<p>Alh, you admit you don’t know much about admissions. So, maybe start by looking at hs kids you know today. Some you like because they are freaking geniuses. Some for their kills at integrating groups, some for their reliability or flexibility or doggedness. Some for their darned charm.</p>
<p>“Excellent sheep” is a potent stereotype as well. A pretty good one, because readers imagine and go “Oh, Noooo!” </p>
<p>No one is advocating for sheep. You know that.</p>
<p>My interest in these threads is not in getting your advice on how to approach college admissions. I won’t be passing on that advice.</p>
<p>I have some difficulty with the idea of selecting college students in STEM fields based on criteria that the faculty I know in STEM fields do not meet, in general. The faculty I know in STEM fields are mostly focused pretty exclusively on their research. I know a Nobel laureate who plays the piano for a while after finishing work in his lab, at midnight. I know another Nobel laureate who started playing the viola so that the family could have a string quartet. I sort-of know a non-Nobelist who has deep interests in art and photography. I have known a faculty member who played pick-up basketball into his 40’s. I know one who throws pots (that is, makes pots) as a hobby, and a retired faculty member who is serious about photography. This pretty much exhausts the list of hobbies of every faculty member I actually know. They are deeply engaging when they are talking about science, in some cases to the point of taking one’s breath away. But for the most part, they are not “more.” Edit: I need to clarify that I mean “more” in the sense that lookingfoward seems to be using it (perhaps I am misreading), and not “more” qua human beings. Qua human beings, they are decidedly “more.” Very important! I understand how people can fail to communicate in written form the specifics of what they think.</p>
<p>I lost track of who posted the “excellent sheep” remark. I don’t think MIT is selecting “excellent sheep” at all. It is another term I would be super happy to see dropped from the CC lexicon. Iookingforward is right that it is a stereotype. I believe that the people who are stereotyped in this way (which I do not like at all, needless to say again) are less likely to get into MIT or other top schools than other students. </p>
<p>I don’t have any problem conceiving of an undergrad who could outgrow me (a faculty member) while still being an undergrad. This is not to say that the super-geniuses whom MIT doesn’t take would be “bumps on a log” at my university–but rather that they could learn and do more if they had better professors. The great majority of students we have do not outgrow me while they are undergrads, or grad students for that matter. </p>
<p>Just as an addendum to my previous post: With CC, I have <em>way</em> more of a hobby than most faculty members I know. lookingforward and PG probably wish I would follow the example of most of my colleagues and drop all hobbies. :)</p>
<p>I first used “excellent sheep” and agree it is another unacceptable stereotype. I am very disturbed by the idea our best and brightest are trying to conform to some ideal of what colleges tell them they want. This seems absolutely backward to me. It isn’t the students’ fault that they do this. If they want success, they have to give the colleges what they want even if it is against their own best interests in how to spend their middle and high school years. I absolutely agree college admissions may not be able to successfully find these “march to their own drums” kinds of kids. It’s a conundrum imho</p>
<p>Oh, sorry again, alh–I seem to be inadvertently stepping on your toes today, which I don’t mean to be doing! </p>
<p>Hardly anyone likes someone on a moralist hobby horse! (I should know!) And since you are one of the few people who have been happy to support me while I am riding the hobby horse, I am doubly sorry!</p>
<p>I will say that while QMP was growing up, I made snarky comments from time to time that drew the response, “That’s mean!” When I thought about my comments, I had to agree with that assessment, even though the comments were about someone who wasn’t present (or a group of people who weren’t present). I think my own sensibilities were refined as a consequence of QMP’s comments, and for that I have to thank the teachers at the elementary school. Sincerely.</p>
<p>^ no I absolutely agree. It is useful and a growth experience for me to consider how I use my words. My goal is to increase my education in this area and there is always room to improve. The better I use words the more clear my perception of the world becomes. At least that is how it seems. </p>
<p>If I had more time, I’d rewrite this post with better words. : ) really gotta go now</p>
