<p>If some didn’t like 15% of the menu, I wouldn’t see that making it worth revising all the catering. Nor would I assume it represented the feelings of all diners or that something was seriously off with the caterers. Simple. </p>
<p>“I think many did have significant side interests, but they usually recede to the background and exist as diversions as one gets older. If you’re going to do it right, running a lab tends to suck up all your time. I’m not sure I would qualify music as a side interest, as it really is another form of engaging your mind.”</p>
<p>That’s true for anyone as they become an adult with a job and responsibilities. Few adults have the time for real “hobbies” as they would have in high school. I don’t know why running a lab would be even more time-sucky than any other professional job. My H and I work weekends and nights all the time in our fields. I travel frequently for work. None of this is noteworthy. I don’t know where you guys developed this notion that only your jobs require long hours. Do you guys in academia really believe that? </p>
<p>"agree completely about MIT being a very nurturing environment to people who are a bit too nerdy to be really well-suited to certain other places. It also allows those people at MIT who would be “ok” but not great socially elsewhere, to thrive and be the “popular” kids sometimes which is also interesting and can feed on itself so kids actually get more socially adjusted, with more friends, bf/gf, etc. "</p>
<p>There are genius and near-genius kids who are too nerdy to be really well suited to other places. (Of course, there are plenty of them who are just fine socially.). But, of course, there are just lots of super-bright kids in the same boat, etc. It’s an interesting concept that MIT should give special dispensation to the geniuses to help them thrive socially. Should that same concept apply to the nerdy but merely super bright? (By super bright, I still mean someone who could clearly handle MIT work.)</p>
<p>"people in STEM who did things like use color in slideshows, or dressed up “too nicely” - were viewed as maybe a little bit suspect in terms of actual braininess by fellow nerds. "</p>
<p>While I don’t really consider myself a STEM type, I was in a select honors math major program at a top 20 school and that’s what happened to me. I dressed more nicely than pocket protectors and tape-on-the-glasses, I knew what were the popular cultural references of the day, I was in a sorority, had a boyfriend, went to dances and wore lipstick. And I never got into Dungeons and Dragons or Star Trek or any of the other stereotypical things they enjoyed. Some of the guys thought I “couldn’t possibly be serious” because apparently the five seconds it took to put on lip gloss was five seconds lost from thinking deep thoughts. It was particularly satisfying when they realized I could hold my own quite nicely and even more so when I could help them with concepts! </p>
<p>@Pizzagirl - I think the plight of young women “nerds” is very complex. For a lot of us, honors math/science courses and activities attract lots of boys and few girls, so you might not like the few girls who are there. Then ok, most of your friends are boys. But do they like you as a friend, or as a girlfriend, and do they view you as an equal? It’s can be an ongoing turmoil/critique socially.</p>
<p>And then, with your peer group that might be largely these ill-defined-relationships with young men, you’re not getting the “typical” learning about makeup, clothes, feminine socialization. So great, you might say, less Culture of Patriarchal Oppression, right? But not really, because for women, some of these things are still “tickets” to acceptance in the world at large.</p>
<p>One of the neat things about MIT, and I assume at similar places, is that the girl who wears lip balm once in a while, starts to feel like maybe she’s the one who knows a bit about makeup, and experiments with actual lip stick, learns more, helps her new friends, and this kind of development (female to female) can occur. The girl who does have a jean skirt, not just jeans, is now the one who is pretty and “knows how to dress” and that can build confidence. At places with many fewer women - I would say less than 35% is a problem - there may not be a critical mass for enough female companionship.</p>
<p>It’s very hard to know how to do the important work of anti-sexism in STEM. Some issues are so incredibly pervasive. I remember at MIT, there was a rather unpleasant rhyming phrase used to describe the buses that brought Wellesley students to and from MIT events. Not to be outdone by their south-Cambridge neighbors, I heard men at Harvard say: “Simmons to bed; Wellesley to wed; Radcliffe for good conversation.” There was even a local rally about sexual harassment in area colleges to which a bunch of SAE brothers brought big signs saying, “NO means YES” and “SHE WANTED IT”. One of the reasons that I love MIT as an institution is that they have made real strides to work on these issues in a structural way.</p>
