Angry over the college admissions process

[collegealum314]

<p>

Bay suggests (way upthread; I can’t read back that far to give the post #) that individual genius may be less important than I imagine, that important discoveries happen when the time is right. Even so, doesn’t it just make sense to have as many geniuses as possible working at their full potential to increase the possible benefit to society? So that the discoveries that will benefit us all happen in as timely a matter as possible?

</p>

<p>Right, I’m sure some of the first people getting penicillin or the kids getting polio vaccines appreciated the fact that they didn’t have to wait longer.</p>

<p>The other thing is that paradigm-shifting discoveries sometimes encounter significant resistance from the scientific community. It’s not only required to make the discovery, but sometimes it takes years of pushing your ideas forward before they get accepted. For this reason, the individual making the discovery takes on even more importance.</p>

[lookingforward]

<p>Salk went to City College.</p>

[LoremIpsum]

<p>

The other thing is that paradigm-shifting discoveries sometimes encounter significant resistance from the scientific community. It’s not only required to make the discovery, but sometimes it takes years of pushing your ideas forward before they get accepted. For this reason, the individual making the discovery takes on even more importance.

</p>

<p>Also, nowadays cutting-edge research is expensive and often requires state-of-the-art equipment. One often needs to be located at a school with deep pockets to even get the opportunity to explore one’s ideas.</p>

[mythmom]

<p>I think it is unarguable that some great minds hail humble places. However, I’m beginning to see a bit what QuantMech means.</p>

<p>A music conservatory of ballet academy does not worry about holistic admissions, but they do follow an audition process. Perhaps for our tippy-top stem schools something like that could be devised.</p>

<p>I don’t think a standardized test would be the way to go because they don’t measure passion or commitment or true lab skills.</p>

<p>And I don’t think this would be relevant to HYPS etc.</p>

[lookingforward]

<p>A music or dance academy, with exceptions, isn’t about a college degree. The conservatory at Oberlin, the design programs at RISD, etc, do expect a full range of courses toward a degree.</p>

<p>My concern (small c) at this point is that we’re talking about what individuals think and what they feel is best. It’s important to acknowledge that a college or U is about more than focused training or pre-professional. More than an intensive in a few limited, related areas.</p>

<p>If someone wants to suggest a STEM-only institution, fine by me. All STEM, all the time. Pick top down, by whatever measures you want. But it seems limited.</p>

[bovertine]

<p>I looked over the last few years of this list and didn’t notice MIT really dominating-
[All</a> Nobel Prizes in Physics](<a href=“http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/]All”>http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/)
I guess it is more of an engineering school.</p>

<p>One major caveat - George Smoot did attend MIT, and he is probably smarter than Feynman because he answered all the questions on “Are You Smarter than a Fifth Grader.”
:)</p>

<p>I’m only partly kidding. That’s no mean feat, and he made it look easy.</p>

[lake42ks]

<p>

From the fact that life is not fair, I derive the idea that I should do what I can to make things as fair as possible.

</p>

<p>Most are happy that we now have 20 female senators. But I say it’s not fair until we have about 50. I know women were not allowed to vote 100 years ago, let alone got elected.</p>

<p>People talk about SAT/ACT not because the scores are that important, it’s because they don’t know the fairness of “holistic”. “Adcoms know what they do” is not enough. In fact, I know no kids who got perfect scores easily are wandering on CC, LoremIpsum’s son’s not here I guess. Who’s in charge makes difference, as QuantMech would be different than M. Jones. But professors have no say in undergrad admissions.</p>

[Beliavsky]

<p>

@Pizzagirl

So, ironically, the claim being made is that the smarter and more special / brilliant / genius the student, the more his or her abilities are hampered or limited if he or she doesn’t get into Just the Very Right School - MIT or maybe a handful of others.

