<p>Can anyone verify sally305’s suggestion in #752 that MIT probably has an admissions process in place that involves engineering faculty in the selections, and weights the SAT more heavily?</p>
<p>I agree with both bogibogi and with QM #759 wholeheartedly and apologize profusely for “people skills” in my post #693 yesterday. I should thought harder and phrased better.</p>
<p>I was hoping to explore the idea that competitiveness is not necessarily an admirable component of genius, but the conversation moved pretty fast.</p>
<p>The reason I get annoyed is because there’s very little that’s based on the rational in these threads that morph to pages and pages on MIT. Even from people we hear are/were trained in a scientific approach. Too many tell what they think it should be, without looking at what it already really seems to be. </p>
<p>You can’t intuit about admission by looking at the public U that QM has claimed isn’t highly selective. Nor by the comment she says some MIT professor contacts (in one dept?) made to her. Nor by what one poster from another thread, claims to have heard someone say.</p>
<p>The wrong words, ideas and sources are parsed, which is a huge detour and, imo, mis-focus. “I just don’t see why he would say they have nothing to bring to the table.” It took 25+ pages for get to, “Ohhhhh.” </p>
<p>“But my friends at MIT say-” Or the argument that maybe, just maybe, maybe, some one or two kids who didn’t get into MIT could have ‘saved the world.’ A complete misread of what MIT states (if there was that read.) suggestions MIT isn’t being honest, anyway, that the elites spew buzz-crap, etc. Or pages about math potential that ‘could’ be measured on some scale that doesn’t exist. </p>
<p>Why not try to approach this hot-topic same a you approach math-sci questions? Cut the coy.</p>
<p>If you look at the MIT admissions link (I believe this is the one sevmom shared,) the mid-50% in math is 750-800. or 34, 36. Start there, not with some fuss about who said 700 and 800 may be functionally equivalent. Look at the page where they say what they look for.</p>
<p>Not: “I think it, so it must be true.”</p>
<p>As for yield protection, they had 658 on the wait list and took 0. Most colleges initially admit more than they have room for- they know, omg, some kids will want what Mich or GT or Berkeley offers, in whole. (Or that they can better afford one school over another.) Or sure, Harvard or Penn, Stanford or name-it.And golly, MIT didn’t need to rush to its wait list to make the class.</p>
<p>I am suggesting MIT doesn’t want to go to its waitlist to make a class. They want to pick the sure bets. If they think an extremely desirable candidate will almost surely pick Harvard, they put that kid on the waitlist. That allows the possibility the candidate could negotiate with MIT for a place later, if Harvard isn’t actually the first choice.</p>
<p>alh, I have read applications for merit scholarships for incoming freshmen and for scholarships for students who are already enrolled at my university. Faculty are heavily involve in the committees that make these decisions. But I have not been involved at all in admissions in general (except for the volleyball recruit).</p>
<p>Part of the reason for this is that we admit a relatively high fraction of our applicants. Like most large, public research universities in states with a multi-tier public university system, within the in-state applicant pool we receive applications mostly from students who have a reasonable chance of admission. At one neighboring high school I visited when QMP was in an EC that met there, a guidance counselor had put a chart on the wall, showing the students what GPA and what SAT/ACT scores they needed, in order to have a realistic chance of admission at various universities in the state. Of course the students can apply anywhere they want. We do not use a hierarchical ranking by score, but high-scoring, high-GPA students have higher odds of admission. We certainly admit students who don’t meet the charted criteria. Our admissions office puts a lot of work into recruiting all across the state, and trying to get the word out that students who really want to come should apply. Based on analyses of “student retention” and graduation figures, there does seem to be a minimum SAT/ACT score, below which the chances of students returning for sophomore year and the chances of students graduating fall off monotonically.</p>
<p>At my university, I would like to see a bit more emphasis placed on rigor of high school course work, and a bit less on high school GPA per se. It is not a big issue–I don’t know of any surprising rejections among the high school students I have known. </p>
<p>^thanks.</p>
<p>I am trying to picture what would happen, at any university which which I am familiar, if a professor told admissions she would like to read all the applications from all those stating a desire to major in her department. Maybe this happens at some small schools? </p>
<p>I am going to have to leave the board for the rest of the day, but wanted to try and wait around long enough to see if bogibogi wanted to follow up post #751? The ideas expressed there are the main reason I’m still following these threads. And we do keep circling back.</p>
