Angry over the college admissions process

collegealum314 · November 25, 2012, 5:37pm

Well, if what are supposed to be the bastions of intellectualism do not even take it seriously, why should an 18-year-old take it seriously and develop it in hisself or herself? Moreover, why would someone make it a goal to be part of academia, take a massive paycut, make other personal sacrifices. It’s not all about the enjoyment of the activity. Part of it is to be part of something greater than yourself. Honestly, when I read some of the ways the academic stars are described by adcoms, it almost sounds like they are describing them as a necessary evil.

At the heart of this, though, I suspect that the divide on this thread and on cc is partly based on our versions of entitlement and arrogance. Some people feel that they don’t deserve a spot at a university over someone else that performed better. These same people, however, may think they deserve admission over someone they significantly outperformed. And “performed better” and “deserve” is based on a rational expectations of the value system. Universities are still an intellectual sphere–you’d expect academic achievement to be “worth” more in this sphere than in other spheres. Personally, I think it’s arrogant when a kid gets straight B’s in math/science and thinks they deserve admission to MIT more than someone who got the top grades in all of their classes.

alh · November 25, 2012, 5:43pm

<h1>1431 kind of broke my heart. I could see that kid. The response to the post really surprised me.</h1>

collegealum314 · November 25, 2012, 5:45pm

More to the point, what sort of tone is necessary to resonate with Marilee Jones, a person who appears tone-deaf herself. Everybody here’s familiar with the “textureless math grinds” comment. She also was quoted theorizing on why women’s performances tend to clump together (e.g., having less outliers on the high and low end), due to synchronicity of, ahem, well, you can look that one up.

Yeah, they said they were looking for creativity, but some of it appeared to be “acting creative,” like dressing up in a Hawaiian shirt or acting like Doc Brown. I actually had an argument on the MIT board that quirkiness like wearing a Hawaiian shirt doesn’t reflect creativity.

lookingforward · November 25, 2012, 5:50pm

QM, first they simply cannot accept all applicants or all “best” applicants. After that, why are these being called “mistakes,” when they could easily be viewed as “choices.”

All this about performance and outperforming another and etc- really goes back to objective measures- and does not tell one bit about the kid’s presentation in the app. Adcoms are strangers, who don’t rely on stats only and do “meet” the kid through the app.

collegealum314 · November 25, 2012, 5:57pm

It’s not all objective. A significant part of the app is letters of recommendation, not to mention academic achievements which may have been subjective as well.

GA2012MOM · November 25, 2012, 6:00pm

This all goes back to admissions, should the higher scorer be admitted over the lesser one.

My daughter is at a medschool that she went into 4 months ago with trepidation, her MCAT was on the low end for their admitees. She rocked her first trimester, kicking ass from those who scored much higher on the MCAT.

Admissions obviously saw something in my daughter. Scores are not everything.

mythmom · November 25, 2012, 6:00pm

Why can’t the MIT adcoms make both choices and mistakes? I agree with QM. Why is there resistance to the idea of mistakes? I can’t imagine any institution, or individual for that matter, that doesn’t make mistakes.

absweetmarie · November 25, 2012, 6:04pm

There are a lot of kids who face setbacks, alh. I’m certainly sensitive to that. If someone is bullied or misunderstood throughout his or her school years, of course that is worthy of sympathy. But there’s no call to blame a school for making a judgment call that doesn’t go that kid’s way. If someone really cracks in the face of an admission decision, it is quite likely that something else is going on with that youngster that is independent of his or her intellectual gifts. I still maintain that such a reaction is rare, and that the root of the problem should be addressed (whether it’s mental illness, at the extreme, or simply a matter of intellectual gifts that are not matched by a commensurate level of emotional maturity).

