Angry over the college admissions process

[QuantMech]

<p>shravas, could you quickly canvass your friends on the idea of admitting non-AA applicants with SAT M below 650?</p>

[chashaobao]

<p>

My guess is that if you talk to math faculty, they would be on average even more against it. From what I’ve seen, there’s actually a fairly negative opinion of math contests in academia - at best it’s just a fun way to expose students to math but doesn’t mean anything more than that.

</p>

<p>It may surprise you, but some very well known mathematicians still have winning IMO Gold medal or Putnam fellow on their CVs.</p>

[QuantMech]

<p>sally305: It is my understanding that some students at MIT fail the introductory math and physics components of the GIR’s (general ed requirements) and there are “trailer” sections covering the same material in the spring (for a fall course). </p>

<p>These are courses that a number of MIT students don’t take, because they have placed out. I don’t think the courses are any harder than the honors courses at Big State U, and probably not that much harder than the regular courses at Big State U.</p>

<p>To go out on a limb, I will even hazard a guess that the Admissions Office takes a number of students (who are not AA applicants), when Admissions can predict they have only a 50/50 chance of passing the first general ed course in math or physics on the first try. In any event, the failures in the courses seem to be a repeatable consequence of the admissions policy.</p>

[Sue22]

<p>QuantMech-
Only 7.7 percent of applicants admitted to MIT last year had a math SAT score below 700 and none was in the sub-600 range. I don’t know if a single student had a sub-650 score. As others have pointed out, it’s not as if MIT is forgoing brilliant mathematicians in favor of rockhead jocks and dumb bunnies.</p>

[shravas]

<p>

shravas, could you quickly canvass your friends on the idea of admitting non-AA applicants with SAT M below 650?

</p>

<p>Most of them are are busy now, but especially since not everyone at MIT majors in math, I think would assume that’s fine.</p>

<p>

It may surprise you, but some very well known mathematicians still have winning IMO Gold medal or Putnam fellow on their CVs.

</p>

<p>I’m very well aware of this. That doesn’t mean they think math contests are meaningful in terms of predicting mathematical ability. Just do a google search for putnam and graduate school.</p>

[shravas]

<p>

shravas, could you quickly canvass your friends on the idea of admitting non-AA applicants with SAT M below 650?

</p>

<p>Most of them are are busy now, but especially since not everyone at MIT majors in math, I think would assume that’s fine.</p>

<p>

It may surprise you, but some very well known mathematicians still have winning IMO Gold medal or Putnam fellow on their CVs.

</p>

<p>I’m very well aware of this. That doesn’t mean they think math contests are meaningful in terms of predicting mathematical ability. Just do a google search for putnam and graduate school.</p>

[bogibogi]

<p>QuantMech, I applaud you for coming to the defense of these highly qualified math students. Rumor at our high school was that if you qualified for USAMO, MIT was a sure thing. I guess that is no longer the case. </p>

<p>It must mean something to MIT for them to ask for AMC and AIME scores on their application. It must also mean something when they do not ask for USAMO scores. Perhaps they don’t expect many kids to qualify for the contest?</p>

<p>I agree that making USAMO is a brilliant achievement and it should be recognized as such by MIT.</p>

[Sue22]

<p>^^^Oops, I actually found the numbers. Of 1,432 admitted students 3 had sub-650 math scores. 68 had sub-600 CR scores and 41 had sub-600 writing scores. My guess (although I can’t back it up with data) would be that some of these were the lopsided math superstar types.</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>

Pizzagirl, #2065: With regard to the statement that “they” have better insight into the institutional mission at MIT, I have to ask who “they” are. I question whether the Admissions Office is really that well tied in to the faculty, to know what the faculty think. Actually, I think it is more likely that the MIT Admissions folks interact mainly with admissions personnel at other top schools. If 85-90% of the students are fine to outstanding, and the faculty are more focused on grads and post-docs in any case, and the faculty are hyper-busy, I doubt they would really bother about the remaining 10-15% of the undergrads, except to make random complaints–even though that’s 100 to 150 students a year.

</p>

<p>If the faculty at MIT haven’t seen the need to make a fuss to the admissions office and engage the powers-that-be in administration to consider changing the policy, then it’s likely not as big of a problem as “they” say it is.</p>

[chashaobao]

<p>

Rumor at our high school was that if you qualified for USAMO, MIT was a sure thing. I guess that is no longer the case.

</p>

<p>We don’t know that, at least I don’t, either way. We don’t know how many USAMO qualifiers are turned away, and why. MIT is one of the only two schools that ask for AMC/AIME scores, which are apparently very important. </p>

<p>I don’t believe USAMO is undervalued at MIT. And I also don’t have problem with some auto-admits; but even under QM’s scheme, the quota still has to be taken out of some specific demographics.</p>

[QuantMech]

<p>I suggested taking the small number of added USAMO-qualified admits out of the same demographic pool(s) as the 18 or so added admits.</p>

[bogibogi]

<p>I personally know two highly talented math students who were turned away from MIT. One qualified for USAMO every year since 9th grade; another qualified since 10th grade. These two students have obviously proven that they have the brainpower to compete at a place like MIT. I cannot be convinced that their essays/recommendations did them in because I know them to be fine young men. </p>

<p>I will always be baffled by their rejections.</p>

[sevmom]

<p>Sorry to hear they did not get into MIT if that was their number one choice. Where did they end up?</p>

[ucbalumnus]

<p>

@absweetmarie

As you must have concluded having read the 2000-plus posts on this thread, TheGFG, it is highly unlikely that we (or any other group of admission “experts”) are going to arrive at consensus on what constitutes unquestionable, bow-before-it genius.

