Olo

That's the thing. Anyone upset that they weren't admitted despite doing things the "right way" makes a large presumption in believing they know what the "right way" is. Every school has a different opinion on the "right way." Admission isn't an award or a right, it's a privilege. I had the privilege of being accepted by MIT and many other schools. I also had to face the reality of being rejected by other schools. Very few people will be qualified under the admissions standards of every school they apply to, simply because those admission standards vary.

EDIT: One quick thing...

See, my entire argument was centered around the fact that I do value the college experience here. In fact, I'll go so far as to say I value it more because of the unique experiences I've had. There's a lot to do at MIT and I think the one thing my application demonstrated, more than anything else, is that I will take advantage of all of it, rather than just go to lecture, do psets, repeat. You can get an education anywhere, how does MIT know you'll make the MOST of yours?

molliebatmit

Okey doke, here's the official word on MIT alums currently in the admissions office, direct from the source, not from concentrate:

• Stu, class of '86, course 2
• Matt, class of '00, course 15
• McGreggor, class of '00, course 7 and course 21A
• Marisa, class of '02, course 6
• Mikey, class of '05, course 7

Marilee does not have an MBA from Sloan; she has a bachelor's and a master's in biology from RPI.

MIT faculty members who have been involved in the undergraduate admissions process in the past few years include Wolfgang Ketterle (Nobel Laureate), Sheila Widnall (former Secretary of the Air Force), and Paul Gray.

pebbles

Sure, having been deferred and then waitlisted is most often enough to make you bitter about a school. But I don't understand the logic of jumping from that to suddenly hating the admissions policies of a school and feeling personally wronged. Do you think MIT should either Accept or Reject all Early Action Applicants? 300 acceptees and everyone else doesn't get a second look with the Regular Decision applicants? Or do you think MIT should abolish the waitlist? No way of assuring a consistent number of students per class (classes and labs and resources and dorms kind of depend on that)?

Or do you think MIT should set up a policy that all deferred applicants should be rejected instead of waitlisted? I thought the whole point was that whether you were deferred or not does not play a role in your decision (in fact, I'm not sure if they even retain this information). Would you rather have been rejected?


Then don't accept a place on the waitlist.



It just makes no sense to me. Getting deferred and then waitlisted makes you pretty unlucky (a couple of my highschool friends went through that with their first choice schools), but it doesn't make you a victim.

LauraN

I also don't understand the hatred directed specifically at MIT. College admissions in general sucks, and it takes a long time. If you have any actual suggestions as to how to make the process move faster, trust me, I'm sure the admissions counselors would love to hear it.

Ben Golub

But there is valuable information in the fact that so much anger is directed at MIT in particular about these things, and not at, say, Harvard, which is more coveted and has admissions policies at least as opaque. collegealum said it better than I can, but people have an idea that MIT is a bastion of intellectual purity (and people don't have any such ideas about Harvard or Yale). When MIT values someone who dances and writes wonky political essays over someone who is clearly a much smarter mathematician, MIT looks flaky and dumb -- basically like Brown or something. I think MIT becoming Brown (or even Harvard) makes people sad.

Also the fact that MIT is so dishonest is frustrating. People have no problem with Harvard because they basically have signs on their foreheads indicating that their admissions office is for sale. But MIT people will do the most awkward and ridiculous dance rather than simply admit that they give advantages based on skin color and gender to balance the class.

I think people generally expect less nonsense from MIT and are disappointed when in practice MIT is becoming just the same as any other self-serving huge school, except less straightforward about it.

pebbles

I concede that there is a point being made about MIT's old image vs. its new admissions policies. But it's the same tired point that has been explained and debated for 17 pages. And I don't understand your claims that people consider Harvard and Yale bogus. I don't think I've ever seen anyone (ever) shrugged off because they went to "Harvard. pfft." Sure, their admissions policies are hard to grasp, but they're still top of the top in terms of reputation, student caliber, etc. I don't see anything wrong with what they are doing, and they're certainly not suffering for it. I think that's the inherent point the opposing is trying to make, that yeah, okay, things change, but what's the big deal? The change hasn't hurt MIT, it's made its students happier and its community more lively. It has its merits.