</p>

<p>The claim is plausible to me. The most gifted students are the ones who most need to study with other gifted students, according to some researchers on giftedness. I wonder if more than 10 schools have a freshman math course as rigorous as Math 55 at Harvard, whose introductory math courses are described at [Harvard</a> Mathematics Department : 21, 23, 25, or 55?](<a href=“http://www.math.harvard.edu/pamphlets/freshmenguide.html]Harvard”>http://www.math.harvard.edu/pamphlets/freshmenguide.html).</p>

[Beliavsky]

<p>

@ucbalumnus

One question would be, would the characteristics that distinguish these 100 students be obviously visible on college applications, compared to the applications of many students who are good or great, but not super-outstanding?</p>

<p>(Standardized test scores in the US would not be sufficient, since the ceiling scores are low enough that the super-outstanding students, great students, and some of the merely very good students may all get similar scores.)

</p>

<p>If
(1) the SAT had not been recentered, making an 800 easier to achieve than before
(2) “score choice” were replaced by score averaging, and
(3) the most highly g-loaded aspects of the old SAT, such as analogy questions, had been retained</p>

<p>this problem would be ameliorated. None of these change would be expensive, (except for (2) if one considers lost testing revenue for the College Board).</p>

<p>Mensa and other high-IQ societies do not accept SAT scores from 1995 onwards because the SAT has become less g-loaded. I fear that David Coleman, new president of the College Board, is going to make the problem worse.</p>

<p>[College</a> Board’s Next President Could Shift Emphasis of SAT - Students - The Chronicle of Higher Education](<a href=“http://chronicle.com/article/College-Boards-Next-President/131901/]College”>http://chronicle.com/article/College-Boards-Next-President/131901/)
Mr. Coleman has already said that he hopes to align the SAT with the Common Core standards, which could further alter the identity of an exam that was long ago conceived of as a measure of students’ abilities—and not as an achievement test. Moreover, he believes the standards provide a blueprint for helping more students succeed in Advanced Placement courses.</p>

[alh]

<p>Quantmech wrote:</p>

<p>

The years between 18 and 22 are years of tremendous intellectual growth. From observations of my colleagues, I have noticed that the significance of the research problems that people select is influenced to a certain extent by the faculty at their undergraduate institution–maybe about equal in extent to the influence of their graduate research mentor. Of course, one isn’t “done” at 22, and the brighter young scientists are probably better able to overcome a weaker background than others, but I think there is a residual effect still. I also think that science is advanced much further by ground-breaking work than by stack-it-up-to-make-a-large-stack-of-results work. The country is better off if really bright young scientists have early examples of thinking big.

</p>

<p>Is it possible there are a few “genius-bright” individuals who have the ability to think up the questions that, if they and others are able to answer, have the potential to change the lives of everyone on the planet. Like maybe creating free energy with no negative environmental impact?</p>

<p>If they exist, I want them to be at a university that maximizes their potential because I want free energy. That will benefit me directly. I want them to have all the best machines and the most research funding. I don’t even care if they are uninteresting and spend all their time in the lab. I think it is to my personal advantage for them to spend all their time in the lab. (of course the idea that time in the lab isn’t fun and interesting is another sort of discussion;))</p>

<p>Some have suggested, on this and other threads, that when these individuals aren’t accepted to their first choice tech schools they may suffer a crisis of confidence: maybe they don’t have the ability to think up the big questions; MIT doesn’t seem to think they have what it takes to tackle the really big questions and problems. Maybe they are fooling themselves and should just use their problem solving abilities, unvalued by MIT and perhaps much more limited than earlier mentors imagined, in other much more lucrative fields where people really really seem to want them. </p>

<p>We are talking about a really small subset here. Is it a subset that matters if we have to wait on all that free energy? </p>

<p>Obviously MIT has the “right” to choose not to accept the student or students who have the potential to make me happier and richer by supporting and hastening my access to free energy. Does society have any “right” to question the mission of the university if those admissions decisions have the potential to dramatically impact society?</p>

[3togo]

<p>

A music conservatory of ballet academy does not worry about holistic admissions, but they do follow an audition process. Perhaps for our tippy-top stem schools something like that could be devised.

