5 Little Known Tips for Getting In

Parents Forum
881

<p>I know that some of the students with very high stats have no interest in MIT. I have no argument that MIT should admit students who don’t apply there! :slight_smile: </p>

<p>I don’t actually think it is the best place for scientists, though it is unquestionably very good. Whatever <em>is</em> the best place for a particular scientist, though, that place may not have been on the person’s list when the person was a high-school senior. MIT might be the best place of those to which they have applied.</p>

<p>None of the people that I have been writing about thinks he/she is going to be the next Emily Dickinson, Stephen Hawking, or Richard Feynman. I don’t think that anyone thought he/she might be the next Joni Mitchell, either.</p>

<p>The Davidson Fellow I mentioned (<a href=“http://www.davidsongifted.org”>http://www.davidsongifted.org</a>, not Davidson, the college) might be the next really well-known scientist. She got into Harvard with no problem. I don’t know whether she applied to MIT or not. I don’t believe she thinks she is a genius. The small number of people I actually know, about whom I have posted, don’t think they are geniuses. I am the one providing that assessment.</p>

<p>Well, one guy probably did think that he might be the next Stephen Hawking, but he got into Harvard with no problem, anyway.</p>

<p>QMP is not among the people I have been writing about.</p>

<p>Post #878 is arguing against something that I must have inadvertently indicated that I thought, due to lack of clarity in my writing. But it is not what I do think, and not what the students I have been writing about think, either. Sure, people who actually think that they are top-flight geniuses probably are not, and they probably are going to be disappointed.</p>

882

<p>I think the problem is that you still have not identified these geniuses who are so disadvantaged.</p>

883

<p>*Well, before all the discussion about “more” was available on CC, a student who had top qualifications on an objective basis, and was rejected by MIT, and knew that people with significantly lower “stats” were admitted, *</p>

<p>Back to that? it’s not all about stats. The poor kid who thinks his stats trump, never saw the other’s app, made all these assumptions about his superiority and the righteousness of his dreams- and now can;t function? But his feelings are hurt…</p>

<p>QM, this is why I quesition your scientific approach to these issues. This is why I agree with sevmom that much on these MIT is Heartless threads comes across as ■■■■■-like repetitive, provoking.</p>

884

<p>Well, no one I knew was unable to function after being rejected by MIT. Again, I feel that my comments about decisions I classified as sub-optimal are being caricatured into extremes. On this thread, I did come to understand that MIT might truly favor engineers over scientists (at least, at a certain point), and that they might view the applicants through an engineering lens. It makes sense. It also makes sense of the insistence on “more.” In a lot of cases, the engineers will have the right kinds of “more” and the scientists will have the wrong kinds of “more.” All of the discussion of the lack of people skills, etc. of the rejected applicants was not only conjectural, but actually irrelevant to most of the engineering “more” (though not all of it).</p>

<p>In this thread, I don’t think that I have originated the discussions on the topics that do provoke me. A lot of the people on this thread know what I am sensitive to, by this point. I am certainly not trolling.</p>

<p>I think the communications from MIT Admissions have improved a lot, even within the past two years. I certainly don’t think MIT Admissions is heartless now. In the recent past, I think that their heartstrings were pulled by Betty Bright, and much less so by Georgette Genius–not heartless, and I can understand that viewpoint while not sharing it.</p>

885

<p>If you go through this thread, I think you will find a lot of approval for Betty Bright, and a lot of negative commentary about Greg Genius. I think you will also find that the posters who don’t share my view outnumber the posters who do. I think the posts advocating both viewpoints are approximately balanced, though probably the posts of people who don’t share my view outnumber my posts + the post of people who agree with me.</p>

<p>I read Sheldon Glashow’s autobiography quite a few years ago. He is a Nobel Laureate in Physics and was candid enough to admit to sleepless October nights for several years before he got the call from Stockholm. I sleep perfectly fine in October.</p>

<p>Even though I can’t help thinking that Prof. Glashow’s concern during the waiting period was just a teensy bit funny, I can nevertheless sympathize with it. If he had not yet won the Nobel Prize, I would sympathize more. I’m not sympathizing with any of my immediate colleagues that none of us has won the Nobel Prize. That would be really funny!</p>

<p>In a somewhat similar vein, if Betty Bright doesn’t get into her state flagship, and instead goes to a lower-tier institution in her state, I sympathize with her. I have the same level of sympathy in that case that I have for Greg and Georgette Genius, if they don’t get into a “top” school. If we go further down from Betty Bright to someone who is above average, then even if that person has been dreaming of “top” school X since age 4, I have exactly the same level of sympathy for that person when he/she is rejected as I have for my colleagues when the phone doesn’t ring in October.</p>

886

<h1>879</h1>

<p>My money is on this: MIT puts the best class together it can, based on the pool, what they know the U is and is looking for, based on institutional knowledge of the sorts of students who thrive and contribute, in and out of class, earns its rep, and so much more. If it ain;t broke, don;t fix it.</p>

