MIT Admissions Have Become A Complete Joke - Page 22

simfish · 04-22-2007, 10:41 PM

Quote:

"Uh, it seems to me that the major difference is quite obvious - and in fact is consonant with the libertarian philosophy that you yourself espoused. Specifically, you don't have to take AP Calculus if you want to end up as a college English major, even at a prestige college. I agree with you that many do, but you don't have to. Similarly, the future scientist doesn't have to take AP history or English. It's free choice. "

Well, then, how about this? Perhaps "elite" institutions should start granting AP credit in the humanities. Problem solved.

Zahavi's handicap principle applies to AP Calculus w.r.t the Humanities, but not to Humanities w.r.t. math. The reason is that not everyone in the Humanities can do AP Calculus, but most people in math can do Humanities. A variant of Zahavi's handicap principle has been discussed earlier in this thread (how a degree is a useful signal of a person's ability, even if that the person learns little information in the university that actually turns out useful in his career). I don't think a lot of Humanities majors really appreciate having to go through calculus (though a few might), seeing that they have an alternative option to take a course in logic once they enter college.

phuriku · 04-22-2007, 10:41 PM

"Yeah, please, let's not get distracted from the other useful wanking that's going on just because the mumbling you did about females and minorities being stupider than whites and males didn't actually manage to slip under the radar."

If you want to talk about it, PM me (AIM's fine). I'm not going to argue this out on CC. I'll get flamed.

"Also phuriku, I find it interesting how we both tend to edit our long-ish posts after we post them (whereas others don't). I wonder it it's due to some similarity in thinking style."

After looking for a long time at your name, I realized who you are. You're InquilineKea, the person I talked to about a month ago! Of course we think alike.

molliebatmit · 04-22-2007, 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phuriku

Uhh, yeah. And how feasible is 7 courses in a semester? Where I'm headed, anything above 4 classes per quarter is deemed insane, and I doubt anything's different at MIT.

I took 6.75 classes two semesters in a row, and I'm even female. Hey, if you want to do it, you can do it.

sakky · 04-23-2007, 02:33 AM

Quote:

"Uh, it seems to me that the major difference is quite obvious - and in fact is consonant with the libertarian philosophy that you yourself espoused. Specifically, you don't have to take AP Calculus if you want to end up as a college English major, even at a prestige college. I agree with you that many do, but you don't have to. Similarly, the future scientist doesn't have to take AP history or English. It's free choice. "

Well, then, how about this? Perhaps "elite" institutions should start granting AP credit in the humanities. Problem solved.

And you think they don't? Seems to me that most offer some sort of method to get some sort of credit or advanced standing for AP humanities (especially for foreign languages).

http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~fdo/publ...edstanding0607
/general.htm#3
http://www.yale.edu/yalecollege/publ.../criteria.html
http://registrar.stanford.edu/pdf/AP_Chart_2007-08.pdf
http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pub/ap/table.htm

Quote:

Well, the problem here is that we're not speaking of the bottom 90 or so percent of kids. We're talking (at least I'm talking) about kids at MIT and Caltech, who are probably all 99th percentile or higher (with some obvious exceptions) in terms of intelligence in relation to the American populace. And these students should be able to move beyond the failure of their school system.

I talked to a person in 9th grade who changed my entire way of thinking. I wanted to learn physics but I kept saying that my school was awful at physics and that even if they let me take a course (which they wouldn't allow until 11th grade), it would be useless and I wouldn't learn anything. This person's response was simple: "If you want to learn physics, learn it by yourself. You can't blame the failure of your school system for your own failure. Your education is your own responsibility." And it's absolutely true. If they're smart enough to get into MIT, then they should be smart enough to educate themselves in general logic, writing, whatever. Period.

But that statement is not relevant to the discussion. Keep in mind the backdrop of our discussion. You stated that it is silly for US universities to enact breadth requirements, when European universities don't. The response to that is that European universities don't enact breadth requirements because they don't need to, as the admittedly better European high school systems do it for them by forcing everybody to demonstrate broad knowledge before they can even graduate. Your response to that was that US high schools also attempt to enact breadth requirements through a required sequence of courses. And then my response is that those 'requirements' are basically so loose as to not even really exist, because like I said, you don't exactly have to be a genius to pass, or even to do well, in most US high school classes.

