<p>Well, time to shut the thread down. It has just met the same fate as most of the others on this forum. After over a hundred pages of friendly posting by intelligent people who are interested in a topic for a variety of reasons–whether personal connection, entertainment, or intellectual stimulation–there have arisen the inevitable wet blanket posters who claim the topic is silly, pointless, or irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, and who suggest the posters are inappropriately obsessed, psychologically hung up, should be worrying about something more important like world hunger, or have too much time on their privileged hands if they can keep chatting about it. Sigh. I am too sick and tired today to get off CC and save the world or do whatever more valuable thing I’m supposed to do LOL.</p>
<p>oh nooo</p>
<p>in spite of having way too much time on my privileged hands I cross my heart promise not to post another thing if you will all keep going, especially you TheGFC</p>
<p>please</p>
<p>I wouldn’t worry. Somebody already started another new thread with basically the same topic, and one of the same links included in this thread. We can now check whether two nearly endless parallel lines intersect.</p>
<p>Any prospective math/scientist who takes a rejection from MIT (or any other school) as evidence that they shouldn’t be studying math or science in my mind is either in need of a psychiatric evaluation, or not cut out to be a scientist for reasons having nothing to do with intellectual potential. Science is filled with blind alleys and rejection and mis-fires and frustrating conclusions. You can’t take rejection (and especially at age 18 for god’s sake) get out of the lab. Or if you’re going to take it personally (repeat again- too many applicants for too few seats) you don’t belong in the lab.</p>
<p>Any musician or performer would tell you that if you can’t handle being evaluated or rejected on matters outside of your control (how many blond actresses lost out to Sally Field to play Mary Lincoln?) get off the stage. You can have the talent of Lawrence Olivier, but if an audition is going to rattle you to the core, you don’t belong in the performing arts.</p>
<p>I think parents who are beating the dead horse here on an anonymous message board about their kids rejections/acceptances/deferrals from several years ago are protesting too much that “I’m fine with it, I’m just noting for the record that he should have been an auto-admit.” Too many applicants, not enough seats, your kid wrote about collecting butterflies which happened to have been the hobby of the year in 2009 or whenever he applied, and after reading 49 applications from other “auto-admits” about butterflies, the adcom’s got together and decided, “no more butterflies this year”.</p>
<p>You have no idea whether your kids highly imaginative essay, in fact, was virtually identical to another but slightly better written essay. You have no idea if the teacher who told you “I wrote a fantastic recommendation” also slipped in a few damning with faint praise lines (unwittingly.) A teacher at my kids school used to describe the polite and low key kids as “dutiful” until a GC tipped her off that this is a code word for “Does what he’s told and nothing more”.</p>
<p>Who knew? You don’t know. But for a bunch of folks who are over their kids rejections, you sure sound like people in need of a big group hug, a cleansing cry, and a gin and tonic until you heal.</p>
<p>^^^Winner of Absweetmarie’s “post of the thread” award (for what it’s worth, which, I grant, is not much ;)).</p>
<p>Re blossom #1884: I am currently serving on a faculty search committee at my university, for one position. The competition for faculty positions at research-intensive institutions, even middling ones, is fierce. We had a difficult time narrowing the pool of approximately 300 applicants to 30, and an even more difficult time narrowing that set down to the group of about 10 that we will interview. It is really, really difficult to obtain a faculty position in the physical sciences right now. A number of the applicants have accomplishments (publications, conference presentations, research proposals, citations, etc.) that are quite similar to people we considered favorably for tenure 20+ years ago, at the time they were being considered for tenure–and the 300 are people just starting out.</p>
<p>If an applicant contemplated an academic research career in the physical sciences, thought that MIT was genuinely selecting on scientific potential, and did not make the cut to 1700+, then I think it would be perfectly rational for the person to shift direction, or at least longer-term career plans at that point. In 2002 and before, an applicant might reasonably have thought that MIT was selecting on scientific/engineering potential over all else. </p>
<p>Now the applicants have the benefit of understanding the process better, and should no longer hold this view. But it was plausible just a few years back, and I think collegealum314 has mentioned a few students who concluded that they just weren’t sufficiently strong from a scientific standpoint, when rejected by MIT.</p>
<p>The pursuit of science offers some of the very deepest pleasures I have known, including a few moments that could be described as ecstatic. At the same time, it is quite demanding (at least at my level of capability) and many other activities and pleasures have to be sacrificed along the way. Even a few things that should really be treated as responsibilities have to be jettisoned (e.g., my spouse and I think we should invite the crew from Storage Wars to bid on our basement–as packed as any of the lockers, except with a higher percentage of absolute junk.)</p>