<p>While I agree it is possible “MIT puts the best class together it can,” I don’t agree MIT is infallible, since as far as I know only humans are on the MIT admissions committee and human beings all make mistakes. I think the idea of “best class” is a platonic ideal. And perhaps an idea that is worthy of discussion. Perhaps not. There seems to be quite a bit of interest in the idea on this board.</p>

<p>…
We have this ongoing and sometimes acrimonious discussion that pretty much originally began, imho, when someone objected to name calling. And when some posters get aggravated with that <em>someone</em> they call her names.
???</p>

<p>…
This go round we have some posters who seem (to me) to reject entirely the idea an elite degree confers any sort of advantage or that an elite education is superior to any other sort of education. At the same time they adamantly and forcefully defend MIT’s admissions’ policies. I can’t quite put my finger on it but to me this looks like a disconnect?</p>

<p>…
For a while now I’ve been wondering if a data scientist, given all these posts on all these threads, could make sense of that data. I continue to think these threads aren’t really about MIT, or about any so called elite school. That is why I find them so obsessively interesting. But I have made a promise to myself that today I will not excuse myself from company in the parlor to go upstairs and check out this thread.</p>

<p>Well, maybe I’ll just take a peek but not take the time to post.</p>

887

<p>and I don’t think questioning MIT’s admissions policies is the same thing as bashing MIT, since I don’t think admissions = the university. </p>

<p>in my defense, my out of town company hasn’t arrived yet</p>

888

<p>@alh - wrt to the ideas:</p>

<ol>
<li>elite degree doesn’t really matter
and</li>
<li>MIT admissions isn’t a big deal, whatever methods they use, or not, and they’re doing fine</li>
</ol>

<p>Perhaps these can be related because if there is a large degree of randomness, and it’s not even really the “best” who go to MIT anyway, then ok, maybe getting an MIT degree is sort of irrelevant.</p>

<p>Since I disagree about 60% with (1) and about 85% with (2), I’m not really one to judge this possible connection, but I thought it might resonate with some.</p>

<p>…</p>

<p>One thing I do notice is that there are a lot more posters who keep insisting that MIT “isn’t the pinnacle of existence” than there are posters who ever implied such a thing. In fact, I think even people who went to MIT and loved it, never said it was the pinnacle of existence. I think there’s a bit of a defensive posture among people who know MIT only as an idea.</p>

<p>Let me suggest that knowledge of MIT in theory is about as valuable as knowledge of “Math Team” in theory, and there can be misconceptions as large as the one that Math Team would be about SAT preparation. I don’t mean to mock that misconception, but just to use it as an example of how people may not always know what goes on behind other doors.</p>

<p>Having gone to MIT, and having taught and advised many kids who went subsequently, and many more who did not - I think I can judge pretty well who would love being there, and who would bring great community presence. To be sad that some such kids were not admitted, does not mean I think MIT is some “pinnacle” for every child. IN fact, I have children myself, even mathy children, and I’m not sure MIT is the best choice for them (if they get in, which is never a sure thing with these admissions numbers anyway).</p>

<p>By the way, I read <em>Admission</em> and one of the things that struck me was the conversation between our heroine (the admissions officer at Princeton) and some faculty. There was definitely a disconnect between them, and there was both a judgmental thing going on from the faculty (“you don’t even have a degree in this; does it take any special preparation at all?”) and a defensive thing from the admissions department. Granted, that is a novel. However, it made me wonder more about the relationship between admissions and faculty. Before reading that book, I had kind of assumed that faculty read applications as part of the universal process, and that they were all a team.</p>

889

<p>^nice. : ) I’ve been thinking about this idea of randomness vs luck. I absolutely believe in the luck of our genes and the luck being born into a certain environment. I can’t quite equate luck with randomness, but I have been thinking about it pretty hard.</p>

<p>Company just called with ETA of 10 minutes.</p>

890

<p>I’m kind of chuckling at the idea that somebody who objects to students being labeled as boring or overly focused would at the same time proudly point to people who spend all day and night, seven days a week, in the lab.</p>

<p>Ralph Ellison only wrote one novel. How many physicists is he worth?</p>

891

<p>What’s boring about spending all day and night in the lab, seven days a week, Hunt? Sometimes when I am working on equations my heart is racing. Admittedly, there is a very small audience for my work, compared with that of a literary giant.</p>

<p>Also, alh, lol about your recent posts!</p>

892

<p>“Well, before all the discussion about “more” was available on CC, a student who had top qualifications on an objective basis, and was rejected by MIT, and knew that people with significantly lower “stats” were admitted, might well wonder whether something was wrong with him/her. (snip) It would be totally logical for such a student to wonder whether something was wrong with him/her.”</p>

