<p>Periwinkle: It’s not worth arguing about. I could cite other evidence. We’ll agree to disagree.</p>
<p>JHS: That’s interesting and believable to me. </p>
<p>The people from my kids classes seemed to end up where they should be, and I’ve noticed that my transferring students do too.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl,</p>
<p>“But suppose, for the sake of argument, that my kids, not going to Ivies, will never be “allowed” to be CEOs. So what?”</p>
<p>Simply noting that the stakes are not as low as you make it seem to support your view about not questioning top school admissions decisions. You acknowledge that a top school helps you get in the door. I agree that after this it depends on you, but that first step is important and often not easy especially at top firms. Thus, while not the sin que non of advancement, it certainly helps to be from the same school as the leaders of your organization (although agree re “old boys network” being less important that it was before and used this term in response to another poster who had used it). </p>
<p>Another thing of importance is many top schools are need blind while others are need aware and so for some the choice may not be between Harvard and Tufts (as you have stated earlier in this post) but Harvard and State U. </p>
<p>1925 Ronan, fair point re USNWR stats likely being skewed to support their rankings and agree they should have broken it out by degree and a lot of the Harvard and Penn are likely MBAs.</p>
<p>Per mythmom,</p>
<p>“MIT also has an English major and a very impressive art department, particularly at the graduate level.”</p>
<p>MIT also has a good history department and one of its professors, Pauline Maier, wrote one of the best histories I have read in a long time, called Ratification (about the process in which the states ratified the Constitution)</p>
<p>Lookingforward,</p>
<p>“Is opinion lining up along male-female lines? Women who fought the old boy network not nearly as intimidated by holistic? Not for pure gender reasons- and not suggesting holistic is a feminine perspective- but because we know that devil exists and have been fighting for a generation or two? We can say, “get with it.” And now men are seeing raw power or powerful scores offer no certainty?”</p>
<p>Great insight. </p>
<p>Agree there will never be certainty and not against AO discretion, just concerned that a “holistic” process where everything may count means that nothing must count and disagree with this. Also, I think there is more of a formula (ala Ivy Academic Index for athletes) at many top schools than we would like to think – especially as applicants increase and AOs do not – and would like more transparency in the process.</p>
<p>Re: #1474, Harvard general education requirements</p>
<p>Note, however, that the Harvard general education requirements in math and science are much less rigorous than those at MIT. Of course, one can argue that the courses fulfilling them are quite appropriate for non-majors, even though they do not require as high level of ability in math and science as the MIT general education requirements in math and science. It does mean that Harvard does not need to be as concerned, admissions-wise, about the the math and science abilities of incoming students as MIT has to be.</p>
<p>[Empirical</a> and Mathematical Reasoning | FAS Registrar’s Office](<a href=“http://www.registrar.fas.harvard.edu/empirical-and-mathematical-reasoning]Empirical”>http://www.registrar.fas.harvard.edu/empirical-and-mathematical-reasoning)
[Science</a> of Living Systems | FAS Registrar’s Office](<a href=“http://www.registrar.fas.harvard.edu/science-living-systems]Science”>http://www.registrar.fas.harvard.edu/science-living-systems)
[Science</a> of the Physical Universe | FAS Registrar’s Office](<a href=“http://www.registrar.fas.harvard.edu/science-physical-universe]Science”>http://www.registrar.fas.harvard.edu/science-physical-universe)
[MIT</a> Course Catalog: Undergraduate General Institute Requirements](<a href=“Welcome! < MIT”>Welcome! < MIT)</p>
<p>Quant mech, didn’t you have a child who applied to MIT last year?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I heard Bach had trouble with comma splices and gerunds :)</p>
<p>Seriously, I bet Shakespeare committed numerous grammatical errors (maybe intentionally, maybe not). Who cares?</p>
<p>QM
</p>
<p>texaspg
</p>
<p>This is something I have wondered about. How many students is MIT willing to admit who may realistically decide to go someplace else? Assuming some sort of almost perfect applicant who looks like she could be successful in a variety of fields and who may choose a non tech environment in the end - does MIT want to take the chance? Or the single focused tech applicant who is a legacy at HYP? Maybe that explains the applicants denied (or waitlisted) at MIT and accepted every place else? If they are waitlisted they have the option to try and impress MIT that they are really serious about attending. </p>