But I would guess the schools would say their holistic process is already doing this. If a student is that brilliant and that driven won’t their application beyond their grades and test scores somehow reflect that brilliance and drive … in other words shouldn’t they have already done things beyond their scores and grades to exhibit their potential.</p>

<p>The smartest STEM guy I knew as an undergrad dropped out of high school the day he got his college acceptance and the colleges didn’t argue … the 10 patents or so he already owned seemed to override his lack of completing his high school program. In fact, he repeated this plan when he got in to grad school and stopped all undergraduate work. He was one weird dude … a nice and interesting guy … but very weird. He was also very driven towards his passion (applied physics) and showed it very early.</p>

[QuantMech]

<p>sally305, post #1357: From 30+ years of observing the work of my colleagues locally and in my field across the country, I am not so sure any more that scientists do find their “level” regardless of where they start from. For an 18-22 year old, it seems to me that being exposed to really bold, really brilliant thinkers (I mean the professors) does have some impact on the type of research done further along in the career. There is also the question of whether there is a career that permits independent scientific research. The number of applicants for positions at research-intensive universities is very high, the competition is global, and the applicant has to be fully competitive with research proposals as a post-doc. People can move later from industry–but I think that is harder in the physical sciences than in engineering. Insufficient experience with biology to form an opinion about that field.</p>

<p>I don’t mean to be alarmist, here, nor to suggest that the absolute summit-level top schools are the only way to go. The University of Illinois has certainly had its share of Nobelists on the faculty; ditto the University of Colorado, and other places. Also, no disrespect intended for the University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire, but I am guessing that its CC page is not heavily visited.</p>

<p>But the difference in the number of STEM B.S./B.A. degrees granted each year and the number of faculty openings is fairly large. There are a few other places where a scientist can have a career of self-directed research, but they don’t change the picture much, in terms of the number of employment opportunities available. Now, people can think outside the box, and become independent entrepreneurs, or a person could retire from a high-paying career and fund his/her own research independently (there are a few people who do that), but that’s really exceptional.</p>

<p>I’m not insinuating that MIT is failing the country because of its admission policies. It’s probably getting it right 90% or so of the time. In many grading schemes, that’s an A-. I classify MIT’s admissions policy as sub-optimal.</p>

<p>Re lookingforward, post #1365: I have been making a narrow argument about MIT, because in the past, I have not been able to obtain agreement even on that. I do think that STEM-only institutions should pick differently from HYPS, as concerns SAT M. Olin is a great example of a STEM/E institution with sky-high admission requirements. Upthread, I remarked that I did not pick MIT because of cost. True, that was a significant part of my choice; but there were other factors. One was a strong egalitarian streak, which MIT at the time did not satisfy. Ironically, maybe it does better now! The other was that I wanted a broader undergrad education. Despite its offerings in other areas, MIT is still very strongly STEM focused, as is appropriate for an “Institute of Technology.”</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>In order to do what alh suggests, though, wouldn’t you then have to “lock” the student in his / her area of expertise? You shall work on the free-energy problem – and if you decide that you’d really rather become, oh say, a physician working for the Peace Corps midway through college, too bad so sad, you “owe” MIT and society your brain on the free energy problem?</p>

<p>Maybe it brings to mind recruiting that is akin to athletics - where you are in essence paid to be a football player and the moment you can’t or won’t fulfill that, the money ends.</p>

<p>However, that still presupposes all that talent is visible at age 17-18, and if you want to talk fairness - that’s not fair to the kid who would be a science genius if he hasn’t had to watch his siblings so mom can work. Or the kid who lives on a ranch 300 miles away from a science lab. Or the kid who just doesn’t have connections to get into Argonne or Fermilab. Or who just is a very real human who hasn’t decided His Life Passion at age 17.</p>

[sally305]

<p>Here’s a quote in an article about an MIT research guru in today’s NYT article that describes the university’s mission:</p>

<p>

The founding principle in 1861, when M.I.T. was created, was to provide and support the industrialization of America. I always say we were founded on the principle of tech transfer,” says Susan Hockfield, who served as M.I.T.’s president from December 2004 until June of this year.

