<p>I would definitely not say it’s a terrible thing if a brilliant kid doesn’t get into MIT. A few of my friends who were denied as undergrads who went to Penn with me did very well and were among the top STEM students. They are now going there for grad school. My friend going for math starting taking grad classes at Penn in sophomore year.</p>
<p>For me, it may have not been as helpful to go to a school like Harvard, Stanford, or MIT for undergrad since I did not have much confidence in myself. Doing great work at Penn and just happening to run into two professors who are leaders in their field (one who will most likely win the Nobel prize in the future) definitely helped raise my confidence and I eventually end up choosing between Harvard and Stanford for grad school.</p>
<p>However, it could be argued that many of these students we are referring to would make a better use of the resources at place like MIT than many of the less intellectual students who may be admitted in their place. So in that sense it is a bit of a shame.</p>
<p>The academic bar is set high. After first cut, serious candidates, thousands of them, are all applying with 4.0 or close enough (maybe you see an occasional B in gym or 10th grade language. Or maybe that tippy top math kid, with serious college level rigor didn’t ace soph English.) I’ve guessed that easily half the applicant pool is made up of these high performance hs kids. Don’t assume this is like some ordinary hs hierarchy, where Bobby over there is clearly a generation ahead of others in his math genius versus the rest of the kids are just normal A students. (Wow, there’s some “othering.” You are assuming Bobby is more special and maybe he should be seen as better than other strivers, who are “less intellectual.”.)</p>
<p>So start there. You can say, “Hypothetically, there are kids better than 4.3uw/2400,” but there is no real measure of that in the system we have. </p>
<p>There seems to be an assumption “special special” kids can be identified by adcoms. After all, you think they are orchids and that they would hypothetically test off the scale. In real, practical terms, how do adcoms know this? LoRs vary- some kids get the detailed and critically well thought out LoRs. But not all hs teachers can provide that or know to try. </p>
<p>My “admissions philosophy” isn’t a philosophy. It’s an awareness of the limitations of judging kids with the detail we do get. And of the whole environment that elite colleges are, where kids are expected to do more than study and be mentored. </p>
<p>A number of us have observed this attitude many times on this forum (and sometimes in real life, too). Just because you have not does not make a mere mention of it by others a “jeremiad.”</p>
<p>They need them in order to support the future liberal arts education expansion.:p</p>
<p>Who else can pay for building the state of the art Bing concert hall or photography expansion in Cantor arts center.</p>
<p>Anecdotally speaking, I found it interesting that University of Texas Turing scholars are placing at Apple and Google in jobs paying $70/hour for the summer. Most of them have no tuition which means 10k per year for room/board education might be giving them a summer job with an income of $22,000 for 8 weeks of work on par with #NAMEYOURSCHOOL college interns.</p>
<p>How many billionaires does a school really need? They also like to grad kids who go into academics, start small business that change things, take policy or administrative roles, etc. They like kids who will empower others, and continue to. It’s been noted that S is looking now for less tech power and more non-STEM interest. Maybe we should call that better balance. Or the influence a variety of fields can have on the individual.</p>
<p>LF - S keeps changing their mind about how to enforce liberal arts education and they have changed the policies about 3 times in the last 4 years for the required coursework. </p>
<p>One thing they do emphasize is that they would like more students to pursue non STEM fields. However, they do want English majors who are willing to take on at least one CS class because the tech companies do need the English majors who can understand their products. The odds are that someone applying to Stanford planning to be classics major has a very high probability of being admitted (assuming they have the credentials showing genuine interest in the major) than a top notch CS applicant since there is dearth of top notch CS applicants wanting to attend S.</p>
<p>Wut? What parts of CC are you looking? You may be right about that exact sentence “X school or bust”, but focusing only at a small set of schools (who vary wildly in culture, location, and everything but prestige) while ignoring another set of schools who people in the know understand would suit the poster’s stated goals and wants equally well (and sometimes better!): I see that type of post All. The. Time.</p>
<p>I just wanted my scarily smart kid to go to a school where there were lots of kids smarter than him. Despite it’s large size, at least in his areas of interests, computer science and physics that was not his high school. MIT has this reputation, so it was his first choice, though I think in fact it was a blessing he didn’t get in, as CMU was such a good place for him. (And at least SCS was full of MIT rejects - I think about 90% of the freshman class raised their hands to that question.)</p>
Many graduates from such flagship universities (not only UT) may come to the Silicon Valley (more than most may believe.) “STEM majors done right” could be very rewarding with not many years of “investment” of both time and money, especially when they are young. (I knew one youngman with a 40 MCAT decided to switch to “the high tech career path for young men”, to the dismay of his parents. I also knew another young man who had already been in the top-10 med school for a year dropped out to pusue his dream in Silicon Valley. These young people tend to truly love what they want to do and are very good at what they are doing. Heck, one young man even worked for some big and famous company in Silicon Valley and got somewhat rich (in young people’s naive standard) within 5 years and decided to take a break from work for one year to travel all over the world!)</p>
<p>TPG, you might want to review the above paragraph. </p>
<p>I am not sure you meant to write “there is dearth of top notch CS applicants wanting to attend S.” </p>
<p>Also, as far as someone could present a genuine interest in a particular program at Stanford, I am not sure if the admissions are as major-centric as they might at schools that have a number of dedicated colleges for different majors. I do not think that being “undeclared” at the time of the application plays a major role or a … negative one. </p>