<p>Texas talks about Harvard stealing the Intel winners. Does MIT decide not to compete for every “genius-bright”? Or maybe they just don’t see the need to admit every “super-bright” if they seem to have other very attractive competing options?</p>
<p>In my scenario, the denied students do still have excellent options but may switch fields. They know they are pretty smart, but it looks like MIT has told them they aren’t smart enough to do the tech thing, at least at MIT. Why not work to your strengths?</p>
<p>oh jeez, for the last time-- MIT is not delivering ANY message and certainly not “you aren’t smart enough to do the tech thing” to the kids they reject. The message is “We have thousands more qualified applicants than we have seats for”. Why is this so hard to comprehend?</p>
<p>What I have a hard time believing is that someone who really wants to do the “tech thing” would be deterred by a rejection from MIT. We all know that students change their fields of study a lot, and sometimes rather drastically (I live with a computer programmer who started out determined to become a professor of medieval studies). But if it’s a real phenomenon that people are inclined to lose their drive to pursue a particular field based on a school’s rejection, that’s just sad. These schools should not have that much power over a kid’s mindset. If they do have that much power, that is the real problem (not the alleged caprices of any schools’ admission policies).</p>
<p>QM
</p>
<p>I agree with this “ought” It seems to me the equivalent of providing appropriate level instruction in public schools for more advanced students: gifted classes, Honors, AP. However, we don’t provide everyone with an appropriate education prior to college, as PG points out with her examples of family circumstances impacting educational opportunities. I agree with QM that K-12 is an urgent problem. Looking at the big picture it might do a lot more good to eliminate the K-12 classes that serve the advanced students and use those resources to help the struggling students. I am not guessing many parents on this board would support that idea. It would equalize the playing field somewhat. Middle class families would still have lots of options for enrichment outside of the schools.</p>
<p>blossom: I agree. MIT isn’t saying that. The student may be hearing that.</p>
<p>I’m not really as invested in all this as it might seem 
I do find it a conundrum and my kids all went back home after the holidays :(</p>
<p>mythmom, #1475: Thank you for the compliment. It rendered me temporarily speechless–or the internet forum equivalent thereof.</p>
<p>I have always found your posts extremely interesting, whether we are in agreement on any specific issue or not. They tend to broaden my perspective.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl, #1476: I think you will love the Feynman Lecture Series. While it can profitably be read cover to cover, the two lectures that I particularly recommend to start are the lecture on the quantum two-slit experiment and the “Special Lecture, Almost Verbatim,” which covers the classical principle of least action. Feynman combined ideas that are presented in both of these lectures in formulating the path integral version of quantum mechanics, and thus providing a deeper explanation for the principle of least action (not just that it’s consistent with Hamilton’s equations of motion). </p>
<p>The book by Feynman and Hibbs on the path integral formulation of quantum mechanics can be found on Amazon, although at times the seller wants $500 or so for it. If you wait around, it can be had at a more reasonable price. Haven’t checked lately. </p>
<p>On a related note, Tom Stoppard’s play “Hapgood” draws on the idea of quantum uncertainty in a very clever way.</p>
<p>texaspg, #1472: I am basing my argument on a couple of instances of personal knowledge and odd results–rejections–on the MIT forum (e.g., piccolojr and hopelessly devote). I am not saying that the students must go to MIT, just that MIT should admit any super-strong student who applies there. You could argue that MIT knows that the student will be offered a place elsewhere at a “top” school, if the student is super-strong, so there’s no need for MIT to admit the student. Probably the MIT admissions people think that way. But they generally don’t know where else the student has applied, and MIT might be the only really challenging school in the mix.</p>
<p>Caltech is great, but its environment is not for every genius.</p>