And MIT is dishonest? Compared to Harvard? When exactly did Harvard come out and say "We favor black people."? Come on, Ben. Even if that's exactly how admissions policies worked (blatant favoritism-- you know my opinion about that...), you're smart enough to know WHY it wouldn't work (on any political or social level) for a college to just out and SAY that. I don't believe Harvard has ever ever made any statement to that effect. In fact, I believe everything every AA college has ever said about AA is the exact same thing. It's so uniform it's practically scripted. And it's the only way to go.


WAIT, my original point though, to which Laura responded, had nothing to do with all this. I was just wondering why he antagonized the MIT admissions department for routine admissions procedures. You don't want to stand for the possibility of being deferred then waitlisted? Then don't apply to any college early and don't accept spots on waitlists. Easy.

CAdream

"there is valuable information in the fact that so much anger
is directed at MIT in particular"

Thanks, Ben, yes.

It doesn't come from "hating MIT". It comes from really loving MIT.
The alums I talk to shake their heads sadly at the stuff that comes
out of the admissions office. The two really top girls in math and
science that I know hesitate to apply. Are they really producing a happier,
more lively community? Are they really trying to track satisfaction,
or are they just winging it?

It's not just disgruntled applicants.

sakky

Well, let me put it to you this way. I know plenty of people who basically programmed their whole life to getting into Harvard...and didn't get in. Heck, many of them didn't even get onto the wait-list .

I said it before, I'll say it again. I don't know why we're singling out MIT when MIT admissions are still arguably more meritocratic than that of peer schools like the Ivies or Stanford. The notion that MIT's admissions may be less meritocratic than they were in the past seems irrelevant because nobody is talking about using a time machine to try to get admitted to MIT in a previous point in time. All you can do is try to get admitted to MIT today vs. getting admitted to a peer school like an Ivy or Stanford today .

Ben Golub

I agree that the guy who was deferred and then waitlisted doesn't have a particular gripe against MIT. But the fact that basically no other school has 17-page anti-admissions threads says that the frustration over routine (which is everywhere) is here being mixed with frustration over substance (which seems unique to MIT).

As for honesty, I agree that the variation in what admissions officials say is tiny tiny. But, here's something from Bill Fitzsimmons (on another issue) MIT never talks about "tip" factors, as far as I know, though it's clear as day they're there. MIT is too pure and person-focused for tip factors, except not really.

As for comparing MIT now to MIT in the past, I agree it's not like you can apply to MIT in 1960, but it's sad to see a place that used to do it right mess up. We would be more upset if the US slipped into military dictatorship than if Cuba did, only because Cuba's already there.

Ben Golub

Re pebbles on Harvard.

I know people who turned down Harvard at various stages in their academic careers (top to bottom) at least in part for that reason. An important subset of people will always have more respect for the old MIT way of doing things and will value places that haven't flaked out. It's just not true that Harvard doesn't pay costs for its bogus way of doing some things. Yes, Harvard is good, but it could be better if it cut through some of the crap.

MIT's grasping imitation of Harvard reminds me of the way some people try to get into an elite social clique by imitating the worst habits of its leaders. That's just not very classy.

sakky

Look, whenever any university changes, some old alums are going to be disgruntled. That's just the nature of the game. For example, Harvard is more meritocratic than it was in the past, and in particular, admits far fewer subpar legacy admits, and that has served to tick off a lot of old Harvard alumni, especially those alumni whose kids now can't get into Harvard. I gather from talking to people that both MIT and Caltech are probably easier schools than they were in the past and that has also served to greatly annoy the alumni of both schools. As MIT has boosted its offerings of 'softer' social sciences, I'm sure that that has annoyed some old alumni who wanted MIT to remain a purely technical school. Heck I once ran into an old alumni who was criticizing why MIT even bothers to teach a soft subject like political science, and even advocated that the department should never have been started and should be shut down, even though the department is now the #10 ranked graduate poli-sci department in the country.