<p>I agree completely about MIT being a very nurturing environment to people who are a bit too nerdy to be really well-suited to certain other places. It also allows those people at MIT who would be “ok” but not great socially elsewhere, to thrive and be the “popular” kids sometimes which is also interesting and can feed on itself so kids actually get more socially adjusted, with more friends, bf/gf, etc. I think that MIT does all this pretty well while still having a commitment to all kinds of diversity - and indeed, maybe because of this commitment.</p>
<p>I really like this and it goes back to “fit” imho. Some kids won’t fit in during high school, but will be extremely comfortable in college. There is hope! Also, to link it back to high achievers who aren’t particularly competitive and perhaps the types of kids bogibogi describes - the kinds of students always delighted to share their notes, explain the material, etc, even in those classes graded on a curve, because they love the subject so very much and just want to spread the joy around. Sometimes when they win at regionals, they bow out and let a friend go on to the national competition. And this may not even be noble. They just aren’t that into all the gold stars. If they stay home, they can finish up a project they are working on. I think college fit is extremely important for this type of student, and not just academic fit. And I don’t think they do very well in graduate school environments where there is competition for limited funding. Sure, they get the funding but the experience can be soul draining for them. I understand these types need to learn to deal with the real world, but think it is well worth our while to support them emotionally until they finally get there on their own. Because I do think many of them get there, bogibogi. And maybe even before they are 30! ; )</p>
<p>adding: after writing this, I realized here are more examples of kids who don’t necessarily conform to what college admissions look for since they aren’t going after the prizes. I don’t think it is up to college admissions to figure this out. I also don’t think I want to tell these kids they have to go to nationals because it will look good on their applications. What to do? No idea. imho a good safety school for this type student is perhaps the honors college at a state flagship where the younger faculty are students of the biggest names in the fields at the more competitive universities. My hope would be they get mentored into the appropriate graduate programs.</p>
<p>Fretfulmother- my D is a rising senior at Wellesley. She’s certainly heard the other name for what is officially the Senate Bus. </p>
<p>To state the obvious- MIT is not the “Institute of math and physics”. The idea that the mission of its admissions department (and I’m ignoring QM’s dig that the professors who must volunteer to read undergrad applications are clearly the bottom of the barrel who have time to work for the institute because they are not famous enough to be jetting off to give speeches elsewhere-- this is a statement without any factual basis- even Walter Lewin is reported to have volunteered for admissions duties before he became emeritus) is to select the top math and physics students in the world and then… and only if there is enough room left… pick up a couple of kids who will populate the department of mechanical engineering (typically ranked in the top what… five departments world wide?) and the department of aero/astro and maybe if there’s room… just maybe… add another kid to materials science since the world needs someone worried about prosthetic devices and other life saving “inventions”— gosh, this strains credulity.</p>
<p>Just like Harvard. Just like Chicago. Just like Oxford/Cambridge and JHU and any other university which has the luxury of rejecting more than it can accept… there are institutional priorities which need to take into account a wide range of stakeholders. I’m sure the English and History departments at Hopkins think that the emphasis on Life Sciences is overblown. I’m sure the Classics department at Chicago rues the presence of so many Math kids. I’ll bet the Music department at Harvard cries buckets every time a world class admit turns them down to attend the joint Julliard/Columbia program.</p>
<p>But guess what- this numbers speak for themselves. Over time, these institutions manage to assemble a robust group of 18 year olds who manage to slog through the curriculum without overly tarnishing the academic reputation of the organization. </p>
<p>I am still waiting for the datapoints on the top math/physics kids who are getting rejected by MIT and end up at Framingham State. My assessment is that there are none. There are zero. Yup, zero. Why? Because when those kids get rejected by MIT they end up at Berkeley and Chicago and Rice and CMU and Cal Tech and Harvard and they seem to get on with their lives just the same. And I know lots of kids who wanted to study engineering who got rejected from MIT (or accepted and couldn’t swing the finances) and they end up at Cornell or Princeton or Michigan and even THEY seem to turn out ok.</p>
