP's in total. But-- tell an out of control ambitious parent that AP's are a good thing, and they won't stop at 5.... if the school offers 15 they'll want the kid taking all 15, and no amount of speechifying by the schools will change this. MIT makes it clear that the humanities requirements of the school are rigorous, and are required to graduate, and yet every year even at my kids HS kids who admit that they hate to read books, don't read the newspaper every day, and slept through their history classes are shocked when they get rejected from MIT. The parents accost me in the supermarket-- "My kids been programming computers since he was 8-- why was he rejected?" Well, I have no idea why the kid was rejected, but MIT gets thousands of applications from kids who love to program computers but don't read books.... and frankly, that's not the ticket to admissions let alone graduating. Just read the catalogue and look at the requirements to graduate....MIT is pretty transparent about what it takes to succeed there, and why would they admit kids to what is after all a university if the kid doesn't like to read? Get real!</p>
<p>The schools practically beg kids not to submit extraneous information but every year we read of kids on this board asking how to best showcase their stunning talent in poetry or clog dancing or whatever.... and then parents are aggravated that the schools don't take the time to watch the CD's of the clog dancing performance.</p>
<p>I see no evidence except here in the minds of the conspiracy theorists that the elite colleges "reward the students who do the most" in Xiggi's words. Quite the contrary. The kids we've met at MIT are exceptional... but none of them spent their HS years obsessively taking standardized tests or building the worlds biggest and fattest and most fatuous application.</p>
<p>The colleges continue to maintain that they're looking for teenagers with strong academic preparation, evidence of achievement outside the classroom, and strong evidence of intellectual curioustiy. Xiggi-- why would a kid read that and try to present themselves as a Nobel prize winner? And why should that kid be shocked when their efforts back-fire? Imagine how the adcoms feel about all these pompous 17 year olds describing themselves as Renaissance Men and Women?</p>
<p>You guys are taking my comment too literally. It was directed at Marilee Jones, generic elite college admissions dean, not Marilee Jones, MIT admissions dean.</p>
<p>She complains about the pressure on her daughter from the admissions process. Well guess what? It would be a lot less pressure packed if students could actually identify reach, match, and safety schools. Students would have a much better chance of doing that if they actually saw the admissions stats for their particular "slot" in a "slotted" system.</p>
<p>For example, the acceptance rates for Asian-American students appear to vary considerably, even among seemingly similar elite colleges and universities. Wouldn't it be a big help for an Asian-American high school student trying to put together a stress-reducing well-targeted college list to see those admissions rates?</p>