Angry over the college admissions process

Parents Forum
1801

<p>As if we were discussing this in a friendly setting:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>You don’t know if these kids are being admitted already. You may have access to some anecdotes for kids who were or were not, but overall info is limited. MIT would have to brag, “We admitted x% of the USAMO or AIME…”</p></li>
<li><p>You don’t know they would attend. There could be a better-fit program (or side opps) elsewhere, better aid, personal prefs and considerations.</p></li>
<li><p>You (as an outsider) have no basis on which to predict how they would integrate, personally thrive, and add to the vitality on campus (acknowledged as more than classroom and lab brilliance.) </p></li>
<li><p>You don’t know why some may currently be denied, in the first place. The notion the school is “anti-intellectual” isn’t supported. You have no access to their apps and- except for anecdotes- know nothing about how some kids can come across as less than fully appealing. I think you are assuming that their math skills impart some sort of raw attractiveness. But there has to be an organic context for the marriage to work. </p></li>
</ol>

<p>This isn’t always a simple matter of detecting an extreme issue, a “red flag.” May kids simply come across as ho-hum or limited, after their stats. What sacrifices should MIT make, to let in x number of kids NOT based on their own discretion, needs, etc? What benefits to MIT, those kids, other students- and the ones summarily bumped aside to make auto-places based on one family of tests?</p>

<p>An interesting link: [MIT</a> Course Catalog: Undergraduate General Institute Requirements](<a href=“Welcome! < MIT”>Welcome! < MIT) Can drop to the Comms and Humanities requirements, to see the school’s position.</p>

<p>What is lurking my mind is my own training that says, one should be cautious not to just look for proofs of our preconceived notions. Sorry. You said earlier, you are trying to (my words) flesh out a position here. Correct me if I am wrong. I don’t think this is necessarily the best direction.</p>

1802

<p>Do we disagree that MIT should be attracting the potential world changing science/math types of the next generation? Maybe all of us don’t see that as one of MIT’s reasons for existing? </p>

<p>If we do agree (which I begin to doubt) do we then say those Lebron James of science, who really enjoy what they are doing (reading Feynman for pleasure) are seen as too boring for MIT? So MIT is looking for physicists who find physics kind of not all that much fun? </p>

<p>I don’t know anyone who has been extremely successful in any field who doesn’t find their work the most fun of anything they do, except for their family life. That doesn’t mean these individuals don’t do other activities and have hobbies. Most everyone needs a break from really focused brain work. However, if someone was capable of spending all waking hours on Feynman or the equivalent and interested in doing so - why should that be a disqualifier? </p>

<p>I understand the point of perhaps needing some evaluation of “plays well with others” for the purpose of successful, collaborative lab work but it doesn’t seem to me to be what QM is suggesting MIT is screening for? </p>

<p>Although maybe I’m an outlier, when I was a very young woman, an intense focus and enjoyment of very challenging academic problems always seemed to me extremely “hot” and one of the qualities I looked for in potential romantic partners. So I start to wonder if “textureless math grind” may be another of those stereotypes that exists merely in the eye of the beholder?</p>

<p>adding: #1800 - yes, agree. thanks for writing that.</p>

1803

<p>But just THINK what he could have accomplished at MIT! Le Sigh.</p>

1804

<p>One more set of comments, and I will give it a rest.</p>

<p>For people who prefer the “red flag” explanation (JHS, Hunt #1787), do you know students who fall into that category? That is, both top performers on an Olympiad and presenting serious problems that would bar admission? I don’t know any. (It’s quiet out here in Hilbert space.)</p>

<p>I am impressed by students who qualify for USAMO and score points, based on those few I know. I might need to revise my opinion, based on collegealum314’s informed view of the coachability of the AIME.</p>

<p>I know relatively little about the other Olympiads. If each generated another 18 auto-admits who wouldn’t otherwise be admitted, we are still talking about 90 students, out of 1700+ admits. MIT’s yield of these students is probably less than their average yield. Also, I have to say that from the MIT forum, I have seen much less evidence of top scorers in the other competitions being declined by MIT. </p>

<p>I see USAMO performance (1+ point, or 4+) as sufficient to indicate that a student should be admitted to MIT, in the absence of disqualifying factors. I do not by any means see it as necessary.</p>

1805

<p>

</p>

<p>It really doesn’t matter what any of us see as MIT’s reasons for existing. It matters what MIT sees as its reasons for existing, and making the assumption that their admissions philosophy reflects their institutional priorities – which is a reasonable assumption, as they – or any other private university – could change that philosophy at any moment if they are not satisfied with the results.</p>

1806

<p>Obviously every private college gets to do whatever the powers that be choose.
Elite institutions will be… elitists !!</p>

<p>Do you think society should have any say over the mission of the university? Is it valid to question what is going on if it negatively impacts society? Or if we imagine it may be negatively impacting society?</p>

<p>Maybe it is silly to discuss whether the MIT admissions committee sometimes makes mistakes, but is it “wrong” to do so? Is it out of line?</p>

