<p>^ Conspiracy theorists postulate that MIT servers destroy applications with keyword USAMO or at least keep them in incomplete status. :D</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[UCLA</a> sends mistaken congrats to 894 applicants and then apologizes - latimes.com](<a href=āArchive blogsā>Archive blogs)</p>
<p>There are checks and balances, and mistakes are still made. Steinbergās āGatekeepersā book described the mechanics of how Wesleyan sent letters.</p>
<p>TheGFG, I think itās almost axiomatic that elite schools, including MIT, select for self-promoters to some extent. But only to some extent. I donāt know what your kidsā experience is, but I have seen lots of elite-college students who were anything but self-promoters. Including some who are terrible interviewers (but somehow their intelligence shines through anyway).</p>
<p>I donāt believe that any college, certainly not MIT, excludes awkward kids altogether. Awkward kids may be disadvantaged, but thatās not the same thing as excluded. Of course, as awkwardness gets more extreme, it could become an exclusion issue, and at extreme levels I think that is probably justified. You may be the smartest person in the world, but if you canāt communicate, and you canāt work with others, what you are going to accomplish is likely to be limited.</p>
<h1>1819 texaspg: I am reading QMās analysis as including the idea some apply and donāt matriculate and also some donāt apply at all.</h1>
<p>[Guidance</a> Office: Answers From Harvardās Dean, Part 3 - NYTimes.com](<a href=āhttp://thechoice.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/14/harvarddean-part3/]Guidanceā>Guidance Office: Answers From Harvard's Dean, Part 3 - The New York Times)</p>
<p>One of several links on the web to Fizsimmons comments about Harvard admissions. I assume MIT admissions are comparable. A special category is potential scholars. Do you not see QMās group of USAMO scorers as necessarily being included in a group of potential scholars by any university?</p>
<p>1816 - TheGFC: Wow - love it! loveitloveit :)</p>
<p>Do I understand that there are 50 USAMO qualifiers each year? And the argument is that MIT should accept all 50 of these? As well as (presumably) others who have shown math prowess in some other way? How many math majors does MIT need/want?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Out of curiosity, can people name a lot of error-free processes?</p>
<p>QM, I greatly respect you and your opinions and was wondering what your thoughts are regarding ISEF/Intel STS/actual scientific research as well as the Chem and Bio versions of USAMO as tools for assessing student aptitude? </p>
<p>My school does not offer much in the way of Science Clubs/ECs (I founded one) and weāre very small so we can hardly compete with big schools that have lots of money and huge teams. Iām personally not as interested in pure mathematics for which there seem to be many competitions (though I am continuing beyond Calc BC) and prefer Bio/Chem/Physics. As such, my main science ECs are basically restricted to Olympiads, Science Fair/research and also editing a scientific journal for students. AP self studying is something Iād like to do more of, but I donāt have the time to teach myself Physics C, even though it seems very exciting!</p>
<p>The son of the poster who was rejected did not sound awkward in the least, anyway. What about epxressed career focus? Could that have made a difference? Of the rejected students posters know about, did they have a career interest that was less likely to result in fame and glory for MIT? I donāt know anything about the world of math, so I couldnāt suggest what might be the quant careers MIT would find less desirable for the purpose of advancing their institutional reputation.</p>
<p>alh - my question is where are the actual numbers? I understand someone QM thought of as a genius ended up on waitlist followed by an admission and graduation but that does not make it an error on MITās part. The assumption that MIT is giving up on geniuses in large numbers is something that needs quantification as opposed to modeling.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In the interview, Fitzsimmons says this:</p>
<p>āHarvard Graduate School of Education Professor Howard GardnerĀs
ground-breaking theory of Multiple Intelligences argues that there is more than one ĀintelligenceĀ: that each person has a unique combination of interpersonal, intrapersonal, linguistic, mathematical, musical, artistic, kinesthetic, and naturalist ĀintelligencesĀ. Extracurricular accomplishments allow students to express their varied ĀintelligencesĀ or faculties beyond simply their SAT ĀlinguisticĀ and mathematical achievements.ā</p>
<p>Gardnerās theory, set out in his book āFrames of Mindā, differs from the single-factor āgā theory of the intelligence, explained in books such as Jensenās āThe g factorā or the Herrnstein and Murrayās āThe Bell Curveā. The ideal admissions process depends in part on how one defines intelligence.</p>
<p>texaspg: I do not want to speak for QM, but Iām not sure anyone has suggested MIT is giving up on geniuses in large numbers. I rather understood that those of us concerned, are concerned about a very small number of rejected applicants. So small a number, in fact, that many are questioning whether they are worth worrying about at all. I think any rejected genius (or āpotential scholarā) is worth my concern. ymmv</p>
<h1>1825 Hunt - Iām googling a bit and see there seem to be at least four undergraduate math depts at MIT? Also wonāt some USAMO scorers choose other majors? I think your question is interesting.</h1>