Look, I agree that alumni are stakeholders in a university. The problem is that they are conservative stakeholders by their very nature, and hence tend to be forces that serve to impede change. You have to balance the interests of old stakeholders like the alumni with that of future stakeholders such as the future students. Anytime you ever do anything different, you tend to tick off the old alumni. But what's the alternative? Never changing at all? Always doing exactly the same thing over and over again?

Well, speaking of preferring somebody who 'writes wonky political essays' over a clearly much smarter mathematician, what's wrong with that? Like I said above, MIT is trying to build up a strong political science department, and has largely succeeded in doing so. But you can't do that solely by bringing in strong poli-sci faculty. Ultimately, you have to also bring in appropriate students who are good at political science. Hence, that inevitably means that you will have to admit some students who, as you say, are good at writing wonky political essays over students who are good at math.

And in fact, MIT already uncontroversially engages in such a policy. Many (probably most) MIT Ph.D. poli-sci students are rather mediocre at math. For example, if I took some random MIT poli-sci Ph.D. students and pitted them against some random MIT undergrads (from any major) in a math competition, I'm quite sure that those Ph.D. students would lose miserably. But MIT admitted them anyway. At the same time, I'm sure the MIT math department rejects plenty of brilliant candidates for their PhD program. Hence, one could argue that perhaps MIT should shift resources such that the poli-sci department will admit fewer graduate students so that the math department can admit more.

The bottom line is, if MIT wants to become a powerhouse in political science, MIT will inevitably have to admit some students who are strong in political science at the expense of other areas. That's inevitable - as many of the best poli-sci students and best poli-sci professors at any of the top programs (Harvard, Stanford, etc.) are probably mediocre at math. That is, of course, presuming that you actually agree that MIT should be trying to become a major political-science school. If you actually believe that MIT shouldn't be trying to do this at all, and perhaps should shut down the poli-sci department entirely, then that's an entirely different discussion. But if that's what you believe, then you should just say so. Then at least we'd all know where you stand.

You just gave away the store right there, as you just admitted that Harvard's admissions policies are at least as opaque, but are also more coveted. Ask yourself - why exactly is Harvard more coveted? Maybe it is because their admissions policies gives them that added mystique, i.e. that nobody knows exactly what you need to do to get into Harvard, and that mystery adds to the allure? Furthermore, if MIT wants to compete toe-to-toe with Harvard, then maybe MIT feels that they have to match Harvard's admissions policies. Right now, Harvard wins all cross-admit battles with all schools.

Look, the truth is, from a prestige standpoint, all schools (MIT and Caltech included) play second-fiddle to Harvard. MIT and Caltech have played the 'purely meritocratic game' for decades, and Harvard hasn't, and look where it's gotten them. Like it or not, purely meritocratic admissions policies don't get you to #1. Similarly, like it or not, in life, the most meritocratic idea doesn't always win. You can design and develop the best product, and still fail in the market to a worse product that is promoted better or strategically positioned better. You can be the most productive worker in your company, and lose your job anyway because you lost out on some internal political batte. You can have the best ideas, and never have them implemented because somebody else more forcefully argues for a worse idea. Like it or not, that's life.

If MIT wants to make a serious run at Harvard, then MIT will need to make changes from the way it used to operate in the past. You never get better unless you change, yet change inevitably means ticking off people who liked the old ways better. But the alternative is to never change at all.

sakky

I would actually argue that having a long,multi-paged thread about a subject indicates that the subject is up for debate. After all, if everybody really agreed that MIT was doing something inappropriate, then there would be no debate about it, and hence, this thread would be mighty short. It is precisely because we don't seem to agree is what makes the thread so long.

InquilineKea

*cough* Byerly *cough*

==

Anyways, even if the schools diversity, can't they be known for making their social sciences more rigorous (as in, built on models that try to predict before making flawed assumptions? - this has really hurt the reputation of a lot of social science fields) than average? Isn't Chicago somewhat known for this?

