<p>@QuantMech A thousand likes for both posts #197 and #199. I never understand why some people feel the need to denigrate high stat kids with terms like robot and uninteresting grinds. One big thing these kids “bring to the table” is their intelligence, in addition to whatever else they may have.</p>
<p>I believe that the criticisms of Ben Jones are rather unfair. I believe few people remember the state of transparency in the college admissions in 2003 to 2005. Matt McGann, Ben, and others such as Nance not only opened a new world in communications at MIT but also embraced THIS site as a partner in spreading accurate information at a time when most colleges probably considered it as a giant nuisance. </p>
<p>We should remember that Ben and his colleagues served as a conduit for an office that might not believe in full disclosure of the finer points of admission. We might have been horrified by the comments made behind close doors! And probably got the highly sanitized versions!</p>
<p>While not perfect, as the discussions about Marilee Jones did show, we should remember how different those guys were when compared to other schools, including some that were adamant to undermine the efforts of College Confidential. </p>
<p>They were the good guys, and I am saddened to read that Ben could be viewed as someone who belittled applicants. </p>
<p>xiggi, Ben did most certainly belittle applicants. The record is [was] out there.</p>
<p>I have served on a lot of committees to evaluate students, and I have only once heard the type of commentary that Ben made–and certainly nothing that would be “highly sanitized” into Ben’s comments. All college applicants deserve to be treated with respect by the admissions committees, even if their chances of admission are slim. And even if they may write things that the admissions staff find annoying.
The record is also clear on the types of things that Marilee Jones said.
I don’t think it serves any purpose to rehash those comments here.</p>
<p>I applaud MITChris. I think Nance did applicants a true favor with his “I’ve got 99 problems” post, which I think was among the MIT blogs.</p>
<p>I am sorry, there is absolutely no way I can agree with you about Ben.</p>
<p>I would have to look back at the posts by Matt McGann on the MIT admissions site to be sure what he wrote, so I won’t comment about his posts at this time. </p>
<p>Using the urban dictionary definition I mentioned, we could translate to:
“Because often these kids knew how to [push themselves to attain academic goals,] but brought nothing else to the table.”</p>
<p>Is the objection to the word “grind,” which has been shown to have multiple contexts, not always serve as a pejorative? Or to the notion that kids who focus on their particular academic goals can have one sort of success, but not the breadth and other sorts of depth the elite college seeks? (Ie, that they should bring something more to the table.) </p>
<p>Because I remember arguments in the historic tussle that one particular sort of test superiority or achievement should trump in admissions- that “this” achievement, this sort of unilateral should get a special bye. Regardless of the colleges’ well-stated goals.</p>
<p>That’s not how it goes, among the elites, using holistic. Their preference is not for unilateral. No matter how much CC protests.</p>
<p>I remember all sorts of calculations put forth on how their numbers wouldn’t impact the U’s greater goals, etc. Even the argument it would somehow make the world a better place. But the elites want more on the table. Like it or not. </p>
<p>We can dissect words, rue some perceived belittling. Or we can focus on what he meant- which is (do I have to say it again?) that these kids can offer more.</p>
<p>Many of those “grinds” end up going to good public engineering schools (or other good but less selective engineering schools) and do as well as or better than the folks who went to MIT.</p>
<p>Some of them develop social and/or language skills while in college. Others don’t, but even for the Aspergery kids, being smart, dedicated, and honest can get you far in the US (turns out that in the real world, many people appreciate those qualities more than some adcoms do). </p>
<p>Quantmech, we surely have different recollection of the various actors. I do, however, remember how loved Ben was by everyone here. Perhaps, we looked at the history through different lenses. I also think that MitChris recognized the contributions of Ben in his 10 years tribute. </p>
<p>As far as rehashing the past, it does serve a purpose to remind how DEEPLY hypocritical some part of that MIT office was, starting with Marilee Jones. In fact, that was one of the few disagreement I had with Ben over the years was he staunchly defended her positions, and well before her forced fall from grace. </p>
<p>I guess we all choose how to look at things through different lenses. I think that Ben played a large role in bringing us more transparency in a rather opaque process. Compare his efforts to the shenanigans of other officers a la Chicago who refuse to disclose the simplest of facts such as admit rates … months after the decisions have been made. </p>
<p>Perhaps the price paid for the heightened transparency is to have to say things that are both true and … hurtful in the eyes of some. But, obviously, I know where you stand on this. And it is OK to agree to disagree. </p>