<p>I too loved Blossom’s post… i haven’t read this thread in a while, but as was recently noted, I too am sick and tired and feel this is a better diversion than Morey show (when did he become the equiv of Springer except with DNA results?)</p>
<p>I know my kids were/are privileged as the definition goes. But from their point of view, they see a lot of people with a helluva lot more privilege than them! Private planes, NYC Central Park views, etc, but then they also have friends who get substantial financial aid. My kids’ view of themselves is middle-class. But by the US gov’t estimation we are in the 2%. But due to our kids’ tuitions coming off the top (of highly taxed dollars), there is nothing 2% about us. In fairness, none us really see the whole of the country from even a poorer privileged upbringing point of view, so it’s definitely skewed around here. Not sure what the point was… but there was when I started… </p>
<p>I think it’s all about a point of view.</p>
<p>Three kids, three varying results. And you know… it all worked out in the end. Seriously! Unbelievably so, right down to the daughter who blew through a year at a private school with not a credit to count for it, took more than a short time to finally get life together enough to want to make Dean’s list every semester. Graduating with honors this May and getting married to a great guy in June (she’s 28).</p>
<p>It also worked out great for the kid who had all the right test scores, right gpa etc to feel somewhat confident for the most selective of schools. Yep, there were some where I thought he met the threshold plus some, but those kinds of schools are always more crapshoot than not (and at the time, I was mostly annoyed when those parents of kids accepted came to believe that their kid WAS just THAT much more exceptional. Sometimes that makes sense, but for the majority, it’s. a. crapshoot. Get over yourself.</p>
<p>Point is… you can’t worry about shoulds, coulds … you just have to deal with what is.</p>
<p>Two PS’s to the previous post:
- None of the people on whose behalf I have been troubled by MIT’s admissions are in any way related to me (though one is a friend’s son).
- Resilience in response to rejection is crucial in science, because it’s going to happen a lot. However, when deciding what to do in response to rejection, a scientist or proto-scientist needs to consider the reasons (as far as determinable), the validity and implications of those reasons, the alternative possibilities and their desirability, and the extent of investment in going in a particular direction. I am obviously as stubborn as all-get-out. It serves me well in some cases. But I wouldn’t fault a proto-physicist who didn’t appear to be in the top 1000 or so in the country in terms of scientific potential, if he/she chose a different career aim–not any more than I would fault a proto-NFL-back, who didn’t get an NCAA Div I football scholarship and decided that a successful career in pro football was very unlikely.</p>
<p>QM, A kid feeling they had to switch direction because they did not make the cut at MIT really doesn’t sound that rational. If a kid applies to 10 good schools and is accepted to none, someone may be trying to tell him something. But not getting admitted to MIT , with the number of well qualified applicants, hopefully would not be enough to deter most kids from what they want to study- unless they are fixated on MIT being the only place where they can achieve their goals.</p>
<p>"Also, I know students from the math circle who chose other schools over MIT such as Princeton, Harvard, and Stanford. As well, I know students who chose other schools over MIT because they couldn’t afford MIT and got much better aid elsewhere. I haven’t known any USAMO who were rejected by MIT, but I am not really “in the know.” "</p>
<p>This information from sbjdorlo is the most revealing piece of information. Here seem to be a group high achievers in Math from a part of California and it does not look like anyone got shortchanged despite being good at Math. People got admitted to MIT but CHOSE to go elsewhere and MIT did realize the potential of this group of kids.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ll stipulate that this is one possible, maybe understandable reaction. But wouldn’t it also be “rational” for a person to think, “Well, I didn’t get into MIT but, hey, I aced the SAT so I can do the math on the likelihood of admission to such a school. Anyway, the X department at School That Is Not Quite as Top-Notch as MIT is excellent, so I’m going to bring my A game there”? That seems an equally rational and actually more mature response to me.</p>
<p>Edited to add: How many 22-year-olds are on track to fulfill the “career plans” of their 17-year-old selves?</p>
<p>I am more confused than I have been to this point about what QuantMech’s concern is. However few students there are who qualify for the USAMO and get a positive score before 12th grade, there are fewer still who are paying enough attention, have enough information, and are capable of analyzing how the state of the academic job market when they are in 12th grade should affect their choice of majors while in college. A student that was capable of the hyper-sophisticated (if totally mistaken) reasoning in which (she speculates) applicants rejected by MIT may engage (a) probably really SHOULD have gotten into MIT (as QuantMech did, of course), and (b) will do fine wherever he or she goes, once his or her head emerges from his or her lower digestive tract.</p>
<p>MIT does not only educate scientists. The university’s own list of notable alumni includes many graduates who have found success in other realms: <a href=“http://wiki.mitadmissions.org/Notable_Alumni.[/url]”>http://wiki.mitadmissions.org/Notable_Alumni.</a> </p>
