<p>Why is what MIT does so important? It’s one university. You would think it was the Holy Grail.</p>
<p>I’ve not been reading threads as long as you have, alh. And I don’t like kicking anyone when he or she is down. I think, though, that admission disappointments have to be put in perspective. A momentary expression of anger or sadness is deserving of compassion and sympathy. A seriously negative reaction on the part of a rejected student should be a call for alarm. Regardless, in the vast majority of cases, there is no cause at all to blame the school that did the rejecting. As far as Marilee Jones goes, I have nothing to add to the discussion because I am not in the know as QuantMech is. The fact that MIT had a charlatan like Jones heading up its admissions department for 10 years does not make me think well of the administration, that’s for sure.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And on that note, be sure to keep an eye out for Disney’s upcoming movie, “Indiana Jones and the Application to MIT.” ;)</p>
<p>
Thanks for the info. Sounds like a very interesting young man with an excellent sense of himself. </p>
<p>Interesting side note - I’ve got the Feynman lectures and problem books. As anyone knows who haas read the preface, Feynman was a bit disappointed in that only a few of his students got enough out of the lectures to do well in the exams. And he opines that those students who did well understood everything perfectly and probably would have done as well without the lectures. I’m not sure he had any official problem sets for the first year.</p>
<p>Anyway, I inherited these books from my dad, who attended grad school at Caltech. After reading about them on here I decided to open the problem set V3 up today -and in the back was an issue of the Salt Lake City newspaper from the 1950s (my dad was stationed at Dugway Proving Ground in the army) with Einstein’s death, and a couple other newspaper articles of the same vintage reporting the death of Robert Milikan and a little human interest story on Norbert Weiner (who apparently earned a PhD at Harvard at 19). I remember my dad had an autobiography of Wiener titled “Prodigy.” Fond memories of my dad’s enormous library of books.</p>
<p>So I owe something to this thread - I never knew that stuff was in there. I’ve worked (or more accurately attempted) a few problems out of V1 ad V2 but never cracked V3.</p>
<p>It’s not that what MIT does is so important. It’s that MIT represents a pretty clear-cut case of an odd admissions philosophy–perusal of the MIT outcomes threads over the years has persuaded me that I don’t just happen to know the single-digit number of outliers with weird outcomes. </p>
<p>As far as I am concerned, Harvard could overlook SAT M scores entirely, depending on the professed interest of an applicant, and I’d have no qualms about it. Harvard could select people on height, looks, probability of retaining their hair as they age (for males), dynamic personality, or any other quality that correlates with success outside of STEM fields. But MIT is preponderantly for STEM types, which is why I have found their selections odd. [I should add: the selections are not entirely odd. They do take some clear superstar types, who enroll there.]</p>
<p>I haven’t taken a look at the Common Data Set for MIT, year by year. But I would guess that the 25th %ile SAT M has gone up since Stu Schmill took over, after (probably) declining in the Jones’ era.</p>
<p>I do think it is possible for some applicants to “deserve” admission to some schools, even the ones that have very low acceptance rates.</p>
<p>There is a lot of piling on of MIT, which may be partly my fault. </p>
<p>However, I think a lot of the top schools have anti-intellectual philosophies inasmuch as intellect is not valued very much beyond the level of getting A’s in rigorous classes and getting top SAT’s.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>People with straight B’s in math/science do have a shot at MIT. I’ve seen a few people on the MIT board say that they have straight B’s or almost straight B’s and get in. As far as I can tell, these people were unhooked.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ve heard Marilee Jones was instrumental in getting MIT to be more popular in the 80’s and early 90’s among females. She was also someone of high energy and probably an skilled manager. Her populist philosophy that a wider range of people should have a shot at getting MIT (in terms of how they performed in high school) probably increased the # of apps to MIT and lowered the admissions rate, which boosts the rank. And she appeared to be a self-promoter, which always helps. I think these are the things which probably allowed her to gain and keep her position. </p>
<p>However, I don’t agree with her policies. Even before the whole thing with her resume’ came out, she was controversial with the alumni.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would agree with you there. Under his leadership, I think things have moved back partially to what they were like before.</p>
<p>My goal was not to pile on MIT. Rather, I wanted to push the boundaries of the discussion a bit, by using MIT as an example. I hoped to find some common ground with the people who think the admissions offices don’t make mistakes, and that the academically strong applicants not taken probably had elements of weakness elsewhere in the application. (Found a bit of common ground with some.)</p>