<p>lookingforward and PG probably wish I would follow the example of most of my colleagues and drop all hobbies.</p>
<p>Baloney. More baloney. What discussion is it supposed to encourage? No, QM, we did not say that. No, QM, no one values unilateral as much as CC sometimes think. In fact, it’s just odd, since since some if us ARE talking about roundedness and they way kids can stretch. Or was it, in fact, just more gauntlet? It just makes this thread more QM.</p>
<p>For the record, I once said QM and I should meet. When you’re in my area, by all means. </p>
<p>So anyway, some conformity does play a role in success. Not in the sense of the USSR, but our world allows for some choices and some expectations we need to meet. Think of it through that lens. We ask kids to meet certain hs prep standards - is that dread conformity or setting guidelines? Some colleges want to see ECs, is that telling parents how to raise their kids? The CA asks for written responses- could a kid buck that and get far?</p>
<p>You don’t have to do anything, not a whit, that an elite wants to see. Freedom! Just don’t plan on satisfying them with your drummer. Have some good safeties lined up. And I will stick to my advice that, if you want to know what certain college like, it helps to read what they say. It’s like reading the specs. </p>
<p>Thanks, lookingforward. If I am in your area, it would be fun and interesting to meet you. </p>
<p>My remark about dropping all hobbies was kind of a joke. What I meant was, maybe you would prefer if I dropped the “posting on CC” hobby, specifically. It would save you a lot of time!</p>
<p>Or maybe despite my very frequent use of MIT as an example, you find the discussion fruitful for informing current applicants and their parents? You do get to contrast with my viewpoint.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The example I cited was if the difference was 100 points on one section of the test, so like 300 points overall if such a difference was reflected in the other parts as well. At some point, yeah, I do think it affects the brand equity. It’s not all-or-nothing, and I agree that lagging behind somewhat wouldn’t affect their brand at all.</p>
<p>Ugh, I don’t always get the wit, though plenty of times I have a great big grin and laugh from the humor some insert. But, it does raise the issue of why that gauntlet. </p>
<p>I just have a different perspective. I can tell you what we look for in engineering candidates, btw. But maybe not this thread, since we’re so OT. We don’t run many kids past faculty because, without revealing too much, the number who are willing is very limited. It is pretty easy to tell when a kid is interested in and ready (adequately prepped for) for engineering, plus has the mindset and experiences or has the stuff for some rigorous physics work. They aren’t chosen out of thin air. Foolproof? Of course not. College is the grand buffet of academic choices. But given a choice between these 50 kids and those, it can seem clear which ones can hit the ground running. And who, in their other attributes, have drive and resilience, even creativity. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As she is a tenured professor at a research university, I think QM would know best how university politics work and how decisions are made. I have some familiarity with it having worked with faculty and knowing some at MIT and elsewhere. ,
And I think QM is correct.</p>
<p>"know a Nobel laureate who plays the piano for a while after finishing work in his lab, at midnight. I know another Nobel laureate who started playing the viola so that the family could have a string quartet. "</p>
<p>Then these folks would come across as interesting and having “something more to offer” - so what’s the problem? </p>
<p>“I first used “excellent sheep” and agree it is another unacceptable stereotype. I am very disturbed by the idea our best and brightest are trying to conform to some ideal of what colleges tell them they want. This seems absolutely backward to me. It isn’t the students’ fault that they do this. If they want success, they have to give the colleges what they want even if it is against their own best interests in how to spend their middle and high school years.”</p>
<p>No one is forced to contort oneself to what one thinks elite colleges want. There are a lot of paths in life. If it’s a hoop you don’t want to jump through, then walk around it. There is not some gun pointed at anyone’s head. </p>
<p>“I absolutely agree college admissions may not be able to successfully find these “march to their own drums” kinds of kids. It’s a conundrum imho”</p>
<p>Rofl - and when they DO let in some of these kids, who were busy doing interesting xyz instead of obsessing over getting 20 more points on their SATs, then these colleges get accused of “choosing quirky for quirky’s sake” and not giving the 2400s their propers. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t claim that academic brainpower isn’t appropriately rewarded and then also complain that march-to-own-beat kids are being overlooked. </p>