<p>Architecture, Movies, Education, Cars, Government, Journalism, Economics, Astronauts, Service, and my favorite–Random.</p>
<p>The idea that a rejection from MIT means the end of someone’s career in mathematics or the hard sciences seems like melodrama to me.</p>
<p>Out of the 75 members of the MIT mathematics department faculty 7 got their undergraduate degrees at MIT. That number is topped by the number of faculty coming from Harvard and Princeton and matched by the number from U. of Chicago. I have a hard time mustering up pity for the poor, poor math whizzes who are forced to attend one of these inferior institutions. :)</p>
<p>I just read the link posted several pages back about student achievement. To what extent has the self-esteem emphasis in K-12 hurt top students now vying for openings in elite colleges? </p>
<p>If students spend years racking up achievements that are constantly praised by teachers and parents, are they less resilient to their first rejections than those who grew up a generation ago? Are they more likely to accept the word of an authority figure (like an Ivy League adcom) as a definitive verdict that they don’t really have what it takes and they thus lower their life’s goals to a “more reasonable” level?</p>
<p>Here’s one small study that suggests that kids in Generation Y are (I paraphrase) self-esteem junkies: [Generation</a> Y’s most coveted reward: self esteem - The Washington Post](<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/generation-ys-most-coveted-reward-self-esteem/2011/09/28/gIQAZwaZ4K_blog.html]Generation”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/generation-ys-most-coveted-reward-self-esteem/2011/09/28/gIQAZwaZ4K_blog.html)</p>
<p>Speaking for my Baby Boomer self, I like self-esteem. But to quote HRH the Cookie Monster, “It is not as good as a cookie.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ve thought about this over the years. The damage of the participation trophy, or the fact that kids can get A’s and B’s for handing in busywork homework even if their tests do not show a mastery of the material. We used to be able to get an A if we could Ace the test without doing the homework. Teachers were better then, though. They could improvise a bit more, for some reason.</p>
<p>Of course, you only ended up in those classes if you belonged there back then. Nobody’s parents were “advocating” or “pushing” for it. Most parents barely even came to our games. I don’t think my parents read one of my papers in high school, and I was winning awards for some of them. </p>
<p>So, yeah, I think there is some residual damage done by our unearned praise. I think kids know the difference. If the praise is merited or not. I do think praising effort is the best thing, and accomplishment second. But showing up should just be a “requirement.”</p>
<p>Anyway, I’ve thought it over and I don’t think anyone “should” be an auto-admit to any school, unless the school itself thinks they should be. You would have to change the auto admit thing for each year cuz the school would need something different different years, imho.</p>
<p>[Cornell</a>, MIT Scale Back Aid Even as Endowments Rise - Businessweek](<a href=“Bloomberg - Are you a robot?”>Bloomberg - Are you a robot?)</p>
<p>Bringing this story from another thread. I wonder how many people in 2013 will turn down MIT because Harvard or Chicago cover the Pell Grant amount while MIT wants people to accept 6k in loans.</p>
<p>“In there any research on how many USAMO winners have gone on to become brilliant scientists/received nobels/even goldwaters etc.”</p>
<p>Surpringly few!</p>
<p>As a matter of fact, there are only handful of IMO medalists who have become significant mathematicians or scientists. Even China, which has dominated all IxO competitions since it entered the game in the 1980’s, is reevaluateing its over-emphasis on these contests.</p>
<p>QM, I still maintain that an 18 year old kid who views a rejection from MIT as a sign from heaven that he/she doesn’t belong in the sciences- well, that kid needs an intervention. </p>
<p>I know talented scientists who ended up doing cutting edge research who took their MIT rejections to CMU and JHU and Chicago and Cornell and UIUC and they’re doing just fine- more than fine. I know talented scientists who discovered operations research or risk management after they graduated with bachelor’s and masters and even Ph.D’s from MIT in physics and math and they’re now working for financial institutions and the Federal Reserve Bank and a slew of industrial companies.</p>
<p>This is life. Those Ph.D’s you are screening out are not going to end up flipping burgers. There have been competitive and terrible job markets for scientists many times in the last century- there were hundreds of Jewish scientists thrown out of German universities after Kristallnacht and while many of them perished, some of them were grateful to end up as janitors and library assistants at universities in the US-- and eventually made it back to the sciences. For a while in the 1980’s you could not get into a taxicab in Israel that wasn’t being driven by a physicist from the Soviet Union- and from name brand institutions.</p>
<p>Your rejected Ph.D’s will find plan B- a lesser institution or greater institution than yours; a government research facility; a hedge fund; running a research team at a Fortune 100 company. This is life in many fields, not just the sciences.</p>
<p>But to assume that a rejection from MIT means you go to plan B while you’re still a senior in HS? That’s madness. utter madness. And frankly, an insult to the thousands of talented scientists all over the world who were educated at the dozens of universities which gave them their start.</p>