<p>Sorry Q Mech, I read pretty well and your history of postings suggests that you view many types of admissions processes/criteria through the lense of “bias” as you define it.</p>
<p>But I must challenge your contention about kids on the spectrum which frankly is the most ‘reductio ad absurdum’ argument I have read in ages. If you are basing your assumption on the fact that you yourself know many kids on the spectrum who have been rejected from Harvard or Dartmouth, it most emphatically does not mean that there is bias in H and D’s admissions process. It might mean that a kid with one particular interest-- only one- whether it is transportation maps or animal husbandry or chess or medieval swordplay, is not going to do well at H or D unless their academics are off the charts. And if that’s the case- they’ve got 720 type SAT scores, great grades, and one abiding and all consuming interest- these are precisely the kids who will get into the colleges one notch below H and D, where their academics will trump everything else.</p>
<p>There is no place on a college application to indicate “I have a spectrum disorder”, so in point of fact, many kids who are NOT on the spectrum, but have one and only one interest (since I can’t imagine how else an adcom would fathom who is neurotypical from the application), or have no evidence of social life/interests typical of a 17 year old, or whatnot, also get rejected in vast numbers.</p>
<p>So if this argument- which has spanned months on varying threads, is based on your belief that kids on the spectrum- who otherwise are qualified and interested/interesting candidates for top schools- are systematically discriminated against- please cite your sources.</p>
<p>My company hires hundreds of new grads from top schools every year, and our recruiters will be astonished to discover that top schools discriminate against those on the spectrum. Especially since there are certain roles/academic majors/departments which don’t seem to have a single "neurotypical’ job applicant!</p>
<p>Ever interview 500 actuaries over the course of a month? Care to guess how many of them seem to manifest evidence of a spectrum disorder? (I certainly don’t know since we do not ask for a medical history of our applicants. But we do ask for a transcript and standardized test scores).</p>
<p>And Pizza- yes- I do certainly believe that you would make a fine girlfriend for George Clooney. I am shocked that he discriminates against middle aged mom’s in his dating life!</p>
<p>"In my opinion, the % of admitted students with autism of the high-functioning variety should not be artificially kept below the % of students in the same group (added: and in the applicant pool, of course!) who are academically qualified to attend the university. If these percentages differ, as I suspect they do, I am not entirely sure what that means. Virtually everything I have read suggests that there are “preferences” that operate against students who have autism of the high-functioning variety. I am genuinely unsure where that shifts over into “bias against.”</p>
<p>It would have been nice instead of dancing around “vaguely human” and “didn’t use soap” and “USAMO winners who don’t get MIT auto-admits like they should”, if you had just come out and SAID this very statement eons ago. </p>
<p>So, you’re concerned about high-performing autistic students generally; your observation is that they are a) overrepresented among the Greg Geniuses / USAMO winners of the world and b) they get screwed because MIT et al want to build community, not just have a bunch of people who cannot communicate effectively / well with one another or have characteristics that make it difficult for them to interact socially with neurotypical people. </p>
<p>Glad that’s finally out there. Now we can at least debate it. </p>
<p>There are obviously kids who reveal disordered, incomplete or faulty thinking in their apps or interviews. Which others do you want to move aside for them? </p>
<p>And there are kids who appear to be- or admit to being- on the spectrum and are academically accomplished, come across as quite interesting and quite ready for an academically and socially challenging environment. </p>
<p>" I am pretty sure that there are “preferences” that tend to operate against the (n + 1)st Asian-American USAMO competitor who plays the piano extremely well and has reached all-state level in tennis."</p>
<p>Those “preferences” also operate against the (n+1) Jewish student from Long Island who teaches Hebrew school and volunteers at his local Democratic party headquarters, and so on and so forth. </p>
<p>Rather than seeing it as a bias against a certain type of student, why don’t you reframe it as a bias against having too many of ONE GIVEN TYPE of student? No, no college wants to be exclusively full of just Asian-Amer USAMO piano/tennis players, but they don’t want to be exclusively full of Long Island Jewish kids who preach social justice, or WASPs from Exeter or, or, or. </p>
<p>The other thing that amazes me that so many people haven’t figured out is – about 50% of the Asian population in this country is based in California, another 25% in NYC metropolitan area, and the rest scattered. That also means that they are coming from the same geographical areas. This hurts in admissions - not because of bias, but because top schools want geographical diversity. This affects Jewish students too given their concentration in northeastern cities, but to a lesser extent since their population is spread out a bit more than the Asian population. This isn’t bad or good, it just is. </p>
<p>It is the most obvious piece of common sense on the planet that for elite college admissions, you want to show how you are distinguishable from others who are applying. I don’t know why, for smart people, this is so difficult to grasp. </p>