1807

<p>

I know of kids with perfect SATs but low GPA. I’m also aware of high-scoring and performing kids who were caught cheating. I don’t know of any reason why some top Olympiad performers might not have similar issues.</p>

<p>And I’ve certainly known plenty of people who come across extremely poorly in interviews, even if they are very intelligent.</p>

1808

<p>Negatively impacts society???<br>
Look at all the assumptions floating on this thread.</p>

1809

<p>Do you not think it is possible for universities to impact society? either positively or negatively?</p>

1810

<p>Sorry for yet another interruption to this fascinating discussion by you math aficionados. However, I just saw this article about a speech at Princeton which is germane to the topic of self-promotion upthread: [New</a> York Times columnist talks student achievement at Princeton | NJ.com](<a href=“http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2012/11/new_york_times_columnist_talks.html]New”>New York Times columnist talks student achievement at Princeton - nj.com)</p>

<p>“Students face a different world,” he [Brooks] said. “A world where the language of achievement has overshadowed language of virtue.”… Brooks said that by highly valuing achievement, the meritocracy promotes a culture of self-advancement and self-esteem. Americans are more confident in themselves than in previous history.</p>

<p>“In 1950, high school seniors were given a survey question: Are you a very important person?” he said. “Then, 12 percent said yes. In 2005, 80 percent said yes.” </p>

<p>The attitude of self-effacement that was once prominent in American culture has been replaced with “the self-esteem movement,” Brooks said. </p>

<p>“The workplace has changed. We brand ourselves. It’s a new decade for individualism,” he said. “Facebook, Twitter, they’re all about self-broadcast.” </p>

<p>The article then goes on to mention workers rights advocate France Perkins who, in order to advance the cause, deliberately suppressed her attractiveness and dressed in matronly fashion to make sure she was taken seriously by policymakers.</p>

1811

<p>QuantMech has certainly convinced me that pre-12th grade USAMO qualification and positive score is an impressive credential, and that if MIT isn’t admitting all applicants who have it it isn’t a simple case of “so many qualified applicants, so few spots.” (She had convinced me of that several days ago, but the latest analysis is great.) So it certainly makes sense to consider whether that should be an automatic admission credential.</p>

<p>But I still have a few questions.</p>

<ol>
<li> How many other, similar credentials are out there with the same effect (and the same type of demographic bias – and I am not talking about ethnicity here)? If MIT recognized all of them, how many of its slots would get filled? Remember, QuantMech is talking about around 18 marginal admissions, but that’s on top of 40 or so kids she believes are getting admitted now. If there were 10 such credentials with similar numbers, they could represent 1/3 or more of MIT admissions. And that really might start impinging on other values . . . among which may well be not wanting to communicate to high school students that they have to engage in academic competitions.<br></li>
</ol>

<p>(Personally, I find the idea of these competitions a little revolting. Growing up, I was aware of Westinghouse, but barely, and no others; no one I knew competed, including my grade school best friend who has a chair at MIT. I can see arguments pro and con for them, but I wouldn’t want to make them mandatory for ambitious students.)</p>

<ol>
<li><p>What evidence is there, really, that the MIT admissions staff has a materially different view of the credential than QuantMech? She has identified a few cases of students she thought should be admitted who weren’t, but I think she would have a hard time proving that as many as 40% of the applicants with this powerful credential are being rejected. And there is no evidence, absolutely none, that any of these students are being rejected because they aren’t “fun” enough, don’t make popcorn or play the tuba. Everything I know about elite college admissions leads me to believe that true academic superstars aren’t being required to be tuba players or popcorn poppers, too. (But the strongest STEM kid in your local high school may not be an academic superstar by the standards of the MIT applicant pool. In fact, he or she is highly unlikely to be an academic superstar by those standards, unless your local high school is Stuyvesant, or TJ, or Exeter.)</p></li>
<li><p>I suspect QuantMech and I differ on what constitutes a “red flag”. I don’t think you have to kick cats. What I would put in the category of red flag would include significant trouble with English (i.e., questions about ability to do college-level work in English in a course that is not completely quantitative), immaturity, serious arrogance. Not that any of those things would constitute an automatic disqualifier for me – after all, immaturity tends to cure itself, English, difficult as it is, can be learned, and I’m sure a first semester at MIT reduces lots of students’ arrogance levels. But one might want to make a judgment whether admitting THIS USAMO scorer in addition to the other 50 would bring marginal benefits that outweighed his particular marginal risks.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>You know who is really expert in analyzing the MIT applicant pool? How about the MIT admission staff? They are in a great position to understand the differences between USAMO qualifiers, or Stuyvesant 4.0s, or Siemens semi-finalists, because they actually see applications (with essays) and recommendations from a large percentage of each, in addition to thousands of other kids around the nation who have various excuses, good or bad, for not being in those lofty categories. They know whom their teachers really admire, and whom they grudgingly tolerate. (And, sure, maybe the teachers are being unfair, but I want to see proof of that, too.) They know who put together a great application, and who phoned in their resume and transcript.</p>