<p>No, it’s not “totally logical.” If they can’t understand that admissions is holistic and isn’t fully driven by objective stats, then they aren’t as smart as they think they are, or as smart as you think they are. </p>

<p>MIT (and every other elite school) COMES OUT AND TELLS YOU that admissions isn’t based strictly on racking and stacking scores. They all make it a point to tell you that they reject the majority of 2400’s, or valedictorians, or whatevers. If our supposed genius can’t understand that, he’s not very bright. </p>

893

<p>“This go round we have some posters who seem (to me) to reject entirely the idea an elite degree confers any sort of advantage or that an elite education is superior to any other sort of education. At the same time they adamantly and forcefully defend MIT’s admissions’ policies. I can’t quite put my finger on it but to me this looks like a disconnect?”</p>

<p>There’s no one on this discussion who rejects entirely the idea that an elite degree confers advantage / is superior to other types of education. No one. That’s a complete straw man. </p>

<p>But some people keep forgetting that the kids who get denied by MIT are <em>GOING ON TO OTHER ELITE COLLEGES.</em> They are going on to CMU and JHU and Berkeley and what-not. </p>

<p>Unless one is the kind of pedantic and clueless individual who thinks that there are meaningful differences at any kind of macro level? Because there just … aren’t. There are 30,000 opportunities at MIT and 20,000 at CMU. No one person can take advantage of more than 10. (And goodness, since this is the Land of the Literal around here, don’t argue with me about the specific numbers - this is conceptual.) </p>

894

<p>

</p>

<p>Most people would find that boring. Plenty of us are passionate about our work and yet still seek balance in our lives. And aren’t you the one who objects to people being called “textureless math grinds”?</p>

<p>So much dancing on the head of a pin here…</p>

895

<p>PG, #892, I am not forgetting where the students are going instead. Let’s take a non-computer science major who is going to CMU, and is exceedingly smart. It seems to me that what you are saying boils down to: Ellen Sue Exceedingly-Smart will likely outgrow QM and immediate faculty colleagues while Ellen Sue is an undergrad, but she won’t outgrow the people at CMU. I already acknowledged that this is most likely true of some very smart students. However, it is not hard for me to conceive that Ellen Sue might outgrow the people at CMU too (while she is an undergrad), if she is truly exceptional.</p>

<p>Computer science at CMU is an exception to the general scenario, because it is so good. (There might be other fields at CMU that are comparable to computer science, too.)</p>

<p>I don’t think you have commented on my theory that faculty in general move “up” when they move between universities (with numerous special exceptions for particular reasons, of course).</p>

896

<p>QM, You do know that CMU is a top school for engineering, don’t you? It is ranked 7th in undergrad and 5th in graduate engineering with many top faculty . <a href=“Page not found! - College of Engineering at Carnegie Mellon University”>Page not found! - College of Engineering at Carnegie Mellon University;
Also, very well known for drama, theater.</p>

<p>The Dean of Engineering at MIT is a Penn State grad . He went on to get a PhD from Caltech but certainly must have gotten a good foundation at Penn State. If your Ellen Sue feels unchallenged and unfulfilled and feels she will “outgrow” what even a place like CMU has to offer, she most likely has no one to blame but herself. <a href=“http://engineering.mit.edu/about/leadership/ian-waitz”>http://engineering.mit.edu/about/leadership/ian-waitz&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>And yes, I’m sure lots of faculty in general will move up if they can. Prestige ,research dollars , etc. </p>

897

<h1>889</h1>

<p>anticipating fretfulmoother’s confusion and for anyone else who may need cliff notes at this point: </p>

<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/1555161-school-board-bans-novel-ellison-s-classic-invisible-man.html”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/1555161-school-board-bans-novel-ellison-s-classic-invisible-man.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

898

<p>“However, it is not hard for me to conceive that Ellen Sue might outgrow the people at CMU too (while she is an undergrad), if she is truly exceptional.”</p>

<p>Give me a break. There isn’t anybody so smart in all the entire world that they can’t learn from others. </p>

<p>You’d <em>maybe</em> have a point if Ellen Sue were at East Whoville State U where the labs weren’t equipped and the science teachers were brought over from the football field … but at places of this caliber? I emphatically and categorically reject that even our super-geniuses are just going to wring all the smartness out of everyone around them, outpace them on every single thing, and have no place to go. It just isn’t consistent with any part of real life, whatsoever.</p>

899

<p>“I don’t think you have commented on my theory that faculty in general move “up” when they move between universities (with numerous special exceptions for particular reasons, of course).”</p>

<p>I didn’t comment because it’s irrelevant. Even if faculty move “up,” it doesn’t mean they “exhausted” or “outgrew” all the knowledge to be had at their old place. </p>

900

<p>Don’t the best discoveries come from people whose curiosity is so consuming that they devote themselves heart and soul into exploring ideas no one has tackled before? I guess I don’t understand how a super-smart student’s potential can be infinite and finite at the same time.</p>