Angry over the college admissions process

[Bay]

<p>Where do most math majors from MIT end up, career-wise? Perhaps the rejected mat geniuses indicated a singular desire to work on Wall Street and MIT is trying to move away from contributing to society in that way.</p>

[alh]

<p>

With regard to QuantMech’s 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 don’t get the perseveration focused on MIT admission policies.

</p>

<p>absweetmarie: At this point in time graduate school admissions is so competitive that looking at where the current profs and researchers come from is not all that useful - in my opinion. I don’t know where the best physics programs are located and where their current grad students come from. No idea. A student smart enough to fit the category of potential scholar is smart enough to consider what their best options are for a future career - imho. If they have the potential to succeed in a number of areas, they may think it just makes sense to concentrate someplace other than physics when rejected by MIT. </p>

<p>Really smart mathy kids have lots of options. Like JHS’s young friend they may go into policy, or to Law School. This only becomes a problem - imho - if their career options were unnecessarily limited by the erroneous belief they might not have had what it took to succeed in academia based on the MIT rejection. Or if we would like to have more scientists than policy makers or lawyers.</p>

[Beliavsky]

<p>

@alh

We can only debate all this from an incredible position of privilege.

In an essay [The</a> Real Meaning of Privilege : The Freeman : Foundation for Economic Education](<a href=“http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/the-real-meaning-of-privilege/]The”>The Real Meaning of Privilege - Foundation for Economic Education) , David Henderson explains that the word “privilege” is often misused. </p>

<p>‘Rich people are called “privileged” even if they earned their wealth without political pull. Those who are poor, on the other hand, are called “underprivileged,” even if their being poor has nothing to do with having less than the average amount of privilege.’</p>

<hr>

<p>My children have well-off and educated parents, but they will be the opposite of “privileged” in college admissions. Labelling certain children “privileged” is in part a psychological tactic to persuade them that being discriminated against is OK. I will teach my children to resist this pressure.</p>

[alh]

<p>My definition: Anyone with time to post on a message board in the middle of the day and a computer available to create the post, and the time to consider elite college admissions in this country = extremely privileged.</p>

[jym626]

<p>^ don’t forget the smartphone app, alh. People could be posting from anywhere.</p>

[QuantMech]

<p>absweetmarie, #1837 and my post #1800: I am not at all saying that a student needs to go to MIT to be successful in physics (or another STEM area).</p>

<p>With regard to a proto-physicist who is rejected by MIT and then questions the career choice–before CC made the elements of MIT’s decisions clear–I believe that there was some objective grounds for wondering whether a successful career in academic physics could be made in the long haul, sheerly on the grounds of the odds. A rational proto-physicist, circa 2002, might have assumed that MIT admitted based on potential in STEM. MIT admits 1700+ students, but not the proto-physicist.</p>

<p>If the proto-physicist gets into Harvard, but not MIT, perhaps it was the oboe (2002!) plus Model UN accomplishments that attracted Harvard, in combination with some evidence of strength in physics, as opposed to sheer strength in physics. At Harvard in my undergraduate era, a high fraction of the STEM students were pre-meds. (I wasn’t there, but had grad school friends from Harvard.)</p>

<p>I think it would be objectively reasonable for the student in this circumstance to think that the MIT decision said something about how they viewed his/her potential as a scientist (1700+ look better, when you throw in the engineers), and even after you narrow things down to prospective academic physicists, about the mis-match between the number of talented people available and the number of academic positions available.</p>

[Hunt]

<p>

My children have well-off and educated parents, but they will be the opposite of “privileged” in college admissions. Labelling certain children “privileged” is in part a psychological tactic to persuade them that being discriminated against is OK. I will teach my children to resist this pressure.

Having well-off and educated parents by itself makes children privileged. After all, THEY didn’t earn that money.

If the proto-physicist gets into Harvard, but not MIT, perhaps it was the oboe (2002!) plus Model UN accomplishments that attracted Harvard, in combination with some evidence of strength in physics, as opposed to sheer strength in physics. At Harvard in my undergraduate era, a high fraction of the STEM students were pre-meds. (I wasn’t there, but had grad school friends from Harvard.)

This strikes me as extremely far-fetched, and certainly does not represent the mindset of any Harvard students that I have ever encountered.</p>

[texaspg]

<p>The institutional needs keep changing at top colleges. Yale issues 150-200 likelies for STEMmy kids in February and invites them for a trip (not sure if it is free). They are competing for the same kids who might go to HPSM otherwise because Yale does not have the STEM prestige.</p>

<p>So why not Yale for these geniuses?</p>

[sbjdorlo]

<p>My son attends MIT and is planning a double major in math and physics. He was never USAMO (AIME 3 X) as he started competitions late (sophomore year). He was PhO semi finalist 3 X. He started in upper division math at MIT this year as a freshman. He says he’s surrounded by brilliant, fast thinking and hard working math kids. It’s inspiring and pushes him to do well. The energy at MIT is what he wanted. He’s a super-social outgoing leader and has friends who are not. The balance is nice, I think. </p>