<p>QM, admissions changes, imo, annually. The pictures kids tend to present, the incidental info they drop, the way they take advantage of new programs and opps, is always evolving. The core requirements stay the same. But there is a describable difference from even, say, 5 years ago, in what kids present. And the volume keeps growing. So no, you can’t go by what we heard on our own kids’ college visits. Nor what applied when X was working there or attended. </p>
<p>*For the betterment of society, though, shouldn’t their brainpower be nurtured? * Maybe. But the real question is where? And are you going to displace kids who meet the U’s needs and expectations, for those kids? Is it even the best environment to nurture them, put attention and mentoring resources onto them, be prepared to make social adaptations, when the whole ship is already moving in the way it does?</p>
<p>We have physics available to vet some apps that are uncertain- not for social attributes, but for academic level and, very important, the level of their experiences. There can be faculty reads on engineering wannabes. But it’s pretty clear who moves forward through the funnel and who just isn’t there. (That would be a whole new fuss between QM and me.)</p>
<p>I have never heard an adcom speak of concerns about “yield,” in the general way CC does. An individual kid? Sure.</p>
<p>Oh, no, alh, my remark was not intended to counter your use of the term “people skills.” I hadn’t even recalled that you used the term. There were a lot of posts while I was gone. :)</p>
<p>“For the betterment of society, though, shouldn’t their brainpower be nurtured? Maybe. But the real question is where? And are you going to displace kids who meet the U;s needs and expectations, for those kids?”</p>
<p>Back before I discovered CC, I naively believed that MIT would obviously be seeking out students who had the potential to be the next generation of “best in their fields” mathematicians and scientists. I thought that was the need and expectation at that particular school. And I thought HYP took a few of those types but it wasn’t their primary focus, just part of the “being best at everything” branding.</p>
<p>Could someone who knows clarify for me whether the scores listed as 25th %ile are in or out of the mid-50% range?</p>
<p>alh’s “naive” expectation about MIT admissions (#769) is what a lot of us thought. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The statistics here - <a href=“Admissions statistics | MIT Admissions”>http://mitadmissions.org/apply/process/stats</a> - separate SAT scores into 50-point bands.</p>
<p>But if the professor had any smarts whatever, he wouldn’t start with “I’d like to read all the apps for those who would likely be in my dept” and expect the adcom to say “sure, here you go,”. He’d start with understanding the mission, the values, the decision process, the trade offs. This is what I mean by being book smart and real life dumb. </p>
<p>The idea egghead professors are real life dumb is a stereotype. And a very ignorant one, imho.</p>
<p>"For the betterment of society, though, shouldn’t their brainpower be nurtured? "</p>
<p>But it is being nurtured. It just might be at CMU or Berkeley or whatever. This is not a problem. </p>
<p>Look, if someone was going to transform the world if given MIT resources but just be a bump on a log at CMU, then they AREN’T smart, and I don’t think they are deserving of any one bit more of sympathy than I’d give to Betty Bright who didn’t get into her school of choice. </p>
<p>But objectively speaking, a 2300 student who demonstrates leadership and ability to work with others <em>IS</em> more “valuable” (from the perspective of college admissions) than the 2400 who doesn’t interact with anybody. Why is that so controversial? That’s true in life too. </p>
<p>And QM, to forestall the inevitable, I mean valuable in the context of the u’s mission, not valuable as a human being. Obviously everybody has value as a human being regardless of brainpower or personality. This is self evident but I’d rather spell it out to be safe. </p>
<p>“Does everyone who thinks that 700 is basically the same as 800 also think that 600 is basically the same as 690? I don’t.”</p>
<p>“The same”? No. Shades of gray. Being an N on M-B, it’s very easy for me to see these as shades of gray. I think some of the more linear thinkers on here actually see these as chunks and that 800 is meaningfully different from 770 or whatever. </p>
<p>* I naively believed that MIT would obviously be seeking out students who had the potential to be the next generation of “best in their fields” mathematicians and scientists*</p>
<p>See, back to my question: what makes you so certain they are not? Q’s protest that they don’t? Something some older prof said to her? A college kid poster saying they don’t at his school? The key phrase is they are looking for more. And more kids are offering that more, every year. </p>
<p>If you want to help these rare kids, whether it’s their genius or something else in their way, by all means, get involved with individual kids at the hs level. (But make sure you understand the colleges’ goals before you “tell” them. The info is there.) Sympathy without action doesn’t get one far. </p>
<p>Yes, if a professor wants to be involved with admissions, he/she can be. But most are “busy.” </p>
<p>Gotta say, the Betty Brights are the ones who often do move the world. </p>
<p>"Gotta say, the Betty Brights are the ones who often do move the world. "</p>
<p>This is another stereotype, when you use it in conjunction with commenting negatively on students who don’t conform to the excellent sheep college admissions model. imho</p>