</p>

<p>[M.I.T</a>. Lab Hatches Ideas, and Companies, by the Dozens - NYTimes.com](<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/25/business/mit-lab-hatches-ideas-and-companies-by-the-dozens.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&hpw]M.I.T”>http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/25/business/mit-lab-hatches-ideas-and-companies-by-the-dozens.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&hpw)</p>

<p>Societal demands are definitely driving much of this lab’s research, if you believe the article. And nowhere does it suggest that MIT is suffering from a dearth of qualified students to collaborate with.</p>

[sally305]

<p>

I’m not insinuating that MIT is failing the country because of its admission policies. It’s probably getting it right 90% or so of the time. In many grading schemes, that’s an A-. I classify MIT’s admissions policy as sub-optimal.

</p>

<p>In what world is a 90% success rate on anything “suboptimal”?</p>

<p>

Also, no disrespect intended for the University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire, but I am guessing that its CC page is not heavily visited.

</p>

<p>Oh, right–the world of CC. :)</p>

[absweetmarie]

<p>

@alh

Some have suggested, on this and other threads, that when these individuals aren’t accepted to their first choice tech schools they may suffer a crisis of confidence: maybe they don’t have the ability to think up the big questions; MIT doesn’t seem to think they have what it takes to tackle the really big questions and problems. Maybe they are fooling themselves and should just use their problem solving abilities, unvalued by MIT and perhaps much more limited than earlier mentors imagined, in other much more lucrative fields where people really really seem to want them. </p>

<p>We are talking about a really small subset here. Is it a subset that matters if we have to wait on all that free energy?

</p>

<p>I absolutely think the subset of budding geniuses is worth our investment as a country (not to mention as a group of Sunday-morning admission kibitzers). But I do wonder whether a young genius who would be thrown off his or her game by an admission disappointment has the right stuff. So what if MIT does reject the next Einstein? That will be some other school’s gain; we could all name more than a handful that would work just fine even for someone whose intelligence places him or her in the top one-hundredth of one percent. I know 18-year-old geniuses are still only 18, and they don’t necessarily have the emotional resilience that comes (or sometimes does!) with maturity. But, still. Anyone whose goal (or potential) includes world-changing innovation is going to have to develop the ability to handle setbacks.</p>

[QuantMech]

<p>sally305, the article that you mention in post #1374 cites Langer’s work with graduate students and postdocs. Later on, it refers to a “lowly graduate student.” This must mean that undergrads are below lowly. </p>

<p>Also, if 85-90% of the MIT undergrads are really good, that constitutes a large number.</p>

[alh]

<p>

Anyone whose goal (or potential) includes world-changing innovation is going to have to develop the ability to handle setbacks.

</p>

<p>Maybe their goal isn’t world-changing innovation. Maybe they just like problem solving. Maybe if they go to MIT they decide to solve the energy problem. Maybe if they go to Harvard they do something entirely different - they become a consultant. The individual student is then just fine. She can afford all the energy she desires. Possibly society suffers?</p>

[sally305]

<p>“Lowly graduate student” is a common euphemism. And no, undergrads are not the focus of MIT’s research efforts–which goes back to the point that it doesn’t REALLY matter where you go for your BS/BA. I just do not see the big crisis here. MIT is admitting and educating some of the most promising STEM students in the country. People who don’t like their policies need not apply.</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>“But I do wonder whether a young genius who would be thrown off his or her game by an admission disappointment has the right stuff. So what if MIT does reject the next Einstein? That will be some other school’s gain; we could all name more than a handful that would work just fine even for someone whose intelligence places him or her in the top one-hundredth of one percent”</p>

<p>But that’s precisely what I asked QuantMech - how many other schools are there that would be just fine for our MIT rejectee? And I got the sense that she thinks they are vanishingly few, such that our hypothetical genius really is quite shut out of most anything good if MIT says no. Because instrumentation and equipment differs, and so forth.</p>