Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Master0fBalances Well, it's nice for you that you were able to move through your high school years doing apparently whatever you wanted and still get into MIT. Apparently, you don't place that much stock in it. |
The thing is, what I *wanted* was apparently characteristic of people who do well at MIT. I'm playing my own flute here a bit, but admissions didn't make a mistake in that regard.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Master0fBalances Does this mean that those of us who have set going to MIT as our goal and do value the college experience there above other pursuits should be punished for trying to do what should have gotten us admitted, except for the apologist revisions to the admissions process at MIT? It's disgusting that this seems to be the case. |
Please go back and re-read my post. I stated clearly that if grades/scores/tests etc ARE enough to determine whether or not a student does well at MIT, then by all means, admit him. But it's a mistake to use them as the ONLY criteria, which implies that they are the ONLY indicators of such. The fallacy you commit is claiming to know what
should have gotten you admitted. Rather than thinking in terms of numbers, ask yourself: why do we typically trust those numbers? What are they indicative of? Is there any other thing which might serve as a good indicator of those same qualities?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Master0fBalances You set up an immense logical fallacy (which the admissions office seems to buy into as well) in assuming that the only two choices for a high school student are doing busywork or ditching school and going into the "real world" and self-studying. Could I have gone to a bookstore and purchased an entire undergraduate physics curriculum to teach myself? Of course. However, perhaps I thought that I would be better off to actually engage in being taught by a competent professional. |
Not at all. In fact, I explicitly state otherwise:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Me It involves a desire to learn, ability to work together, etc. etc. Grades/awards/scores are a *representation* of these ideals, and often COME with them, but you can't make the mistake of assuming they're the *only* measure of these things, or even the BEST measure. You can't apply a cookie cutter standard to everyone and take the people who make the best cookies. If grades and the like are sufficient to determine a student's potential to succeed at MIT, then great. But there are *other ways* of determining that potential to succeed, and it varies for each student. That's the point of a holistic process, that's what it recognizes that the more traditional system fails to do so. |
See? I'm saying you should realize that grades are a good way of determining whether or not a student should be at MIT,
but are not the only way or even the best way. The holistic approach acknowledges this, and acknowledges the power of grades in determining good applicants, but realizes there are other measures to judge a candidate by. The numerocentric approach fails to recognize the entire latter category.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Master0fBalances I shudder to think of what MIT's graduating class will look like in a decade if they continue on your illustrated path of admitting students who ignore teachers and work and don't care about getting into college. |
I can imagine the horror wrought by admitting students who worked hard for their education in addition to those who receive excellent educations. MIT isn't some prize for you to win like every other award you may have on your shelf, it's a place where you can continue caring for your education. You seem to think otherwise, and I can only point out the mistake here.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Master0fBalances Quote: |
Originally Posted by Olo I know a few other people like me here. I admit that we may be "the exceptions to the rule", my my entire point is that if there are exceptions, then clearly the rule isn't that good. | Also, this is just a ridiculous statement to make. |
Yes. Let's just admit people based on heuristics, rather than actually acknowledging that human beings are individuals and differ from each other significantly.
Also: in the future, please try actually reading what I write rather than stating I made assumptions and fallacies I explicitly addressed.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Panasonic Olo, did you make that block of code? if so, that's sweet. |
Yes, though thinking again, I should have done it in Scheme.
EDIT: I just noticed that block of code has a typo. Ironically, omitted parentheses. Curse you Scheme! Also removed prior edit...