CAdream

I disagree that alums are a conservative force dragging down
innovation and change. MIT alums are by and large pleased with
the good things going on at MIT.

This thread isn't called why Open Course Ware is a complete joke...

or

Why MIT research is a complete joke...

MIT is still a research powerhouse, East Campus pranks continue to
be funny and annoying, Open Course Ware is brilliant and probably
WILL change the world. So many things about MIT are great and only
getting better. But admissions is a joke.

For example, from the blog about "the match": MIT is looking for
"good people" who "lobby to change "bad policy" and will "make the
world a better place". Really. This is so devoid of content. It's
marketing crap. Like the bad people who make bad policy and only
care about themselves are going to other universities? Because MIT
admissions can see into your heart?

This is feel-good slop and turns people off.

simfish

The comment towards "sick days/bad days" was unrelated to the rest of my argument, I know. It's just another possible explanation for isolated B's. My argument was that in math/science classes, isolated B's should not be treated as too much of a hindrance (but in the MIT applicant pools, people's math/science GPAs only really differ on whether an applicant has isolated B's or not). Now, on the other hand, if the student has more B's, then the argument fails to apply. Then another argument needs to be made if and only if the student has demonstrated his potential via other means (for the students who have nothing else, they must go by grades/test scores).

There is a logical fallacy that many people make - that grades should matter just because people are "supposed" to get high grades. But in reality, grades have fiat value. The only reason why they matter is that they provide a means of comparison between students who can't distinguish themselves in other ways (in other words, the vast majority of students in the US). You can use grades to compare between two mediocre students who want to go to a college.

But if a student has demonstrated exceptional achievement elsewhere, has put a lot of hard work and effort into it (thus demonstrating that he has a good work ethic, just applied elsewhere) and has lots of B's, do those B's say anything about the student's intelligence or work ethic? No if (a) the student has demonstrated aptitude by other means and if (b) the student has demonstrated that he has worked persistently on another endeavour. Since aptitude and work ethic can be demonstrated by other means by certain groups of individuals, they have no need to show their aptitude and work ethic by means of grades.

Yes, most intelligent students will be able to finish math/science busywork in a limited amount of time (unless it's for a stupid "project"). Nonetheless, as I previously said, time is AT a premium during high school. Maybe the student CAN put off studying while he has to work on his Intel Project, and then study for the course later. At least the AP exams don't force you to go at a pre-determined pace. And apparently in any case, high school grades are usually meaningless compared with AP exam grades since (I'm making an assumption) more people get A's in their high school courses than they get 5's on the exam (this may be incorrect for the Calculus BC exam - with 40% of students getting a 5 though).

Even then, many math/science classes have alternative methods of grading. Some people don't need to work through 10s of homework problems to actually learn the material. However, schools often assume that they do.

One of the problems is inherent within the educational system at hand - the assumption that all students should learn "material X" in "Y amount of time", when in reality, people can learn the same material at widely difference paces of time.

On a side note, IF colleges change their admissions policies to become somewhat more holistic - then it may encourage students to actually pursue studying/extra-curriculars on their own - studying that can cause a dent in someone's GPA (like it did for Olo's). Those students are pursuing something that they can actually remember. As we know all so well - many students forget a huge amount of material from their classes - even the better students among them. Of what use is History if there is another way that one can communicate one's thoughts? Of what use is literature? They're often taught to the neglect of the other social sciences. Not only that, but even when the social sciences are taught - they're taught at very low levels that would bore any student who should be capable of MIT/Caltech. If you want some backup for that statement of mine - just go and read Mankiw's latest economics book, or the latest undergrad psychology book.

But what if college admissions policies are purely stats-based? Then it will discourage people from actually choosing to do anything outside of school. Yes, the internally motivated people will find means to pursue their passion otherwise. But a lot of people were initially externally motivated to learn more about the field, before they developed any internal motivation in the field. Math competitions are a form of external motivation, but yet people still gain a lot out of them.

The fact of the matter is - colleges can modify student behavior by changing the standards of acceptance, so to speak.