<p>My son was high achieving in math and physics but was also interested in many other things during high school (music, chess, dance, baseball, etc). </p>

<p>From what I have seen, the kids at MIT belong at MIT.</p>

[QuantMech]

<p>texaspg, I am not basing my analysis on where students have matriculated. Obviously MIT may have admitted quite a number who chose to go elsewhere.</p>

<p>I am assuming that a fair fraction of the posts in the MIT outcomes threads are authentic. Perhaps they are largely made up–but they are consistent with the small number of instances I have seen locally, and comments from other posters, whom I trust.</p>

<p>As mentioned earlier, I do think that the MIT admissions decisions are made on a rational basis consistent with the admissions philosophy. It’s the philosophy I question–at least the old philosophy which does not appear to have been abandoned entirely.</p>

<p>The data are all in the hands of the admissions personnel! They may not be analyzing them with a critical eye toward adjusting their philosophy.</p>

[JHS]

<p>What a load of stuff that “privileged” post is! Places at elite private colleges are overwhelmingly occupied by the children of well-off and educated parents, and such applicants do fine at public universities as well. It’s a minor miracle that there is some representation of students who could not be described that way, but far, far too much is made of their relatively insignificant presence. (I am operating from memory here, without checking, but I believe that about half of Harvard students come from families in the top 2% of annual income, over 75% from the top 20%, only 5% or so from the bottom quintile, and maybe another 5% from the next two quintiles combined.)</p>

<p>Students from families with parents who are well-off and educated are indeed privileged, and the bennies they accumulate show it. They may not get into every college they want, boo-hoo, but they do fine.</p>

[QuantMech]

<p>sbjdorlo, since your son started in upper-division math at MIT, the math kids who surround him probably also started in upper-division math. Some of the MIT students have to take and then re-take the GIR’s in math and physics (general ed requirements), which they failed the first time around. Some of those students will go on to flourish at MIT, but perhaps not all.</p>

[Beliavsky]

<p>

@Hunt

Having well-off and educated parents by itself makes children privileged. After all, THEY didn’t earn that money.

No, because they are governed by the same laws as other people. People don’t earn good lucks or high intelligence either, but I would not call supermodels or geniuses “privileged”.
I don’t think the word “privileged” should be used as a synonym for lucky.</p>

[absweetmarie]

<p>Let’s assume there are students who have the potential to make significant achievements in science who are choosing other fields. To what extent is this a problem for the country? Maybe it’s a huge problem (cue the Google results!). To what extent can the problem be attributed to disappointing admission results for a handful of kids (whether it be a rejection from MIT, CalTech, Harvard, U. of I. or any other top science school)? I submit there would be scant evidence that admission results play a significant role in the problem, though I reserve judgment pending a convincing articulation of the actual problem!</p>

[alh]

<p>absweetmarie: #1846 QM, whose post I referenced, and who actually does understand physics, answers the first part of your question.
…</p>

<p>I already admitted I really don’t know if it’s really a problem for the country. And that primarily I’m concerned for the individual rejected student. It does seem to me I frequently read we need more scientists? Do we need these individual potential scientists? maybe - maybe not
…
QM is back. So, I’d rather read than post now. :)</p>

[absweetmarie]

<p>I’m over the focus on MIT. I still maintain that the specter of the discouraged physicist/mathematician/engineer who throws in the towel BECAUSE of an admission result is an unproven phenomenon.</p>

[Beliavsky]

<p>

@JHS

What a load of stuff that “privileged” post is! Places at elite private colleges are overwhelmingly occupied by the children of well-off and educated parents, and such applicants do fine at public universities as well. It’s a minor miracle that there is some representation of students who could not be described that way, but far, far too much is made of their relatively insignificant presence. (I am operating from memory here, without checking, but I believe that about half of Harvard students come from families in the top 2% of annual income, over 75% from the top 20%, only 5% or so from the bottom quintile, and maybe another 5% from the next two quintiles combined.)

</p>

<p>I think these patterns primarily result from the positive correlation of income and intelligence (and other traits valued by society) and the heritability of these traits. The idea that success depends more on inherited traits than environment does imply that the college attended is not all-important.</p>

[muckdogs07]

<p>Pizzagirl –
“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”</p>

<p>Interesting and nice to see a parent not overvaluing her children’s achievements in the context of extremely compettive admissions. What do you think led to their admissions at these schools (w/o even taking the SAT I beleive you stated earlier)?</p>

[LoremIpsum]

<p>

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>Yep, the Unabomber was in the news for quite a while. Harvard must have been thrilled. ;)</p>

[Hunt]

<p>

No, because they are governed by the same laws as other people. People don’t earn good lucks or high intelligence either, but I would not call supermodels or geniuses “privileged”. I don’t think the word “privileged” should be used as a synonym for lucky.

Maybe “blessed” would be a better term? It seems to me that you just don’t like the tone of the word “privileged.” It’s pretty obvious to me that my kids got huge advantages from having well-off and well-educated parents–and they go beyond their genetic benefits. If that doesn’t make them privileged, who exactly is privileged?</p>