QuantMech · November 25, 2012, 6:07pm

Beliavsky, here is an earlier post of mine on a different thread, that should give enough information to Google the anti-correlation between AMC12 scores (rather than AIME, misremembered) and family income:

With regard to the correlation between scores and parental income levels, there is a link earlier on this thread to a study by Glenn Ellison of MIT and NBER and Ashley Swanson of MIT, on Heterogeneity in High Math Achievement across Schools. This study focuses on schools where the AMC exams are offered, and then within those schools, on the number of students scoring in excess of 100, and separately in excess of 120 on the AMC12.

The interesting finding of the authors is that at this high level of math achievement, “there are fewer high-achieving math students in more affluent areas.” Later in the report, the authors note that broadly speaking, there is a positive correlation between math achievement and income, but that the relation between “income and investments in reaching high levels of math achievement . . . may . . . turn down at the very top.”

The studies of the correlation between SAT and parental income tend to truncate the income scale at a point where the average SAT score is still well sub-Ivy level (although it is noticeably higher than the average score of the very economically disadvantaged groups). It would be interesting to know how far (in terms of income) the positive correlation continues, and whether a similar turn down at the top is found for the SAT.

lookingforward · November 25, 2012, 6:12pm

C Alum- Omg, want to talk about LoRs?
LoRs can add an unmistakable sheen. IF they are well considered and well written. Many are just cranked out. Bottom line though isn’t recs, it’s what the kid, knowing it is a college app, includes in his app, what the involvements were and how he describes, how he answers questions thoughtfully and relevantly, how he crafts a self-presentation.

Just like your job app package. A relevant resume, showing relevant experiences and accomplishments- and a great cover letter.

Periwinkle · November 25, 2012, 6:15pm

QuantMech, why do you assume Marilee Jones was single-handedly responsible for MIT’s admission decisions, during her tenure as Admissions Director, and in the five (!) years since leaving that office? Isn’t it more probable that the admissions office is fulfilling the directions of the university’s president and board of trustees?

Mythmom, I agree wholeheartedly, poets need a full education. I have no grudge towards Harvard. Certainly, it’s possible for a Harvard student or recent alum to become a leading poet or creative person, but I think the pressures of the current university admissions system make it difficult. (I’ll just use “creative person” as a term for all sorts of creative people–poets, filmmakers, choreographers, novelists, video-game designers, composers, artists, scriptwriters, etc.)

True creative genius is very, very rare. Many people are creative, but very few create new art forms or lasting works of art. I would not expect a creative genius to score between 700 and 800 on all three sections of the SAT. (75% of Harvard students scored in that range.) I would not expect a creative genius to pull down straight As in every subject. I would not expect a creative genius to take the most challenging courses available at her/his school.

Certainly, there may be some who manage to do all of the above, but that wouldn’t leave much time for creative pursuits, and thus, how would the admissions office recognize them? Also, creative people want to be with other creative people. Do creative people think of Harvard College as a hotbed of creativity? Or are they more likely to write college lists reflecting their particular artistic leanings, which include the Pratt Institute, UCLA, Berklee College of Music, Tisch School of the Arts, Julliard, Oberlin, University of Iowa, a music conservatory, RISD or a local community college?

I think it’s great to read that Harvard, Princeton and others avow an interest in creative students. It’s hard to swim against the stream, though, and “birds of a feather flock together.” Why should the creative students subject themselves to being stereotyped as the students who don’t “deserve admission” because others “performed better” in K-12, when they could seek out colleges which support their disciplines as worthy of respect, and support the idiosyncratic development of talent?

QuantMech · November 25, 2012, 6:21pm

The MIT admissions process as described on the MIT web site in the Marilee Jones era included a final read-through of the applicants that the committee recommended for admission, which was done by . . . Marilee Jones herself. This was the era when MIT admits went around campus assuring each other that “Marilee doesn’t make mistakes.” Well.

Several of the current admissions officers were hired by Jones. I assume that she didn’t hire people who disagreed with her viewpoint. For example, Matt McGann (look him up to see his current appointment at MIT) has a post from the olden days essentially saying that 1600 is nothing “magical.” I don’t think anyone thought it was, except possibly for the inadequately informed guidance counselor who called one student’s 1600 “magical,” and probably doomed the applicant’s chances by doing so.

