<p>Wow, fretfulmother, lots of negativity about Caltech. How long ago was your interview? </p>
<p>āPG: I still am not clear exactly where you stand on the elite college admissions arms race. It seems to me you set rather arbitrary parameters on what is excellent and/or acceptable with regard to colleges and sometimes this is a reflection of how your family dealt with this issue and sometimes it has nothing to do with your personal experiences?ā</p>
<p>I donāt know what youāre asking, and I think Iāve been pretty consistent during my tenure on CC. To paraphrase Hunt, there are probably 50 schools in the Top 20. I donāt see the world in this strict, linear, A.> B > C stepwise fashion that some of you do. There are shades of gray. The difference between Harvard and (say) Duke is minute in the scheme of things. The difference between Harvard and East Directional State U is pretty vast. Itās a shame if the kid bound for Harvard wounds up at EDSU. Itās just not that big of a deal if he winds up at Duke. </p>
<p>As for why I say top 20 - well, thatās kind of commonplace on CC. Why 20 as opposed to 25? Beats me. Same difference. </p>
<p>I donāt see a conflict in saying you like an elite, but also like Y and Z, which may also be great choices, but lack the popular recognition. If your kid happens to get into the elite, fine. It doesnāt change the fact that you took a balanced view, looked beyond a few obvious distinctions like reputation or assumptions about faculty or job connections. </p>
<p>PG: I donāt think Iām misrepresenting when I say youāve written:</p>
<p>Itās provincial to think the east coast colleges are all that.<br>
Where you live people support the state schools and donāt think attending them negatively impacts chances of success in life.</p>
<p>OTOH:
You have a kid at an east coast college.
Your kids donāt go to state schools.</p>
<p>You donāt think it makes any difference in the scheme of things for a Harvard bound student to attend Duke (or JHU, or CMU). You donāt (as far as I know) have a formerly Harvard bound student attending Duke. Why is this such an important point for you to continually emphasize?</p>
<p>Earlier in this thread you questioned why someone would care about some things that donāt impact them personally. So I think this is a valid question for you? maybe? anyway - Iām just curious</p>
<p>āWow, fretfulmother, lots of negativity about Caltech. How long ago was your interview?ā</p>
<p>@bookworm - if it is relevant, 1994. I was admitted and got my MEng from there. Was admitted (passed both sets of exams) for PhD but declined to continue because I liked teaching infinitely better than research and my p/t job wanted me f/t.</p>
<p>Now, to answer what you are actually asking - yes, I was desirable to Caltech. They were not desirable to me. For legitimate neutrally-confirmed reasons.</p>
<p>I would say that the phrase ālots of negativityā usually means random negative comments that donāt have a coherent message except āwah Iām upsetā. I hope you did not infer that from my detailed list of what makes it a poor university environment from my perspective.</p>
<p>The startling lack of diversity or institutional introspection about things like whom to lionize (sexist and/or racist geniuses) and what to celebrate (refusal re. MLKJr for instance), are not things that just made me feel ānegativeā - they are actually negative.</p>
<p>If your point is that my experiences were a long time ago, and that things have changed, I would be open to hearing exactly how that is the case, and I would re-open my mind.</p>
<p>DH was a grad student at Caltech and I worked in a small library there for about a year. (He was a history prof so unlike most Caltech profs he actually really liked teaching undergrads.) My feeling is that Caltech issues are mostly about size and the fact that unlike MIT, they really donāt have any real non science majors. No business, no architecture. Iād like to see its M/F numbers a little more balanced. (I do think they practice some affirmative action, but much less than MIT.) I agree USAMO is a pretty high bar - my son got low scores on the AIME without studying, but Iām not sure if heād have ever qualified for the higher bar if heād actually been pushed to make the effort. </p>
<p>I do agree you can make a big school smaller. I picked a major in college that you had to petition to get into. All the professors knew us by name.</p>
<p>Feynman never had a reputation for being a jerk when I was hanging around Caltech. He was beloved by students and I even saw him in a play while I was there. I think some of the things he did were considered perfectly normal back then. I think he probably paints himself blacker than he was.</p>
<p>āYou have a kid at an east coast college.