Hence, this US high school 'breadth requirement' isn't a true requirement in any practical sense. I've known Americans who have taken 4 years of high school history who, frankly, know practically nothing about history. Like I said, US high schools do not enforce high standards. So we are left with the situation that was stated before - that US colleges have to pick up the pieces.

Your foray into the notion that people can choose to learn subjects is therefore irrelevant. Sure, they can choose to learn it. But the question is not what people can choose to learn on their own time. The question is, what do the high schools systems require students to learn? When you're talking about US high schools, the answer is 'not much'. That's why foreigners come flocking to US colleges, but they don't exactly come flocking to US high schools.

And besides, like I said before, of course people can choose to educate themselves on a wide range of subjects. But what if they just choose not to? That's a segue to the next topic...

Quote:

Actually, I think the problem is more profound than that. Give undergrads free choice, and you know what's going to happen - a lot of them are just going to choose the easiest possible classes and/or classes on things that they already know well, just so they can get a bunch of easy A's. I know people who were completely fluent in a particular language who took all of the intro courses in that language anyway, just to get a string of A's."

This is where the admissions process comes in handy. You don't let people who do such things into "elite" schools. Period. It's the admission team's responsibility to handle these problems. There are tons of Chinese people here who just take Chinese I and II, get As since they're already fluent, take the SAT II Chinese and get an 800, and this somehow looks impressive to colleges. I know people like that who got into MIT, actually, sadly enough. In addition, I see some of the most passionate people denied.

lFirst off, I'm not even sure that it these 'GPA-gunners' are really doing a bad thing. The truth is that much of the world is superficial. The problem is therefore not with these particular students, but with the world at large. For example, I think it is now widely understood that if you want to maximize your chance of getting into law school or med school, you basically have to 'protect' your undergraduate GPA. Like it or not, that's the "game" of law/med-school admissions. If you don't have a stellar GPA, the top law/med-schools won't care why, all they'll see is that you don't have a stellar GPA. Similarly, there are a lot of employers out there who won't even interview you if you don't meet a certain GPA cutoff (usually a 3.0/4). Many of the major international competitions like the Rhodes Scholarship and Marshall Scholarship also weight GPA heavily.

Like it or not, this is the world that we live in. Hence, somebody who has shown that he knows how to protect his GPA in high school is probably also going to know how to protect his GPA in college, and will therefore go on to a have a successful career. It may not sound particularly noble, but that's the reality of the world we live in. Every school, MIT included, would like its alumni to be successful in whatever pursuits they choose. But, whether we like it or not, we live in a world where success is often times dictated by how well you can play the GPA game.

collegeguy2k7 · 04-23-2007, 02:57 AM

l0l, I'd say mollie is one of those humble smarties...

There is NO way *I* could take that many classes and stay sane... :P

pebbles · 04-23-2007, 11:08 AM

How bout you just don't go to college. You seem to be doing fine on your own. There are never any requirements to self-learning. Let's give your spot to kids who actually need it and would benefit from it.

phuriku · 04-23-2007, 12:38 PM

"I took 6.75 classes two semesters in a row, and I'm even female. Hey, if you want to do it, you can do it."

I in no way think men are smarter than women, and I certainly don't think that whites/asians are smarter than any other race. Don't take me the wrong way. I have, on the other hand, seen some minorities and women get into schools like MIT who aren't on par with the typical MIT student, and those are the exceptions I was referring to. There are, of course, very smart women and minorities at every "elite" institution, but due to affirmative action, I think there are also many females and minorities who lie at the 90 percentile marker or lower (in terms of intelligence with respect to the rest of America), whereas I don't think there are many Asian/white men who fall below 98 percentile.

Plus, with Caltech, which is totally anti-affirmative action... well, you don't have many minorities at all. 1% black, 5% hispanic was last year's incoming class. So why shouldn't I be skeptical of MIT's 8% black, 12% hispanic class? Same with Caltech's 30% female population in comparison with MIT's 45%. (I think MIT should show us admissions statistics for minorities as well as women, so everyone could see what's really going on behind the scenes.)

Just my personal opinion. *braces himself*

"How bout you just don't go to college. You seem to be doing fine on your own. There are never any requirements to self-learning. Let's give your spot to kids who actually need it and would benefit from it."