<p>What is really the point in taking a kid who can’t thrive during the four years at single-digit College X? If you really just want a chance to focus on his academic potential, based on some signs someone saw somewhere, somehow, there are summer enrichment programs that cater to the unilateral sorts of kids. Found the cinder block institution where only academics matters. Go for it. </p>
<p>If this argument comes back to, “But his genius!,” I am afraid you don’t know what these colleges are really like. Like the hs kids on CC, you may be seeing the flat, not the reality. </p>
<p>I think a lot of ASD kids have trouble with the essay though in its current format. To do well with the essay requires Theory of Mind – the writer needs to be able to picture the reader and write to the reader and understand what the reader might and might not like to hear. </p>
<p>Just a quick example: My kid played in a youth orchestra that was really cool and welcoming of all sorts of kids. there was a kid in the orchestra who was a musical genius and a savant, and he was home schooled and more than a little eccentric. At some point, he was asked to start providing program notes for the orchestra concerts – he was extremely interested in certain things, like how tall every composer was, whether or not they had any pets, etc. We all adored his program notes! We always learned a ton of things that we didn’t know before – but the kid wasn’t writing the program notes for anyone about himself. I don’t think he ever pictured a reader and what they might like to know. (He assumed we all wanted to know that Beethoven was taller than Chopin because this was important to him.) Any essay written by someone with this particular impediment would likely be really different than your standard essay, and might not exactly resonate with an admissions member – though it might, you never know!</p>
<p>Colleges probably don’t want to be overrun with too many future military/logistical strategists, students who’ll flood the campus with 700 pound 15 foot tall dodo birds created from test tubes, or students with the desires and capabilities to raid fraternity/sorority/alumni/trustee parties. </p>
<p>Especially if the last are doing so while waving swords/axes* over their heads and charging on those dodo birds towards the terrified fleeing partygoers. :D</p>
<ul>
<li>Including some crafted by companies like Fender, Gibson, Ibanez, Rickenbacker, etc. :D</li>
</ul>
<p>I don’t think the autism point is central to qmech’s main argument on these boards. I don’t think her main argument is that actual, real deficiencies in the realm of social skills should be ignored by admissions boards.</p>
<p>And, in conclusion, having read the 1365 posts above, we can unequivocally state there were way more than a handful of secret tips to get in. Here follows the last paragraph of our report! </p>
<p>At this stage, our hunch is that a student named Geronimo Lebron Leibowitz who graduated first in his class and won the Intel as well as the Junior Olympics in both sabre and épée might have a reasonable chance. His odds would, however, greatly improve if his Forbes 100 listed father funds more than the current two buildings and three chairs. Unfortunately, more research on the subject is warranted before we might able to define the seventh or eight tip. We are eagerly awaiting the NIH final decision on our 17th grant proposal on this burning issue. We thank our team of CC researchers. </p>
<p>Aren’t the dynamics of CC threads fascinating? </p>
<p>I have no idea what Qmech’s argument is now that the elephant in the room has been revealed.</p>
<p>And for everyone who claims that a kid on the spectrum can’t write the kind of self-revelatory but humorous essay that he/she needs to write to get into Yale… guess what, for this genius kid (and newsflash- not everyone with a spectrum disorder is a genius), there are several hundred colleges who will admit the genius with barely a glance at the essay, and several dozen more which typically look at the essay but will waive it for the genius, etc.</p>
<p>So much ink wasted on the socially awkward genius kid on the spectrum who can’t get into MIT without ever noticing the socially awkward genius kids who A- are admitted to MIT every year and B- admitted to dozens of other fine schools.</p>
<p>Still not understanding what’s so complicated. ALL applicants need to demonstrate what they will contribute to the college they are applying to- even if it’s of the “most popular kid on campus and I will try hard not flunk out while being fraternity president” type of college. Any kid who is misguided enough to believe that “my application speaks for itself” if that means asking the adcom to plow ahead and try to piece together a coherent narrative- well, that kid was poorly advised. USAMO, Presidential Scholar, Physics Olympiad, doesn’t matter.</p>
<p>People- but mostly Quantmech- this is not like reading “Ulysses”, or the variorum edition of King Lear. The application is the application.</p>
<p>But blossom…I thought I was reading the modern day CC version of “Ulysses” following this thread…Joyce would be proud that the posters are taking “stream of consciousness” to the next level ;)… </p>
<p>"And for everyone who claims that a kid on the spectrum can’t write the kind of self-revelatory but humorous essay that he/she needs to write to get into Yale… guess what, for this genius kid (and newsflash- not everyone with a spectrum disorder is a genius), there are several hundred colleges who will admit the genius with barely a glance at the essay, and several dozen more which typically look at the essay but will waive it for the genius, etc.</p>
<p>So much ink wasted on the socially awkward genius kid on the spectrum who can’t get into MIT without ever noticing the socially awkward genius kids who A- are admitted to MIT every year and B- admitted to dozens of other fine schools."</p>
<p>But that’s been QM’s whole point. The socially awkward genius didn’t get into MIT and has been thusly doomed. Haven’t there been dozens of posts about how the World Will Miss Out because the socially awkward genius has to slum it at a lower level school?</p>