<p>Texaspg: Donāt you have a child at MIT? (Maybe Iāve completely lost track of who is who here:() Do you know how many math majors there are?</p>
<p>To clarify my position, just so I donāt come across as an anti-intellectual curmudgeon or something like that, it is not so much that I am unconcerned about ārejected geniusesā or āpotential scholars.ā Rather, I remain unconvinced that there is a meaningful number of people in this class who are being badly served by the college admissions process on the whole. In fact, as far as I can tell, there is an N of zero, because no one has shared even anecdotal information about any genius who has suffered irremediable harm on account of a disappointing admission result.</p>
<p>In 2011, MIT gave bachelorās degrees to 87 math majors, 16 math and computer science majors, 159 computer science majors, 77 physics majors, and 54 economics majors. And a whole passel of engineering degrees. I think MIT has room for lots of mathy kids.</p>
<p>The National Center for Education Statistics College Navigator website is great for answering questions like āhow many math majors does MIT have?ā <a href=āCollege Navigator - Massachusetts Institute of Technologyā>College Navigator - Massachusetts Institute of Technology;
<p>(Side note: At his high school reunion last weekend, my son reconnected with his math-genius classmate, an otherworldly kid ā at least in high school ā who went to Harvard to be a math major. He graduated, however, with a joint concentration in philosophy and economics, and he is headed to law school next year after two years in a Washington policy job. The previous math genius from their school to go to Harvard also switched to economics, and now works for a hedge fund in Connecticut. Not every math āgeniusā winds up as a math major.)</p>
<p>Supporters of holistic admissions have more faith in the judgement of admissions officers than I do. Here is what Ron Unz says in [The</a> Myth of American Meritocracy | The American Conservative](<a href=āhttp://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-myth-of-american-meritocracy/]Theā>http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-myth-of-american-meritocracy/) , mentioned upthread by Canuckguy.</p>
<p>āIn fact, it seems likely that some of these obvious admissions biases we have noticed may be related to the poor human quality and weak academic credentials of many of the university employees making these momentous decisions. As mentioned above, the job of admissions officer is poorly paid, requires no professional training, and offers few opportunities for career advancement; thus, it is often filled by individuals with haphazard employment records. [ā¦] The vast majority seem to possess minimal academic expertise and few intellectual interests, raising serious questions about their ability to reasonably evaluate their higher-quality applicants.ā</p>
<p>absweetmarie: I believe posters are extremely hesitant to share even anecdotal information that could potentially identify someone they know (and maybe even love). I think if you read between the lines you will see some here think some of the potential scholars have been negatively impacted. Sometimes you donāt even have to read much between the lines.</p>
<p>If you ascribe to the belief that anyone rejected by MIT, who then ends up at a different elite college, and goes on to a nice upper middle class lifestyle couldnāt possibly have been negatively impacted by college admissionsā¦ you and I are debating really different ideas imho.</p>
<p>adding: my thinking is similar to QMās #1800</p>
<p>Honestly, alh, I get the privacy issues. But you are putting thoughts in my head that are decidedly not there when you suggest that I am the sort of person who considers a ānice upper middle class lifestyleā the sine qua non of success! What I am saying is that it seems unlikely to me that someone who really wants to achieve in science or engineering is going to be (or, more to the point, needs to be) deterred by a rejection from MIT or anywhere else.</p>
<p>With regard to QuantMechās thinking in post #1800: Are the physics graduate programs in this country filled solely with people who went to MIT? Or who were accepted by MIT? I really donāt get the perseveration focused on MIT admission policies.</p>
<p>alh - my kid was admitted but going elsewhere. I know several others who attend but none of them specialize in math (neuroscience, computer science, bio eng and the list goes on).</p>
<p>abweetmarie: I DONāT think you are that sort of person. Lots of people are and thatās okay. And all this discussion becomes incredibly elitist. We can only debate all this from an incredible position of privilege. I get that.</p>
<h1>1800
</p>
<p>I think for some students, especially the very-well-rounded-good-in-lots-of-different-areas kind of students a rejection from MIT points them away from math/science into a different focus where they feel they will be able to succeed if not excel. I donāt know if that is a real problem. If they had something to contribute to science, maybe it is. If their contribution is made anyway by someone else, it doesnāt matter. </p>
<p>I think I should clarify at this point Iām not talking about any of my own kids. :eek:</p>
<p>
I really doubt this, except I guess if the math whizzes mentioned above had gone to MIT, maybe they wouldnāt have switched majors to econ. Considering the many excellent schools teaching math and science, it seems hard to believe that somebody would think that he couldnāt cut it in science just because MIT didnāt take him.</p>