<p>To pick an example from another thread - the kid who plays the bagpipes and won a bagpipe competition. (And let’s stipulate he has the appropriate academic chops.) is this march-to-his-own-beat that we should reward or at least not overlook? Or is he just an excellent sheep who did something quirky because he read someplace adcoms like quirky and bagpipes fit? </p>
<p>My comment about your [hypothetically] wishing that I would drop the hobby of posting on CC wasn’t a “gauntlet,” lookingforward. At any rate, not in the sense of “throwing down the gauntlet,” which I understand to mean taking off armor that covers the hand and lower part of the arm and throwing it to the ground, in order to challenge someone.</p>
<p>It was a joke. I was actually sort of laughing at myself, since I keep getting drawn into the fray by a few posters’ remarks. There are other posters saying “Yawn” at my posts. Certainly my focus on MIT has been questioned. Though I haven’t seen much response to my recent comments about Harvard. (The best. Clearly. Added: Perhaps this obviates responses about Harvard?)</p>
<p>If the CC clock were a bit better synchronized with my computer clock, we could all agree on a final posting time, and thus all have the last word on the topic, at least on this thread.</p>
<p>Back to my actual point about hobbies: In selecting people for college admissions in STEM fields, why would one apply standards that most STEM faculty do not meet?</p>
<p>I understand that no school wants to populate its undergrad ranks exclusively with people who want to become faculty members, even in a STEM-oriented college. But I don’t get the strategy of excluding the applicants who look most like STEM faculty.</p>
<p>My cousin, who is an artist, knows how to ride a unicycle and did so before he applied to college. It is illustrative of part of his personality, which also shows up in his art. I don’t know anyone else who rides a unicycle.</p>
<p>It is not quite accurate to call “unicycle riding” an example of metonymy, but I do intend it to refer to a broader set of activities, which are largely orthogonal to work in STEM fields, yet seem to boost admissions chances.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s a difficult question. The way I would analyze it is I would try to roughly assess their musical talent. If it was less than another candidate with a more common instrument, then I would take the other person. That would take the intent out of it, and allow people to march to their own drummer while still demonstrating key talents such as, in this case, musical ability.</p>
<p>If it was an instrument that is needed to fill a spot in the orchestra, then that would impact the decision. But at a certain point, I would stop caring about filling the spots in the various bands and organizations, because they almost outnumber the number of students. If it’s the main orchestra, then yeah I would consider the fact you need to fill a slot. If it’s some random mariachi band that sprung up on campus, then no, I wouldn’t add any weight for the need to fill the spot. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Good point. I’ll add that Tech CEOs don’t really have that different of a profile to most professors.</p>
<p>@lookingforward, #767, my personal experience with MIT suggests that it is one of the best, if not the best, places to nurture these kids. The critical mass of genius types makes it very appealing to the brainy kids. (Or as PG would say ,“thickness” when referring to her kids’ schools. Funny how she dismisses those who want a “thickness” of their own qualities). It is a lovely sight to see these kids on fire for math. And isn’t that what we want? Having the best minds discuss, dissect and discover together? In this arena, I don’t consider the kids to be lacking in social skills. Their passion and generosity in sharing knowledge is rather inspiring. . </p>
<p>@pizzagirl, would you believe me if I said it would be challenging for these top kids to thrive at a CMU, JHU, Michigan, etc.through no weakness on their part? Probably not, because you appear to be grossly uninformed of the plight of gifted children. Indeed, you have no sympathy for them and your frequent use of derogatory terms to describe them confirms your disdain. </p>
<p>I have heard of several cases where some of these kids have ended up at CMU and Caltech and felt unchallenged and unfulfilled. I suppose they muddled through, but is that really ideal? It also appears that a lot of these mathy types from Harvard spend at great amount of time at MIT in order to get their math “fix”. </p>