<p>"But, you can be a writing major (or minor) at MIT. Lit, too. So, they’ve got ya covered. "</p>
<p>It would be very hard to do anything at MIT if you are not interested in or proficient in sciences. Their general institute requirements are rigorous for sciences.</p>
<p>[MIT</a> Course Catalog: Undergraduate General Institute Requirements](<a href=“Welcome! < MIT”>Welcome! < MIT)</p>
<p>Harvard keeps stealing the Intel Science Talent search first prize winners from other schools. Dorney did his research with a Stanford prof but ended up at Harvard. This year’s winner from Detroit was admitted early to MIT (did NOTapply SCEA to Harvard) but Harvard and several other schools issued likelies the day his prize was announced in March and he ended up at Harvard. </p>
<p>Should we consider the above MIT’s fault?</p>
<p>QM - I see a huge hole in your argument that MIT may not be admitting the right kids. We only know who goes there and who went there but don’t keep track of who turned them down.</p>
<p><a href=“http://tech.mit.edu/V132/N24/admissions.html[/url]”>http://tech.mit.edu/V132/N24/admissions.html</a></p>
<p>The yield this year was the highest ever at 70% but most years it has been hovering around 65%. So what about these 35/100 people who have been wilfully rejecting their rightful place at MIT which is supposed to lead to their full potential?</p>
<p>I have skimmed a lot of this thread…and it seems that there is a consensus that the kids with super-high scores and super-high grades, and even the really, really advanced math classes, are automatically geniuses who should be admitted to MIT.</p>
<p>There is no doubt that these kids are really, really smart. But on paper they can seem really flat and almost one dimensional. So that’s where the “holistic” stuff becomes so important. Does the essay make it seem like the applicant can do more than solve really hard problem sets? Or will he be the one who takes the conventional out further, and poses problems of novel conception–and encourage others to go out there with him? </p>
<p>And that’s where well written LORs come in–how does this kid think, and what does she think about? Does she encourage others to think too? Does she communicate her thought pattern in a way that others can follow it, and be excited by it? I have a very bright (non-stem) son, who at his Bar MItzvah, the rabbi noted that, from the year of intensive study with my son-- there are kids who think inside the box, and then there are kids who think outside of the box, and then there was my kid–who never realized there was a box there. Let’s just say my son’s d’var was interesting and original…and very relevant to his parsha.</p>
<p>And, actually, this is where ECs come in too–can this student function as part of an investigative team? Can this kid think on her feet when surprises pop up? One interviewer told me that this is one reason varsity athletes sometimes get an extra bit of consideration…because they have learned to work as part of a team, because they have a work ethic, because they have learned to deal with disappointment and frustration, because they are used to receiving criticism, and because they are used to thinking on their feet, reacting instantly and creatively in situations.</p>
<p>So, if this kid has the intellectual heft in addition to this other stuff… she’s golden. And if this kid got a 750 instead of a perfect 800, or a couple of Bs mixed in with the As…or took a few less classes beyond Calc BC because of “life”…odds are, this girl or guy is still going places. With maturity, this person will be able to have the intense focus to do well at MIT or wherever, and after MIT or wherever as well…and will still have all these “soft” attributes as well, which will help develop eventual creative success.</p>
<p>I think the reason that we hear so much about the rare, eccentric genius --to the point of stereotype–is because it is indeed so rare. And so places like MIT and other elite schools do consider the “softer” side of applicants as well, because the don’t want a campus full of eccentric geniuses alone, they also want geniuses who play well with others.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, because liberal arts schools have math and science distribution requirements. Even the social sciences require training in statistics.</p>
<p>[Harvard</a> College Admissions § About Harvard: Degree Requirements](<a href=“http://www.admissions.college.harvard.edu/about/learning/requirements.html]Harvard”>http://www.admissions.college.harvard.edu/about/learning/requirements.html)
One course from each of the following 8 areas is required: Aesthetic and Interpretive Understanding, Culture and Belief, Empirical and Mathematical Reasoning, Ethical Reasoning, Science of Living Systems, Science of the Physical Universe, Societies of the World, The United States in the World</p>
<p>QuantMech: Your reasoned, very well informed posts won me over. In fact, I’d love to discuss other things with you.</p>
<p>I have enjoyed the input of many here.</p>
<p>Periwinkle: (Lovely name.) I don’t agree that high SAT scores and creativity are unlikely to be found together. I think these are independent variables. However, most creative geniuses do seem to be very intellectually capable, so I wouldn’t be surprised if a greater number of them did score very highly on all three sections of the SAT.</p>