<p>On what basis do you assume they aren’t making rational, informed choices? Some flip (and probably taken out of context) comments by the penultimate admissions director? The fact that some of the staff she hired are still there, and may not even have gone to MIT? I don’t buy it. I think, like every admissions department, the MIT admissions staff has multiple objectives, and tries to achieve all of them. And sometimes there could be mistakes, and some rough trimming at the seams, and for the vast, vast majority of applicants it IS true that there are nowhere near enough slots to accommodate the number of perfectly deserving candidates.</p>

1812

<p>QM - Since we have narrowed the list down to 15-20 people, is it very hard to figure out where they are for the last couple of years?</p>

<p>I propose putting a note on 2014. 2015, 2016 parents threads to see if they know any of these kids or if any of their kids meet the requirements and how they fared with MIT.</p>

1813

<p>How many USAMOers are there each year? How does that compare with the 300+ Physics Olympiad semi-finalists each year?</p>

1814

<p>

</p>

<p>I would hazard a guess that MIT, too, simultaneously sees participation in these contests as a piece of evidence that can prove someone’s up to the task, but doesn’t want to encourage a culture that rewards only the contest-enterers at the expense of overlooking the equally-smart-math-genius who simply had other things to do with his time than enter contests. </p>

<p>After all, there’s an unspoken penalty about taking the SAT too many times, as it implies you have nothing better to do. USAMO may be a great thing to do with math genius, but it’s not the only thing to do with it.</p>

1815

<p>

</p>

<p>I would certainly hope that would violate CC’s TOS to be inquiring about the fate of specific kids who are easily identifiable via public records. If this were a college application review instead of a message board, the desire to identify specific kids would be the proverbial red flag for me.</p>

1816

<p>To crystallize some of what posters like me are trying to get at, I’d suggest that elite schools select for successful self-promoters and flashy achievers. They may not do this on purpose; it results also from the fill-in-the-blank application process which makes students encapsulate their lives in lists of grades, awards, honors, positions held, etc. However, it does make sense given that these schools have admitted they want to attract the future movers and shakers of the world. Think about some people you know who have gone far in the work world, advancing more based on their ability to impress people with what they know, than for what they actually do know or can do. It isn’t enough to have knowledge or competence–you have to convince people you do. That quality can be labeled “communication skills” or “leadership.” But sometimes it’s ugly “self-promotion” and regrettably, there are lots of sheep out their willing to buy it and follow mutely. But as long as that person gets the fame and honor, their alma mater will also get fame and honor. The schools want their grads in the news–a lot. </p>

<p>So here we have an objective contest that screens for some of the brightest and well-prepared young math minds. Being the most math-oriented of the elite schools, you’d think MIT would grab every last one of these winners, regardless of minor red flags. After all, should we care if the math genius is charming, attractive, well-dressed, well-liked by peers and teachers, and has fed the homeless? Those qualities are not essential to being a math genius, because presumably the math he can do will speak for itself to those smart enough to evaluate the work or learn from it. To be high-achieving in his field, the math genius doesn’t have to convince the masses he knows what he’s doing. Now if the student aspired to be a politician, social activist, director of a non-profit, or even scientist who needs grant funding, then it would be different matter. Or is it???</p>

<p>So, assuming MIT should want these kids but doesn’t take them, what could explain it? Could it be they don’t care if the student can do high level math unless the doing of it will bring them publicity? So, they therefore only select the type of math student likely to become a more public figure of some kind. Someone who won’t just successfully do creative new math in his professor’s office, but will become a chief economic consultant to the President or something else visible.
Not sure at all. Just musing.</p>

1817

<p>

</p>

<p>And, anyway, with all due respect to texaspg, what would be the purpose of this exercise? It astonishes me how many threads on this site start as or morph into hand-wringing over the fate of kids whose preparation and intellectual gifts place them in the top tenth of one percent (and sometimes even a smaller group than that). Do they really need our solicitude? No question, they deserve due consideration by any admissions committee. I’ve not seen any quantitative evidence that they are not receiving this consideration.</p>

1818

<p>

</p>

<p>Yes and no. I see your point, but I’ve got 2 kids at elite schools who weren’t “flashy” and didn’t hold USAMO-equivalent achievements. They didn’t even hold leadership positions (president, etc) within organizations that they belonged to. Nor were they the kids who swept every award at senior night. I think some of that is recognized, but I think they’re a lot more savvy to flashy packaging than you might think.</p>

1819

<p>I would not ask for names, just anecdotes.</p>

<p>The problem I have is the assumption that many talented kids rejected from MIT or all talented kids of a certain kind automatically should be admitted. Their outcomes are no different than a generic kid’s outcomes, not applied, applied but rejected, applied and admitted - matriculated or went somewhere else.</p>

<p>When a kid fits the USAMO criteria and not currently at MIT, why should we assume only one outcome (applied but rejected) as the outcome when it could also be not applied or not matriculated?</p>

1820

<p>Do admissions officers ever misplace applications, mistake them as incomplete or accidentally place them in the reject pile? Are there checks and balances in the process to ensure this doesn’t happen?</p>