<p>I would buy into the argument that MIT admissions were problematic if there was a shred of evidence that the top scientific minds of our generation are being lost… and being turned into gym teachers at Southern CT State college. But since nobody here has an instance of that ever happening in real life… MIT type talent which does not go to MIT goes to another top university where their talents are groomed and cultivated… I think we should all turn our collective angst to a problem which has more resonance.</p>
<p>“in my experience at MIT and talking to other MIT-ish people, there is a perceived hierarchy in ability among the departments, with physics at the top, then math, then maybe the engineerings (not sure what order here - maybe aero/astro first), then chemistry, then bio, then pre-med people within bio, then various humanities, last management.”</p>
<p>I certainly can’t speak to MIT, but isn’t the whole “perceived hierarchy in ability” part of the problem? This, to me, feels like – well, we were all nerds in high school and we were at the bottom of the social ladder, with the cheerleaders and the quarterbacks on top. So, now, we’ve found this place where we can all indulge our intellectual interests – but we’ve still got to put together a hierarchy, now just based on brains (and sniff that the SAT is remedial because we are so much brainier and hence cooler than those idiots at State U). Either way, isn’t it just pointless chest-beating? </p>
<p>My undergrad had an engineering school. There was a little hierarchy where eng was perceived harder than arts and sciences (where I was), which in turn was harder than journalism, communications, theater, etc. I am ashamed to admit that I bought into it, and looked down at the comm studies and theater kids. </p>
<p>And then, frankly, I grew up. I realized that some of the things the comm kids were doing were really impactful, and I’d be well served to learn about them, and I realized the talent it took to start with a blank page and create a musical or drama that touched people’s emotions. I realized there’s no need to make it a hierarchy – we all have different roles to play, and different strengths to offer. Don’t the people who are “hierarching” (word I just invented) different departments at MIT, or for that matter MIT vs Caltech on minute dimensions, need to grow up too? </p>
<p>3 separate topics here:</p>
<p>Final paragraph of alh’s #825: I agree. I think this does happen. At the “top” schools, graduate admission in the sciences operates on a different basis from undergrad admissions, so there is no problem for these students to get in. I agree with you that it’s tough to figure out what to say to a student who wants to waive the trip to Nationals so that he can work on an ongoing project. Perhaps “Thanks!” from the team-mate who gets to go in his/her place is the right answer to that.</p>
<p>My calc prof, John von X, told our class once, “I don’t look down on engineers.” That is a pretty loaded phrase, if you deconstruct it. There is a lot of . . . um . . . commentary that goes both ways between engineers and scientists, but it tends to die out at the career point when people are mostly surrounded by colleagues in their own departments or units.</p>
<p>With regard to workloads in different fields (okay, I got drawn into this): From earlier threads, I have formed the impression that PG does not work both days of every weekend. Perhaps this is incorrect. I recall a time when I didn’t want to go into the lab on a Sunday, after about 12 straight weekends of working both days (+ all the weekdays, of course). This made me worry that I suffered from “fear of success.”</p>
<p>A few years ago, a fire broke out on a Friday night, in the apartment where one of our grad students was living. The police asked the young man where he was. He explained that he was in the lab, working. The police were incredulous. C’mon. Young man? And not nerdy-looking? Friday night? But he was in the lab. </p>
<p>PG, I think you live near the university where you are an alum? Can you get into the lab buildings on weekends, and especially weekend nights? Or are they locked? If you can get into the buildings and you are willing to try an experiment, you might go to physics, materials science, or chemistry some time when you are not working. You might talk to the grad students, post-docs, and faculty who are there. If you cannot get in, you might drive by the buildings, and look for signs of activity in the labs. I trust empiricism. </p>
<p>Math departments operate a bit differently, in my experience. With very few exceptions, it is not necessary to be in the math building to be working on math.</p>