Your kids donāt go to state schools.ā</p>
<p>alh, I grew up on the East Coast. I think there is value in traveling outside oneās home region for school, and indeed, the fact that Sās school is in our backyard was and is a MINUS from my perspective, not a plus. (OK, itās a plus logistically, but it would have been good for him to have seen a different part of the country, IMO.)</p>
<p>I can simultaneously and sincerely believe that U of I is a perfectly fine place, and also have other preferred choices for my family, all else being equal. I donāt see a need to force my kids to go to U of I when a) they werenāt interested in going there, and b) I wasnāt interested in having them go there. Why, should I have, just to prove some point? </p>
<p>
I wondered the same thing. I believe you also objected to applicants being described as āgrindsā or as āhaving no personalityā ā¦ arenāt these negative descriptions of humans that you find highly offensive? But at the same time other negative description that you agree with in some sense are OK? I have to admit I donāt understand how that is consistent.</p>
<p>I was thinking about posting about the language thing to, to me, that the conversation is a little like the threads about what to wear on tours or to campus interviews. There are some who believe that a higher level of dress decorum than others in public situations than others (personally Iām on the shorts and t-shirt side on this one). Similarly, I thought a bunch of this disagreement was just a difference in how some posters just donāt like to criticize others publicly. My memory of the previous thread is your being offended by MIT comments and how unprofessional that they were to not only post such comments but also by sharing these comments in a closed admissions meeting ā¦ that the applicants are humans and deserve to be treated with respect at all times ā¦ that derogatory descriptions should not be used. I remember this thread because of the numerous posters who mentioned that in their professional environment they had never heard such off-hand criticisms of applicants ā¦ and I rememner thinking, where the heck do these folks work? ā¦ Iāve been part of a ton of hirings and hear these type comments all the time in meetings.</p>
<p>But then we circle around to this topic again and youāre ok calling real humans āgrade grubbersā on a public web-site. That shoots down my theory about the belief in a higher level of decorum and I am truly baffled trying to understand how using āgrade gruberā is different than the descriptions that were so offensive.</p>
<p>*I can simultaneously and sincerely believe that U of I is a perfectly fine place, and also have other preferred choices for my family, all else being equal. *</p>
<p>I agree with that. For me, (and maybe itās just me) your posts donāt usually value others having preferred choices for their families. Generally I assume your posting persona on this sort of thread isnāt your real personality, but I donāt get why it is so judgemental about the choices of others. Why is there an attack on those who think their special snowflakes will thrive best in particular environments? Why isnāt that preferred choice a valid choice for another family? Even if it turns out to be an unobtainable goal?</p>
<p>fretfulmom, I do not wish to hijack this thread, so I will PM you later. </p>
<h1>467</h1>
<p>I see a huge difference between labeling behaviors and labeling individuals.</p>
<p>example: What you just did is a bad thing! You are a bad child!</p>
<p>My mom had to teach me the difference pretty early on in my kidsā childhood.</p>
<p>important eta: I am speaking only for my own reactions to this sort of language usageā¦</p>
<p>āI agree with that. For me, (and maybe itās just me) your posts donāt usually value others having preferred choices for their families.ā</p>
<p>There is a difference between people having preferred choices and being wound so tightly such that anything other than the preferred choice is horribly sub-optimal and difficult to get over and will inevitably result in oneās life being irrevocably compromised. There is some perspective that needs to be added in about the real quality / value of the non-preferred choices here. </p>
<p>Assuming I agree that āsome perspective needs to be addedā is it possible to add that perspective without name calling, insulting, or denigrating? Is that necessary to get the message across? Or could you maybe add that perspective a little more calmly and gently? </p>
<p>pretty please ; )</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>TPG, how can it be unclear to you after I have repeated it a few times? This might help. </p>
<ol>
<li>You state that Stanford is concerned about getting a better balance between CS and LA students. And I agree!
1b. You mentioned majors and I responded that applications at Stanford are not major specific as all students enter as undeclared. I expressed that an undeclared application would NOT be seen negatively. In other words, there is NO need to declare an āinterestā in studying CS versus Russian Lit or the ecosystems of tarantulas in Ghana . The need that exists is to present the supporting evidence through your activities list and let Stanford decide if they like it or not.<br></li>
<li>You state that a smart student should send the right signals to (I assume) capitalize on this position expressed by Stanford. And I agree with parts of that and disagree about the form and format.<br></li>
<li>I openly wondered how a student might send those signals in the format of the current application. I expressed that the essays are hardly the right place to do unless it is done with intelligence and subtility, Yes, that show versus tell.<br></li>
<li>You talked about packaging and I talked about remaining true to yourself. </li>
<li>We then discussed the curriculum and the choices made by the student PRIOR to the applications. </li>
</ol>
<p>Here is my conclusion. Inasmuch as Stanford expressed this (recent) preference, one CANNOT fake it. It will not work! A student who is determined to study CS and join the crazy world of startups and Google-likes should not look at the possible backdoor entrance opened by pretending he has a passion for literature of drama. and breathes Merce Cunningham. There ARE students who might fit that rare pattern, but those FACTS will permeate their application. They will present an application that is genuine and not one that is developed to answer to a preference expressed by Stanford! </p>
<p>In the end, there is NO denying that a successful application should identify the correct target school and be filled with the appropriate content. I believe that there are students who are natural FITS and that their applications will reveal that without the need to pretend to be someone they were not nor will be in the future! </p>
<p>Hmm. If you donāt want to see name calling, insulting or denigrating, then donāt dish it out. Think about it. </p>
<p>Thereās starting to be a lot of unneeded focus on certain others. </p>
<p>of course, you are absolutely correct lookingforward and I agree</p>
<p>@pizzagirl, you completely missed my point in my earlier post. My view that I have expressed on this thread is that the admissions officers have a hard time telling those kids apart from the kids who are actually interested in what they are doing. I admit, at the high school level this is hard and itās made harder by the fact that interviews are not as rigorous as they could be. For example, a lot of premeds could tell you that are passionate about what they do but they couldnāt really give you in depth genuine examples. They may know how to craft a good essay, but telling apart these kids from those who are really self motivated is subtle. If we had more professors involved in admissions I think there would be drastically different results.</p>
<p>Sorry, but you donāt think adcoms can see that in the app? Donāt see the lack of engagement, despite the purported āpassion?ā And, since most schools donāt have a pre-med major- and since many kids either drop their plans or get weeded- itās fair for adcoms to look for a package of strengths. And some faculty do get involved. </p>
<p>No, you canāt tell if a kid worked in a hospital based on drive and interest- but sometimes the point is she did it. Same with other responsibilities and meaningful comm service. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And there would still be threads with hundreds of posters claiming that āadmissions policies are unfairā or āadmissions policies are flawed.ā Because whatever standard is used will be criticized by people who āknow better.ā</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Different but not necessarily better. Undergraduate admissions is all about finding a balance among many different poles of ādemand.ā Very little will be gained by additional inputs from people with a very narrow level of expertise and preferences. What might work for graduate school admissions does not translate well to the much broader needs of UG admissions. </p>