<p>QM, why are you taking literally statements that weren’t ever intended to be taken literally? It’s rather like hearing someone say “I’m not counting my chickens until they are hatched” and responding, “there are no eggs here, so there won’t be any chickens.”</p>
<p>I’ve seen that extreme literalness from you in other discussions - for example, when someone talked about interviewing an MIT applicant who “hadn’t ever encountered a bar of soap” and you jumped to thinking that here might be some dirt-poor kid in India who biked 60 miles to Mumbai for his interview and that’s not fair to ding him if he was a little sweaty. I think most people would have clearly understood that he was not talking about dissing a kid in those circumstances, but rather a normal set of circumstances in which a candidate had plenty of access to soap and water but never used it. </p>
<p>I have to ask - is it that you and/or a loved one are considered to be on the spectrum, and that’s why you interpret these comments so literally? </p>
<p>No, I am not being extremely literal except where it was warranted. The student who was described as apparently not having encountered a bar of soap <em>did</em> in fact have a noticeable smell. I did not think that the student in question had <em>never</em> encountered a bar of soap. I thought that he might have had difficult travels the day of the interview. Even though the applicant in question was from Britain (and not from India or another country where the difficulties with travel could be extreme), difficult travels are not totally ruled out.</p>
<p>In my part of the country, what a person “brings to the table” does not simply mean what they have to offer in deal-making (or what is in the packet on the admissions committee’s table). It refers to the whole set of personal qualities they have to offer. I think we ought to look for the good personal qualities in each other. I am very sure that the people with “nothing else to bring to the table” were being incorrectly characterized.</p>
<p>No, PG, I am nowhere on the autism spectrum. I work surrounded by men, every one of whom is less sensitive to social issues than I am. The nephew of one of my colleagues is on the autism spectrum. I have never met him, though, and I believe that he is pre-college age–perhaps pre-high-school. I am not a diagnostician, but I think that one of the students with whom I have worked on a research project is also on the autism spectrum (extremely high functioning). I wish both of them well.</p>
<p>It troubles me to think that a person has to have a close personal acquaintance with a group that is often oppressed, in order to sympathize with them. Autism is a really difficult disorder to contend with, for the person and for his/her family. </p>
<p>I suspect that when I am thought to be taking statements excessively literally, what I am actually doing is applying “close reading” techniques to those statements. The surface word choice often reveals underlying frames of mind. To provide a specific example, when a person uses “often” and “frequently” in the same sentence, it probably means something.</p>
<p>To make plain why I object to the statement about people who “know how to grind, but . . . etc,” let me start with the “grinding” part. To me, that is actually the less objectionable part of the statement, but I still don’t like it. </p>
<p>It has the ring to me of a statement by a person who considers people who “grind” to be “the other,” in sociologists’ terms. I realize that students at MIT do sometimes talk about the “grinding” that they must do. However, in the context of an admissions analysis, and followed by a negative statement about the “grinders,” I think it is a way of distancing the writer from the applicant. And based on other information on the web site, I suspect that the writer was never a “grinder” himself.</p>
<p>All serious scientists work at a level of persistence and intensity that might be characterized as “grinding.” In fact, a close friend of mine [Y] who was on the MIT faculty said to me once that there was nowhere he would rather be than in the laboratory. A senior colleague of mine remarked that he had seen Y in the lab at all times of day, every day of the week, except for Sunday morning. I think the senior colleague didn’t see Y there, because the senior colleague wasn’t there then, and not because Y wasn’t.</p>
<p>I think that scientists who work hard and persistently, but who are inspired by their work, do not consider their work to be “grinding.” “Grinding” would be applied to work that requires a lot of number-punching or dull, rote work.</p>
<p>Of course “grinding” has many uses. It is a bit difficult for me to keep a straight face when writing about it, because around here, “grinding” refers to couples dancing who are . . . um . . . dancing in close proximity [well, I have to stop here]. </p>
<p>No “deal-making.” No regionalism to falsely frame this. No anti-Autism. The subject isn’t MJones. Or oppression. Or how one person protested and thinks those efforts spun the boat around. It’s nice one person stops to stare at words used, but I think the rest are looking for the larger message. The discussion is college admissions, what they seek, how they find it. Word-worrying takes us off focus. Repeatedly. </p>
