<p>QM, you have an unusually sharp sensitivity to when you perceive that nerdy-geniuses are being thought of as “less than.” Your overreaction to the “not fully human” quote, your overreaction to the joking comment about a kid who had never seen soap, your overreaction to “he brings nothing to the table.”</p>
<p>Currently feeling pretty stupid about offering a close reading of something that wasn’t the text! It morphed into that form in recollection! :"> </p>
<p>As I recollect (could be off) the actual wording was “only vaguely human.” I don’t think it is possible to over-react to that.</p>
<p>“I don’t think it is possible to over-react to that.” Ah, yes it is. </p>
<p>sevmom: in your opinion is there any language/descriptors used about college applicants that it would impossible to over-react to? PG?</p>
<p>Something racial or homophobic. As Hunt says , some of this is shorthand, code. Describing someone as “vaguely human” could mean someone with not the best social skills. I agree that these kinds of words are inappropriate for an adcom to use in public and I believe that was addressed. But it just seems like an over -reaction to just not let this rest. It’s been gone over again and again in at least 2 threads. </p>
<p>QM, I think most people would have read that as a humorous figure-of-speech. </p>
<p>I don’t find it at all humorous. I have a reasonably good sense of humor. In the future, I hope that people will be as sensitive to this type of thing (quoted in #605) as they are to racial or homophobic slurs (or, rather, as sensitive as we would hope that people will be).</p>
<p>I agree that it’s possible to over-react to the phrase. E.g., “Sir, I challenge you to a duel on the field of honor.” Words against words–not an over-reaction in my view.</p>
<p>QM you wrote out the quote, as it was said, 5 days ago, 27 pages ago. Four days ago I restated it. I’m sure “brought” came up numerous times since then.
See how this “lil old misunderstanding” just perpetuates pages of fussin’ at each other. </p>
<p>And, Yo!, now it’s going to start again, with just some new angle to the protests. Give it up. Let’s talk about Stanford. :ar! Aargh. </p>
<p>Texaspg knows a lot about S. As does gravitas. Did xiggi go to S?</p>
<p>Sure, Stanford. </p>
<p>Please note that I didn’t restart the discussion with a new angle, though. I was totally ready to retreat in confusion until PG remarked that I was over-reacting to a lot of things. Not really true.</p>
<p>Okay, I’ll start in on Stanford. What is the pirate about? I have no idea.</p>
<p>(I have spent two years at Stanford, but that was on sabbatical. One of my cousins went to Stanford Law School, but I don’t think he went there as an undergrad. The local high school gets someone into Stanford about every six to seven years–not a sterling track record, nor much of a basis for an opinion.)</p>
<p>You know more about Stanford than me, QM. I’m on the east coast and can’t think of anyone who went there from our area . Many many kids to UVa, Wm & Mary or Virginia Tech, a kid here and there I can recall to Harvard or Princeton, Brown, Yale,Cornell, Penn, Columbia, Duke, Emory, etc. My older kid just spent 3 weeks in Menlo Park/Palo Alto on business. He stayed at the Stanford Park Hotel which was very near the campus. All I know , some of it from him is !. the campus is nice 2. The prices are high 3. The Palo Alto Creamery is interesting 4. The academics and prestige are great 5. I think it is known as the Farm 6. You may see Mark Zuckerberg if you hang around long enough-he saw him at Oren’s Hummus House with his wife. :)</p>
<p>And yeah, what is the pirate about that QM is referring to? I think there’s a cardinal involved somewhere but not sure about the pirate?</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>I personally think that the reason some people find this language offensive is because a lot of people think that people who are very brilliant and less social don’t have personalities. This has been absolutely false in my experience. My smartest friends may be significantly less outgoing than average, but they are truly an amazing group of interesting and kindhearted individuals. I would use the word whimsical to describe many of them as they have very unique observations and dry humor. This probably relates to some of the topics discussed in the book Quiet. </p>
<p>It’s fun to talk about Stanford but it will no doubt lead to the same kinds of stuff that the MIT stuff did. So, the pirate reference was for the aargh. My eyesight is failing me! Didn’t see the pirate thing initially in lookingforward’s post so didn’t understand QM’s reference to a pirate.</p>
<p>Aargh from Charlie Brown is an expression of dismay. Actually, correction, I guess it’s usually Aaauuugh, or something like that. Arrgh from a pirate seems like the kind of thing he’d say as he is boarding your ship. lf?</p>
<p>"would use the word whimsical to describe many of them as they have very unique observations and dry humor. "</p>
<p>I agree I know many very bright people like that too. Their personalities would come across in essays or interviews, and it would be quite evident they “brought something to the table” in that regard. This isn’t about life of the party or lampshades on heads. </p>
<p>Phooey! I just ordered dozen lampshades!</p>
<p>I did notice the deft deflection of the discussion by lookingforward, when I mentioned OperaDad’s statement that the MIT admissions staffer at an information session said that the stats of admitted students were lower than the stats of the applicant pool. This seems unusual to me. I doubt that it is the case at other top schools, except possibly for Stanford–turning the discussion back to Stanford.</p>
<p>With regard to Stanford admissions, they seem to be fully committed to Carol Dweck’s fixed mindset vs. growth mindset scenario. If anyone has links or listings of Dweck’s scholarly work, I would be interested. I have read her book Mindset. However, I have already donated it to Goodwill (cross reference to the Bag a Week Club in the Parents Cafe). So if there was a list of publications in the book, I cannot access it now.</p>
<p>(PG, I was not being sarcastic by marking your post “Helpful,” though if I had really bought a dozen lampshades, it would have been. I accidentally clicked on it, while inching my way up to the top of the page.)</p>
<p>Today’s Financial Times has a nice column about this year’s Fields medalists (linked below), and each comes across as someone I’d enjoy having dinner with – even if I couldn’t completely follow the conversation. I particularly enjoyed this description of Brazilian mathematician Artur Avila:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Overall, though, I’m struck by the thought that there’s a fairly significant probability that the world’s potential next true maths genius may currently be living in a village in India that lacks running water. Maximizing our achievements as a society probably depends a lot more on widening the intake funnel into education than it does on whether those that come out the “seven sigma” end of it wind up at MIT, Stanford, or Oxford. </p>
<p>[FT</a> – “The minds that are first in their Fields”](<a href=“The minds that are first in their Fields”>The minds that are first in their Fields)</p>