<p>Many creative endeavors benefit from a thorough knowledge of the history of their discipline which requires intellectual acumen. They also benefit from “out of the box” thinking which often implies mastery of other disciplines as well.</p>
<p>I certainly wouldn’t say it was true in all cases, but it is true in many.</p>
<p>I understand the creative process having painted and sold abstract oils, sung opera, written three books of poetry and three novels. The more I knew, the richer my creation. The more acute I am, the better the editing and feedback.</p>
<p>Probably the most difficult is singing opera because the feedback about which muscle used which way produces which exact sound is hard to master and there is so little language for it.</p>
<p>I am not saying I’m a genius or revealing my scores; I’m just saying I have insight into the process.</p>
<p>I have also written Art Museum exhibition guides and notes and descriptions of music for classical concerts.</p>
<p>I have taught creative writing on many occasions and run workshops on creativity.</p>
<p>I think it’s fair to say that in most cases the most intelligent folks produced the most sophisticated work. I’m not sure that’s the same thing as saying they’re the most creative, but I would guess they are.</p>
<p>And I am absolutely positive that Shakespeare, Bach, and Leonardo da Vinci would ace all sections of the SAT.</p>
<p>QM, I am inspired to read Feynman based on your discussion here, so thank you for that inspiration!</p>
<p>mid-50%, freshmen<br>
. . . . .25th 75th
03-04 730 - 800
04-05 730 - 800
05-06 740 - 800
06-07 720 - 800
07-08 720 - 800
08-09 720 - 800
09-10 720 - 800
10-11 740 - 800
11-12 740 - 800</p>
<p>From CDS, matriculated 1st years.</p>
<p>Mythmom, I agree intelligence and creativity are independent variables, as are determination and work ethic. Luck and daring also play their part in college admissions. I am not stating that creative geniuses aren’t intelligent, but that they aren’t likely to present themselves as <em>Perfect Unhooked Harvard Applicants</em>. I think Helen Vendler’s list of characteristics often associated with creative people is a good place to start. She didn’t even touch the correlation with bipolar or depression for some creative people. </p>
<p>As to the SAT, I think language issues would be a barrier for Bach and Leonardo da Vinci. I found an online site which claimed da Vinci studied Algebra with Marliano at the age of 31, which is rather old for a high school senior. Could Shakespeare write a simple 5-paragraph essay? Would the test graders accept blank verse or sonnet form? :)</p>
<p>Were all three highly intelligent? Yes. Would they have aced the SAT? Unlikely. Does it matter? No. It is possible for people to be intelligent without taking the SAT. As they were born and died before the advent of the SAT, this question cannot be answered to everyone’s satisfaction.</p>
<p>More to the point of this meandering thread, to what extent are colleges influenced by the sorts of students who dare to apply? If a prodigy chooses to attend a state flagship rather than MIT, Harvard (etc.), is it a loss for mankind, or are there no right or wrong answers?</p>
<p>I want to respond to collegealum’s statement that the top schools seem not to care about intellectualism other than to demand top grades in challenging courses.</p>
<p>That is completely opposed to my observed experience. I wouldn’t say that HYPS are perfect by any means, but year after year – and putting aside recruited athletes – the successful applicants I see, at least, are usually at least among the most deeply intellectual of the kids I know, and often simply the most deeply intellectual. They are among the smartest, too, and among the hardest working most of the time, but not necessarily the smartest and certainly not always the hardest working. But they are committed to intellectual inquiry, and to rigor in thought and argument, and they are motivated by intellectual curiosity. Of course, some rejected applicants are like that, too, but I can’t remember seeing a kid accepted where I thought it was a clear mistake.</p>
<p>Notwithstanding my own experience, I do believe they make mistakes. It’s almost impossible to believe otherwise. And I believe the process is less free from some biases than the admissions committees themselves would like. </p>
<p>But I have to say that my reaction when I see who is admitted and who rejected among the kids I know is most often “How the heck could they possibly have known enough to get it so right?”</p>
<p>I try to stay out of discussions about MIT because I know very little about it besides what I read on CC, and my kids’ friends didn’t apply there in enough numbers to form an opinion. For those who did, the results seemed pretty rational – MIT took the strongest math/science students and no one else.</p>
<p>So . . . the average 25th percentile SAT M score for Marilee Jones’ last four classes was 727.5 (which of course given SAT scoring conventions would round to 730), and the average 25th percentile SAT M score for the first four post-Jones classes (that’s all we have, this year’s entering class is the fifth) is . . . 730. That’s not strong evidence of discontinuity.</p>