</p>

<p>Perhaps there are some who may get more consensus, like [this</a> student](<a href=“http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/at-just-14-ucla-math-student-moshe-229359.aspx]this”>Newsroom | UCLA), at least as far as his major (math) goes. He does not seem to be hindered by the fact that he started at a community college and transferred to a nearby state school as a junior, rather than entering as a freshman to an elite private school like MIT.</p>

[vonlost]

<p>^^^ The standard answer is that there are far more fully qualified applicants to top schools than there are seats.</p>

[bovertine]

<p>

Finally, no doubt some of you can’t fathom that a young person would conduct a detailed analysis of his chances of attaining a specific high level career like the one done by QM. Indeed, the vast majority of kids coudn’t and wouldn’t think like that, and if they were to do so, moms like certain posters would tell them to think positive and keep striving.</p>

<p>

I don’t think many of us have a problem “fathoming” this. I certainly don’t.</p>

<p>But I believe we are being asked to fathom a specific scenario-</p>

<p>IMO, this is what we are expected to believe –

1. Superior math student who has attained USAMO and earned points admitted to several excellent top 10 colleges but denied at MIT.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Despite years of tremendous success at math, certain accolades from many quarters, and obvious passion and ability in math, this supposedly logical student decides to completely abandon this line of study based on a single admission decision the reason for which is unknown. This supremely intelligent and logical student merely assumes that the omnipotent committee decided s/he lacks talent in math (or technology) and should pursue something else, and dutifully complies.</p></li>
<li><p>OTOH, had this student been admitted, somehow the student would quickly develop the fortitude to withstand every future challenge in their career without giving up.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>Although it is not explicitly stated, I think some posters have also implied that the decision of the student to abandon tech spells dire consequences not only for the school and the scientific community, but the entire world as the dominos fall in some sort of cataclysmic armageddon.</p>

<p>I certainly think it is not unreasonable to believe all students who succeed in USAMO should gain admission to MIT, barring other serious deficiencies. I have looked at those problems. I know it takes an extremely adept mind to solve these things, beyond merely completing some level of classwork. Actually, it is the rare AIME problem I can even make a stab at and I have trouble with some AMC problems. And I‘ve taken a lot of math, I have two technical degrees, a professional engineering license, patents, have worked in engineering for many years, blah blah blah. So I know how tough those tests are.</p>

<p>But to come up with these hypothetical consequences to support such a policy, that’s really farfetched AFAIC.</p>

[sbjdorlo]

<p>ucb,</p>

<p>I know more than a few of these students who eschew math competitions altogether because they are beginning college so early; they have other things on their mind. :-)</p>

<p>Thanks for posting the story.</p>

[3togo]

<p>

To go out on a limb, I will even hazard a guess that the Admissions Office takes a number of students (who are not AA applicants), when Admissions can predict they have only a 50/50 chance of passing the first general ed course in math or physics on the first try. In any event, the failures in the courses seem to be a repeatable consequence of the admissions policy.

So what if they do. Maybe they are taking the chance on someone overcoming drug addiction or a horrible family background whose academic background is lacking but who has great potential while turning down yet a guy from TJ high school who scored on the USAMO but who recs and interviewer discuss his arrogance, immaturity, and disrespect for others. Would such a decision be a indefensible and a crime against humanity? My guess is, rather than the admin folks being dolts, believe that if no students were not being required to retake classed that they would not be taking enough chances at providing life changing experience for some high risk applicants. Frankly, I think the continuing insinuations that the MIT admin folks do not know they are doing or are out of touch are … self edited. (Yes, I believe, they are admitting who the school as a whole want to admit).</p>

<p>

I am not sure how many of the people on this thread are “techies” or STEM types. I accept that the majority of posters here don’t think that scoring points on the USAMO in 11th grade or earlier should qualify one for MIT. However, I think that the right group to be voting on this would be MIT alums, or the MIT faculty (given the real numbers, which I am just estimating).

Well, I have two engineering degrees and went to MIT for b-school and think the idea of MIT auto admits for USAMO a terrible idea and impracticable. I also think the analysis done is support of the idea is not compelling and seriously falls into the trap of looking for information to confirm an already held position. </p>

<p>One example. Some professors at MIT complain about the weaker students at MIT. And this is shocking and a result of their warped admissions policies? If I went to any of the top 50 research schools or top 50 LACs how hard do you think it would be for me to find a few faculty members at each school who believe the tail of students is unacceptable and admissions should be much more focused on pure measurable academic merit. Do you really believe there is any school where I could not find such professors? Or does all of the faculty agree 100% with all the policies of the school? Me personally, I believe if I name any policy (AA, legacies, admissions, athletics, etx) that I could find a sizeable number of faculty to complain about the current policy.</p>

[chashaobao]

<p>

@QuantMech

I suggested taking the small number of added USAMO-qualified admits out of the same demographic pool(s) as the 18 or so added admits.

</p>

<p>On this point, MIT Adcom and you are probably in perfect agreement that even USAMO qualifiers, however impressive, still have to subject to some higher institutional goal.</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>

Finally, no doubt some of you can’t fathom that a young person would conduct a detailed analysis of his chances of attaining a specific high level career like the one done by QM. Indeed, the vast majority of kids coudn’t and wouldn’t think like that, and if they were to do so, moms like certain posters would tell them to think positive and keep striving.

</p>

<p>Well, of course. Because it’s a character flaw to think that at age 17, there is only one thing you can / should be, and therefore if you encounter an obstacle on the way – and yet you still have potential for many, many things that circle around that area! – you should give up on that area altogether. It’s understandable that 17 yos have character flaws and are immature in their thinking; it’s not reasonable for those around them to support them in that thinking or for us to treat that thinking as reasonable.</p>