<p>But your understanding of Stanford is more recent than mine, and I have no problem of being called wrong on this. </p>
<p>As well as many graduates from “no-name” schools and college dropouts. Inasmuch as students from CC darling schools find employment in the area, it is hardly a requirement in the tech field. </p>
<p>“That was a response to those who are lamenting a problem that I haven’t seen. People don’t often say “School X or bust” on these boards, as far as I can tell, yet many posters proclaim the perniciousness of the “X or bust” attitude.”</p>
<p>It is true that it hasn’t been explicitly stated in this particular thread, but if you’ve been around the block as you claim you have, you will have seen previous threads / posts in which QuantMech did indeed bemoan that young geniuses of her acquaintance did not get into their rightful places at MIT, because in her opinion it really was MIT or bust. And she was not / could be cavalier about “ah, well, so they’ll go to CMU or Stanford instead.” </p>
<p>xiggi, Agree with what you are saying. I noticed that at least in one instance a certain company got rid of one grad from some well-known tech college (having done both BS and MS only there, still in his prime years with about 5 years of experience, and it is not the case where he had got a PhD in an obscure, too “advanced/narrow” area, so he ran the risk of being labeled as being too academic or overqualified.) That company kept many lower cost ones from the state colleges including California States. That company just wanted to keep somebody “with a strong drive to succeed once he has joined the industry.” It also helps if a company has had lots of alumni from the same college already hired. (i.e., having been graduated from a local state college because it is likely that there are more of their students staying in this area after graduation.)</p>
<p>If there is any “mistake” for this young man from that well known tech school, it is that he tries to stop doing the lower level technical work too soon and tries to break into the management rank - there are many “sharks” at the lower/middle management level who could “eat those young and ambitious junior managers alive” if he presents a potential threat to their career. He should have some “choke hold” in some key area that the company could not live without first - but this often means he needs to have a group of engineers loyal to him first - this may not be easy to do when he lacks this kind of people skills.</p>
<p>It is not that different from the phenomenon where the Wall Street recruits a higher percentage of their new (and newly graduated) employees from certain colleges. It is just the set of colleges that are targeted are different and this set of colleges are much larger as they need more young people, especially in a good year.</p>
<p>"It is true that it hasn’t been explicitly stated in this particular thread… "</p>
<p>… and then PG says “top 20 is all good enough, no real differences, everyone ends up at the same place or else at an equally good place decades out” </p>
<p>This thread is the first place I’ve read you (maybe) say, maybe all colleges are equal and none really matter to long term outcomes? If I am reading correctly, not being as close a reader as most here. Are you saying now we shouldn’t worry about it at all? Do you believe in “best fit” or any sort of “fit”?</p>
<p>I tend to believe the educational process is just as important as the result. Maybe more so, for some students. </p>
<p>OTOH at this point I’m about to advocate all of us send our kids to our state universities just to support PG’s point and stop the madness. Of course, remember, mine have graduated. ; )</p>
<p>"… and then PG says “top 20 is all good enough, no real differences, everyone ends up at the same place or else at an equally good place decades out”</p>
<p>This thread is the first place I’ve read you (maybe) say, maybe all colleges are equal and none really matter to long term outcomes? If I am reading correctly, not being as close a reader as most here. Are you saying now we shouldn’t worry about it at all? Do you believe in “best fit” or any sort of “fit”?"</p>
<p>I cannot possibly participate in this conversation if my POV is being deliberately misstated. “You know, a sciencey kid who wanted to go to MIT but who winds up at CMU or JHU is still going to be just fine in life and be plenty challenged by stimulating professors and stimulating peers” is not the same thing as saying “all colleges are equal and none really matter to long term outcomes.” </p>
<p>And of course I believe in fit, but I don’t believe in being such a hothouse flower that only 1 school in the nation has the right possible fit for you. </p>
<p>Indeed sir - a NO is missing in front of dearth!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My knowledge is mostly based on what the top guys are stating and writing about what they find is problematic in their applicants - a shortage of people with a serious interest in liberal arts. They seem to be going so far as to say any expansion in yearly class size should be targeted towards ensuring a more balanced class in their interests when they are meeting alums and parents at private fundraisers.</p>
<p>The reason I mentioned at least one CS class is because that was President Hennessey’s answer to a parent at a parent’s weekend who was worried about a liberal arts major who may not have a job waiting - ask him to take just ONE CS class and he will be fine.</p>
<p>Here is one other interesting push they are making for humanties integration with CS. Apparently every humanities department at S is now interested in a double major with CS and there are about 8-10 in the pipeline.</p>
<p>You know, when someone like PG takes a long term consistent stand, it IS good if we read it closely, so we see what it actually is.</p>
<p>This thread didn’t start out about QM’s ideas, interests, and defenses. It rather closes the discussion to turn it so exclusively to what she thinks things should be at one particular college. And who agrees with her. Or who else has a parallel suspicion about how things work- without any experiences or knowledge to back it up. </p>
<p>Yes, but my comment was about “One Best Path,” which sounds more like “X or nothing” than like “lay prestige (or fame) above all else.” Famous or not, different schools offer different experiences.</p>
<p>(Actually, the concept is ambiguous: one school can offer many different paths.) </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I see. I’ll defer to you. The threads I’ve read give me the impression that the dissenters are much louder and more numerous than the claimants, but you’ve been on these boards for longer.</p>
…</p>