<p>The “good personal” qualities they look for are more than math or other STEM superiority. Simple. </p>
<p>Read the link <a href=“The Most Impressive MIT Students”>The Most Impressive MIT Students; Those students may be singled out, but that’s a super example of kids going for more, achieving more and having their own impact. Their efforts speak to their characters. Their work requires the sort of broader vision, energy, commitment, maturity, compassion, etc, that the colleges do seek. </p>
<p>Anyone who likes kids should be encouraging them to this broader use of their hearts and minds. We don’t need to repeatedly microfocus on a word or two and project all sorts of ill will and poor character on behalf of the speaker, .the institution or some prior administration. It derails, it suits very few posters, and adds little to the conversation. </p>
<p>In my opinion, the statement about bringing “nothing else to the table” suggests that applications from students with strong stats will be viewed with a somewhat jaundiced eye. Many other posts on the old version of the MIT site corroborated this reading. I am very pleased that they are gone now. Again, kudos to MITChris, and apologies for mentioning the old content. (I have been trying to avoid mentioning the old material, and have been succeeding till this thread.) </p>
<p>I think I have probably written enough about my belief that every person has many strengths and contributions to make. I have also written enough about my belief that every applicant deserves respect. </p>
<p>I would use the term grinder differently. When I think of a grinder, I think of a person who works hard to get good grades, presumably to into get into professional school or get a prestigious job but doesn’t have any intellectual curiosity. I know a lot of premeds like this. They are generally obsessed with grades and prestige but constantly complain about their classes and don’t even have good reasons for going to med school other than it impresses people.</p>
<p>Regarding the definition of grinder being referred to here (which is entirely different), I definitely have a lot of similar traits like having very obsessive interests within my field and being very introverted. Those types of students were exactly who I was referring to in my earlier posts who often will do much better in grad school admissions. I think we have a lot to contribute, it’s just most of that is behind the scenes. For example, I never joined student lead organizations since I did not want to be involved with petty hierarchy concerns and people with inflated egos trying to tell me what to do. I march to my own drummer.</p>
<p>So what I am saying is grinders are often incredibly intelligent but may appear obsessive and narrow minded.</p>
<p>Then to add: why am I so concerned about applicants with high “stats”, when there are students all across America who are drastically underserved by the K-12 schools?</p>
<p>First, let me acknowledge that some students who are badly underserved by their schools nevertheless have truly impressive accomplishments on any scale. This remark is intended to respond in advance to lookingforward’s probable charge that I am thinking “poor them” about all of these students, and not recognizing the remarkable accomplishments of some of this group.</p>
<p>Still, there are a lot of students who are put at a disadvantage by their schools, and some of them are right in my general vicinity (20 mile radius or so). I am taking various steps to help, including volunteering, giving money to the schools, and (with personal funds and support from a foundation) establishing scholarships to provide special opportunities for students whose schools have not helped them much.</p>
<p>The difference between the issues faced by the “high stats” applicants, in the era when (I think) they were treated unfairly vs. the issues faced by students from difficult backgrounds: The issues faced by the first group can be resolved at no cost, at the stroke of a pen. The issues faced by the second group require literally billions of dollars to resolve.</p>
<p>A couple of additional comments on PG’s post #207: I am very proud to say that one of my ancestors was a prominent abolitionist. I suspect that he operated a way-station on the Underground Railroad, although the evidence I have of that is sketchy at best. In the future, I hope to be able to devote some time to finding additional evidence–one way or the other. I’m a scientist. I’d like for my suspicion to be true, but if the facts show otherwise, those would be the facts. </p>
<p>It is, I suppose, superfluous for me to remark that my abolitionist ancestor was white, as was another direct ancestor who fought in the Civil War in an Illinois cavalry (I know the number of the cavalry unit, but decline to state it). He died, leaving behind his widow and five children aged 10 and under. </p>
<p>The actions Americans have taken on behalf of oppressed groups–to which they do not themselves belong–have improved the country, at least if those actions were undertaken with any degree of wisdom. I am always impressed by students who have a sincere level of involvement with the issues of minority groups that are not their own. </p>
<p>Also, chickens? Wait, where are the chickens? Are you alleging that I am a chicken farmer? Hunh? 