LoremIpsum · November 25, 2012, 6:23pm

That makes total sense to me. Take one kid who had to fight inertia and overcome lack of training and mentors, then pair him up with another kid who has been guided carefully the whole way. The former, as he’s just starting to be noticed, is by now a locomotive chugging along at full steam compared to the latter.

lookingforward · November 25, 2012, 6:28pm

Let me translate: “a 1600 is not magical” means they don’t get dizzy and drool when they see one. At highly competitive colleges, it is not uncommon.

This is like saying your IQ should make everyone line up for you- it’s really not the raw potential, but what one did with it. And, in the current scheme, the expectation is a smart kid is more than unilateral.

Lots of smart kids are- breathtakingly great kids. It is just not a given that high scorers will be “all that.”

Quant, what sorts of kids do you enjoy teaching? Which do you see gain the most from your classes?

Periwinkle · November 25, 2012, 6:31pm

I think you’re creating myths.

It’s more likely that the very, very top calls for original thought under pressure, which can’t be coached. The insight necessary to answer novel questions probably can’t be taught.

This phenomenon may change, once the children of hedge fund quants get old enough for math contests.

alh · November 25, 2012, 6:34pm

absweetmarie: I have been following QM’s posts on this topic for years now. I really don’t know how many of these threads you may have read? Sometimes after the admissions results come in for the current year, some parent posters tend to pile on to disappointed applicants. I know you will be shocked if you look through some of the older threads. I seem to remember that at one point QM tried to elicit a promise not to kick some of these kids while they were down. Some parent posters were decidedly unenthusiastic to agree to such a pact. :(

Sort of like some of those MIT profs, I used to think there probably existed thousands of applicants with perfect SATs and perfect GPAs and national recognition in their areas of interest and some outside ECs having nothing to do with their interest and amazing LORs who were routinely rejected. So I have found QM’s posts on this subject extremely interesting. I find it fascinating when parents report their kids who had MIT as a first choice, or perhaps a first choice are denied but then accepted to equally competitive schools. I don’t think it is the application. It doesn’t seem as though they lack the correct aptitude to be successful at MIT. Based on QMs posts I now believe it is more than there just not being room for all the tippy tops at the tippy tops.

GA2012mom: Congrats on your daughter’s accomplishments!!!:)

Chemistry39 · November 25, 2012, 6:35pm

Anybody willing to Chance me for Stanford University or tell me how to post a thread?

lookingforward · November 25, 2012, 6:40pm

Back to an ealier question: how many apps have you seen, from a variety of kids in various high schools in various areas/regions? How can you say, it’s not the app? Or think the “aptitude” shown on a CC thread is indicative?

Pizzagirl · November 25, 2012, 6:50pm

“Personally, I think it’s arrogant when a kid gets straight B’s in math/science and thinks they deserve admission to MIT more than someone who got the top grades in all of their classes”

Well, sure. Who is arguing straight B students should think they have a shot at MIT?

And who would ever defend someone who thinks they “deserve” admission anywhere? Tats an entitled attitude. The most anyone is entitled to is a fair shot to present an application.

LoremIpsum · November 25, 2012, 6:51pm

This actually confirms what I wrote rather than contradicts it. When a kid competes without the benefit of specialized training, that kid is invariably using something else to compensate and remain competitive. I recently wrote about my son coming up with unique math quiz bowl solutions to unknown problem types on-the-fly. What else is that than “original thought under pressure”? Had a mentor with experience and connections “discovered” his raw potential at one of these gatherings and provided him with the assistance others were already receiving, he might well have leapfrogged to a much higher level of challenge, where his out-of-the-box thinking could have been the decisive advantage.

Angry over the college admissions process

CONNECT WITH US