<p>Howard on the Big Bang Theory gets looked down upon by his friends (even though he went to MIT) because he only has a master’s in aerospace engineering and isn’t a scientist like them. Just fiction but pretty funny.</p>
<p>I definitely didn’t allege that there was anything wrong with the MIT faculty who took the time to read applications. I am not sure how my comments gave that impression.</p>
<p>It would make perfect sense to me (and I have said that in a recent post) if MIT is selecting for engineering talent, rather than for math/science talent, generally speaking. Or if they have an approximate number of math/science types they want, and would like to fill the rest of the Institute with engineers + some in business or other areas.</p>
<p>The indicators of talent tend to be different in engineering from the indicators of talent in math and science. Although there is quite a bit of overlap, people in both groups need “more;” it’s just that the “more” is different between the two groups.</p>
<p>All of the discussion of people skills, firm handshakes, looking people in the eye, having “sparks,” showing it, proving it out, and offering more distracted me from a much simpler explanation: great beginning engineers do look different in some ways from great beginning scientists. Hardly anyone on CC has offered this explanation though. You may well all have thought that it was obvious.</p>
<p>Big Bang Theory makes my head hurt. It is possible for me to see it (like Will and Grace) as using kindly humorous stereotypes to make an audience more comfortable with those they usually see as other and off-putting and sometimes a little scary.</p>
<p>Sorry, blossom, #827: I do see now how my comments created the impression that they were a “dig” at MIT faculty who read applications. I think the faculty who read applications do all of the things that my friends do + reading applications.</p>
<p>I know some scientists who are able to get along on 4 hours of sleep a night, though I cannot do that. I surmise that the people who do “everything” have low sleep requirements.</p>
<p>As an aside: “Firm handshakes” might be quite a bit more important in engineering than in science. The projects are typically more expensive in engineering, when the degree-work is complete, and it is important to be able to persuade the people who have the money for the projects. In science, it is mostly sufficient to persuade other scientists, and the monetary stakes tend to be lower, with a few exceptions.</p>
<p>Second aside: If you take me up on my suggestion of looking at the labs at your alma mater, PG, please don’t go when there is a major national meeting scheduled. Some of those start on Sundays, so people travel on Saturday. People who are responsible for the symposia two or three meetings ahead often meet on Saturday before the main meeting, and may be traveling on Friday.</p>
<p>alh, We have watched Big Bang Theory from the very beginning because my younger kid’s AP Physics teacher told his class they needed to watch it. All of the characters are certainly very memorable.</p>
<p>Neither of my kids are “nerdy” and I do think that may help more in engineering, consulting, QM. </p>
<p>QM - I live a good 45 min to an hour away. I’m quite sure that there are people in labs all day and all night; there have been stories, both apocryphal and verified, of grad students essentially living in the Tech sub-basement. </p>
<p>I have a friend whose husband runs a lab at Fermilab. He goes that at odd hours to supervise god-knows-what. </p>
<p>None of this says to me that scientists work any harder than anybody else, though. My H routinely works 70-80 hour weeks and is on call 24/7 and leaves at odd hours. Babies are like that. I often do at least some work both weekend days as well into evenings and pull all nighters, as well as travel. I happen to do it with a computer in my home vs being in a lab, but same difference. This is pretty typical professional life for people who take what they do seriously, and not at all noteworthy. </p>
<p>“Some of those start on Sundays, so people travel on Saturday. People who are responsible for the symposia two or three meetings ahead often meet on Saturday before the main meeting, and may be traveling on Friday.”</p>
<p>Got it. I lose my weekends all the time when I have a client who wants me in China bright and early on a Mon morn. Such is working professional life in 2014. It is tiring, though, and I’m starting to rebel, </p>
<p>To address a lot of the recent discussion, MIT doesn’t admit to fill majors. This was true when I applied, and I’ve heard them still say it is true. I think something like 50% of the kids I knew as freshmen said they were going to be a physics major–most of them ended up in some kind of engineering. MIT knows this kind of thing happens, so the interests of the applicant don’t affect admissions. </p>
<p>For something like material science and engineering, few know they want to do that coming in. Usually they start out as chem E majors and then find that the emphasis on processes is unappealing. </p>