</p>
<p>To xiggi, post #206: Your presence on CC antedates mine. I don’t actively recall any of Ben’s posts on CC. It is good to hear that they were beneficial, and positively regarded. My comments about Ben’s writing refer solely to items that used to be on the official MIT web site.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Marilee Jones, Ben Jones, and MIT admissions in general should be congratulated for bringing transparency to the process in the early 2000’s. By the same token, it’s fair game to criticize them for the admissions processes themselves.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ve read a ton of the posts over the years on the MIT forum and directly from the MIT blogs. The gist of it was that many if not most of the top applicants in terms of stats and academic accomplishments lacked any personality and lacked human qualities. Quantmech’s reading is not an “extreme literal” one; it is reading the connotations of the words they repeatedly use to describe applicants–something which in literature class might be called a “close reading.” One thing I’ve noticed is sometimes engineering/math types who are completely left brained think there is some kind of huge separation between the social skills realm and the academic realm. They seemed to lack the ability to notice subtlety in terms of academic stars who possess leadership and social skills, or ‘humanity’ but which direct them toward academic activities. Instead, they think that a story about how you love to go to parties or ride Harley Davidson’s means you are the total package.</p>
<p>There were two problems with this: 1) The crass way they described applicants was, indeed, insulting. 2) Some of their ways of evaluating “personality” and “humanity” did not make any sense, and appear to run counter to the fundamental mission of MIT. One of many consequences was that students which projected a professional tone in their application seemed to be docked versus people who “acted like kids”. In terms of my latter point about the mission of MIT, it seemed that non-academic ECs showed humanity while academic ECs did not; for instance, if you spend five hours a day working on your jumpshot that’s completely positive but they were leery about people doing the same with physics or math.</p>
<p>Thanks very much for your post, college alum. You and I were cross-posting, I think, when I used the term “close reading” also.</p>
<p>Oh, plus MIT’s basketball team probably needed help at the time, although no team has historically been as bad as Caltech (as far as I know). I remember reading an MIT newspaper headline about the football team, when I was a post-doc there: “1 and 7 record misleading.”</p>
<p>One has to ask whether “close reading” has morphed into hyper-focus. And more derail for I-don’t-know-what reasons. After all, there is some insistence here and you explain it as, well, that you want to dissect- and then you dissect further and broader. It goes in circles. Why? </p>
<p>I want to say, c’mon, stop projecting. Stop phrasing it as, in effect, lil ol’ me, I’m just worried that… They don’t look at high stats and say, “oops.” They look at high stats and say, good, now let’s see what else he or she did. No jaundiced eye. More like hope. These bright kids can do it. </p>
<p>This isn’t about k-12 either. Nor your volunteering, your donations, your coworkers, your experience reviewing scholarship apps, your colleague at MIT, your whatever. You miss the point. But then explain it with another missed point.</p>
<p>What the heck does turning this discussion to k-12 show us? That you are a good person? </p>
<p>Well, it is clear that we are thinking and posting at cross-purposes, lookingforward. Maybe someone will bring out the popcorn.</p>
<p>Believe me, I am not projecting–the stuff I have mentioned was there, quite plainly.</p>
<p>The reason that I raised all of the apparently peripheral points was that PG seemed to think that anyone who sympathized (persistently) with people on the autism spectrum must have close ties to a person on the spectrum, or perhaps even to struggle with autism him/herself. Not true. My family has a proud history of support for the underdog.</p>
<p>For the most part, I am not actually writing about MIT’s past treatment of applicants who might be autistic. I am writing more generally about the “high stats” group.</p>
<p>I have never advocated for a simple rank-ordering of applicants by apparent academic merit. I have said that some academic achievements are so impressive to me that I think they should trump other considerations (specifically at 2 colleges in the US, with a STEM focus), provided that the applicant is of good character. I won’t dredge that up further.</p>
<p>Also, I am not saying that personal qualities should be disregarded in admissions. What I am saying is that a lot of the “super high stats” kids have a great deal going for them, if one looks for it–and if one is not giving too many bonus points to unicyclists, champion rutabaga growers, or even (heaven help us, this seems to be a real sport) athletic champion rutabaga curlers. I do like the rodeo clowns who also get bonus points in admissions–they are putting themselves at risk to distract the bulls from toppled riders. That’s commendable.</p>
<p>Specifically, with the comments about k-12 comments I was just trying to spike some rhetorical cannons that have commonly shown up in this type of discussion. I thought it would save time to address them in advance.</p>