<p>I suspect part of QM’s issue is an overload of sympathy for our socially awkward genius, not because of the genius, but because of the socially awkward, and presumably because our socially awkward person has been hurt numerous times (didn’t get to sit at the lunch table, may not have a lot of friends), he deserves a special break in college admissions if he’s genius enough. </p>
<p>And look, my heart breaks for any kid who doesn’t get to sit at the lunch table and doesn’t have a lot of friends. But just as we all have to overcome our own deficiencies in any area, our socially awkward kid has to work hard at overcoming his issues, too. Sure, it’s hard. I don’t doubt it. It’s also hard to become better at lots of things. </p>
<p>I think that a student might be the best judge of how he/she “fits” in a particular college environment, especially if the student is reasonably well informed about it. That doesn’t mean that I think that the student should automatically be admitted. It means that I think that the admissions staff should de-emphasize the perceived “fit” of the student, and put more weight on other qualities.</p>
<p>I think that PG would be the perfect person for George Clooney, if she were not married already. I presume that her perception of “fit” is valid. I don’t think that George Clooney looks for women on the basis of “fit,” in the same sense that college admissions staff use “fit.” This is not really parsing words, it’s a deeper issue than that. </p>
<p>“I don’t think her main argument is that actual, real deficiencies in the realm of social skills should be ignored by admissions boards.”</p>
<p>It may not be her main argument, but she’s just come out and said it! She thinks top schools discriminate against, or have bias against, however you want to word it, high-functioning autistic people, that they are underrepresented relative to where they “should” be, and she doesn’t think that’s right.</p>
<p>"Colleges probably don’t want to be overrun with too many future military/logistical strategists, students who’ll flood the campus with 700 pound 15 foot tall dodo birds created from test tubes, or students with the desires and capabilities to raid fraternity/sorority/alumni/trustee parties.</p>
<p>Especially if the last are doing so while waving swords/axes* over their heads and charging on those dodo birds towards the terrified fleeing partygoers. "</p>
<p>Right. This is exactly the kind of demonstration of social skill (or lack thereof) that would make me, as an adcom think – this kid is plain weird to talk about raiding parties, I’m not admitting him. </p>
How can this possibly be true? The college has years and years of data and observations about what kinds of students fit well (assuming they actually care about this). The student may know himself very well, but he can’t possibly know that much about the college, since he hasn’t been to any college yet.</p>
<p>PG, #1361, I don’t think we understand each other very well. I directly oppose all of those negative comments that you quoted in #1361, because I think they are inappropriate for anyone officially connected with admissions anywhere to make. I think they are hurtful to people.</p>
<p>I don’t think that one would have to be anywhere on the autism spectrum to be a bit awkward or highly academically focused, and I think that “preferences” often go against people with these characteristics.</p>
<p>My uncertainty whether “preferences in favor of others” rise to the level of actual bias is pretty high in the case of applicants on the autism spectrum. </p>
<p>In terms of having the same % of people on the high-functioning end of the autism spectrum in the admitted class as there are in the qualified applicant pool, I did say exactly that on another thread, about a year ago. Since I was using MIT as an example, you may have dropped out of the discussion. </p>
<p>The rest of my commentary on the thread is not about people with autism. It includes is a genuine question about how an applicant writes an essay for an unknown audience. It was interesting to me that lookingforward did not care for most of the essays in 100 College Essays That Worked. We share that element of taste. We don’t share others. I think that in any given set, the essays that lf and I identified as top 5% would be fairly different.</p>
<p>LOL PG. I’m not accepting the kid who boasts about raiding other people’s parties for food either.</p>
<p>I think one of the things the disconcerting things that can happen in admissions is that your awkward genius kid (let’s make him a CS kid) will think he should be a perfect fit for MIT, but what really happens is that MIT says he’s a dime a dozen and passes. (Meanwhile, Blossom’s kid seems like he’d bring something to MIT that they don’t think they have enough of.) Meanwhile H, really wants more CS kids and takes him. And of course not all the CS top schools reject this kid, there just isn’t room at MIT for all the ones that want to go there. In fact I know for a fact that about 140 of the MIT rejects end up at CMU. I’d guess some percentage of them are on the spectrum or close to it. I am not complaining BTW, I think more often than not things work out. MIT may lose out on a couple of genius kids, but I think part of the reason why so many people have MIT as their first and not second choice is just because it’s perceived to have a slightly more normal less ultra-geeky population and with a much better M-F ratio than many tech schools.</p>
<p>The particular student I have mentioned multiple times (for MIT admissions) is not the least bit socially awkward, and never was. </p>
<p>I have to admit that even I have lost track of the multiple trains of thought in my posts on this thread! Ack! Impending train wreck!</p>
<p>But as far as I can recollect, I haven’t been writing about the simply socially awkward group (for whom I have a great deal of empathy), nor about people on the autism spectrum, nor about Asian-Americans, until the post numbers reached the 1300’s. </p>
:D</li>
Ack! Impending train wreck!</p>