Hey, I have to make a living in the superficial world, too. Plus, college's purpose is social as well as intellectual. I think working with other people in the same field as you is pretty beneficial as well.

(sakky, my response to you is coming later when I turn un-busy.

)

Ben Golub · 04-23-2007, 01:09 PM

Good answer re why college phuriku

InquilineKea · 04-23-2007, 04:28 PM

lol phuriku, you revealed the connection between my old name and my new name. I'm trying to change my Internet name, but I'm still emotionally attached to simfish (hence why I'm alternating).

Anyways phuriku, I think it's important to make a distinction between "active interest" and "potential/latent" interest. In "active interest", I mean someone who is actively interested in other fields of study. In "potential/latent" interest, I mean someone whose personality type is such that he may enjoy a particular field of study, even though he doesn't realize it (and may not even take courses/self-study that field of study, unless he was forced to do so). Caltech's curriculum, for example, has non math/science courses that draw the attention of people who were originally planning on doing math/science (after all, 50% want to major in physics/math, and then learn enough information about themselves to change). Consequently, many students get exposed to fields that they may have never heard of before.

Since students usually apply to college due to a perceived connection between the college and the student's active interests, it may be good for the college to offer courses in the student's potential/latent interests, in case that the student gets dissatisfied with his original active interests or in case the student finds an interesting connection between active and potential interests. That's why a lot of professors in other fields who work at Caltech get the support of students who are very good in physics/math.

The main question is then this - should those with "potential interest" in other fields be forced to take courses in those other fields, even if it means that those who don't have "potential interest" in such fields must go through those courses as well?

Again, part of the problem is with the American school system, which covers so little (and the culture, which puts a sharp binary distinction between school/learning and non-school/non-learning).
==
By the way, this thread is now the largest in the MIT forums. It still needs 24 more to surpass "Caltech vs. MIT for Engineering". It still needs thousands to surpass sarorah's "I have a new game", but I doubt it will surpass that.

dolitwak · 04-23-2007, 05:05 PM

I myself applied and was rejected, but there are no real hard feelings because I never really wanted to go there anyway (thought it would be antisocial). So this is not said out of jealousy or anything.
I also noticed the same trend. We had a girl, also an URM, who did 1 summer internship for minority engineers, and that was all, got good grades in math, and was suddenly accepted. Most of the kids at our school were ****ed. I'm sure many qualified applicants are accepted, and I know very smart people who go there, but they prevent themselves from being a truly quality institution by accepting many people way below the caliber of their school. While its more selective than Berkeley, (where I go btw), at least at Berkeley we can say everyone who got in deserves to be there (state abolished affirmative action).

pebbles · 04-23-2007, 06:14 PM

oh, get off it, people. if this is going to become a sob fest about being rejected for someone less qualified, I'm off.

P.S. IT'S A LOVELY DAY OUTSIDE. IN THE SPIRIT OF THINGS LETS TRY SOMETHING NEW GETTING ALONG HMM??

phuriku · 04-23-2007, 06:21 PM

pebbles: Did you really get into MIT? You're female, right?

pebbles · 04-23-2007, 06:56 PM

Nope. I'm just pretending. I actually couldn't get into MIT. That's why I'm going to University of Chicago see you there!

you are lucky i am in a good mood

phuriku · 04-23-2007, 07:06 PM

You better be joking.

I just had one of my professors tell me that I should take my free ride to Purdue and forget UChicago. I have a week to decide. Don't mess with my emotions.

I'm actually in an ironic mood (don't ask), so don't mind me.

But you did use evidence that MIT's the best because it 'sweeps the Putnam'. That pis.ses me off. I think anyone who uses that argument just can't be fit for MIT because it's bad logic. But I have some pretty "interesting" arguments as well, so meh. (But I'm apparently not good enough for MIT, so I have an excuse ^-^)

InquilineKea · 04-23-2007, 07:11 PM

Meh, I think dolitwak replied to the topic post without looking at any of the last replies. His sentiment contributes nothing new. But since College Confidential has a high turnover rate, the sentiment will merely be reiterated year after year.

Even I had the same sentiment 2 years ago. But I honestly am "meh" to it now.