<p>limabeans01: Nope, I am the only MIT applicant in my entire extended family. I got in (years ago, when things were somewhat different), but chose to go elsewhere. QMP did go through the college application hoopla a few years ago, but wasn’t interested in MIT.</p>
<p>I am certain of the results of 4 local MIT applicants within +/- three years of QMP, and these include the odd rejections that I alluded to.</p>
<p>alh #1488: You raise an interesting point about how many strong students MIT should admit “who may realistically decide to go someplace else.”</p>
<p>A faculty friend at Harvard told me once that they divided the grad admits into groups, to whom they gave different offers, based on how much they wanted the student to come to grad school there. They noticed that their yield was lowest in the top group. One year, they realized that they were over-extended–they had offered grad admission to too many students, given the funds available. So he suggested that they move some additional admits into the top group, to reduce their odds of coming (joking, of course).</p>
<p>I do think you have a point, and that MIT might reject some students when they think the student will go to Harvard. I suppose if an ill-edited letter of recommendation sent to MIT accidentally recommends the student for Harvard, and the student is quite strong, they have some reason to think that.</p>
<p>In my opinion, there is a trade-off between predictability of yield at the “top” colleges, and predictability of admissions. Most of the top schools have quite high yields. It seems to me that the average-ish top school admit couldn’t have been admitted to very many of the top schools, or the math wouldn’t work out.</p>
<p>Thank you, QM.</p>
<p>My last child accepted to grad school actually was told very early in the application process “you are our top choice, but if we aren’t your top choice, we don’t want to make the offer.” How’s that for being put on the spot before you know all your options? Luckily it was the top choice for student, so pretty easy to respond.</p>
<p>It has been so very long ago but I seem to remember it was possible to tell other places students were applying if someone was filing a FAFSA? Also, isn’t there sometimes just some common information about some top candidates, outside the scope of the application but readily available to the admissions committee, that would suggest what their other options might be?</p>
<p>I think absweetmarie makes an excellent point about students needing to move on from disappointment and I am now convinced sometimes admissions committees do make mistakes. I wonder what the best way is to help students deal with that situation? another conundrum</p>
<p>of course I do see what a very high class sort of problem this all becomes :eek:</p>
<p>lookingforward #1477 and JHS #1480: The difference in the average 25th %ile of the SAT M is not so evident, I grant. On the other hand, during Stu Schmill’s years, the pattern was 720, 720, 740, 740, while during Marilee Jones’s last 4 years, the pattern was 730, 740, 720, 720. I think some of the people who worked in MIT admissions with Marilee left during the period when Stu was in charge. As mentioned, I think it’s reasonable for MIT to admit a student who has two errors on the SAT M. I think that might yield a score of 740, though it would probably be higher for most test dates.</p>
<p>If you look at the additional data on the distribution of SAT M scores, however, here is the comparison between the 2011-12 distribution among the students who enrolled vs. the worst year for Jones, which happens to be 2007-08:</p>
<p>2011-12:
SAT M score ranges
700-800, 92.3%
600-699, 7.7%</p>
<p>vs.
2007-08:
700-800, 79%
600-699, 19%
500-599, 2%</p>
<p>These data cover only the students who enrolled, and not the entire admitted group, so there is that limitation. Also, the score ranges are a little too coarse–it would be useful if the 600-699 group had been subdivided. I would think that a student with an SAT M score in the range from 500-599 would be miserable at MIT. Maybe not, for some weird reason. Any counter-examples out there?</p>
<p>Also, to be fair, I picked Marilee’s worst year. In 2006-07, 87% of the students who enrolled scored between 700 and 800, 13% between 600 and 699, and none from 500-599. The % in the 700-800 range was 88% in 2004-05, 89% in 2003-04, and essentially equal to Stu’s at 92% in 2005-06.</p>
<p>There has been a clear upward trend in the % in the 700-800 category during Stu’s leadership. This went from 79% in Marilee’s last year, to 85% in the first year that Stu was really in charge (not just in charge of wait-list admissions), then 87.5% in his next year, 92.5% in 2010-11, and 92.3% in 2011-12, and probably stabilizing near there.</p>