<p>“If strings help, but you would have gotten in anyway: Good minus conscience. Besides, what’s the point of the strings for this?”</p>
<p>I very much understand your concern, which is that HMC, reputed to be a highly merit-based, sort of “pure academics” school would stoop to a low level. However, my opinion is that the post Blackroses made doesn’t actually sound terribly awful to me…though as geek_mom put it, it may have been poorly received [small voices, etc]. </p>
<p>I’m quite confident from my conversation with her that she could handle a rigorous school either way. Nevertheless, whoever knows what factors play into acceptances? I’m not sure why I was accepted. Sure I had “perfect stats” in terms of the basics, and all, but ultimately something sort of made the final cut for me. Something has to sort of make the final cut for everyone. I think frequently, that ends up being a slightly softer factor than some of us may like; for instance, admissions officers may attempt to “get to know” the student’s math and science passion through essays. In a sense, this post sounded like the “connection” knew Blackroses well enough, and if her grades were good, could make a convincing case for her being a good fit at Mudd. It’s in a way taking this “personal” aspect to admissions to a whole new level.</p>
<p>One would think Ph.d. admissions are essentially merit-based, no? At least that they should be? Unfortunately, while awesome math education can get you on the list of candidates to be accepted to certain top programs, I’m quite certain knowing someone famous in the [elitist] academic community can <em>GREATLY</em> help one’s chances, and may be essential. Sure, these guys getting letters from top faculty may be brilliant as heck. But they’re still getting a nontrivial boost. </p>
<p>I am not sure how much this plays a role in undergraduate admissions, but frankly, I think it’s probably easier to distinguish two Ph.D. candidates than undergrad candidates, given how much more developed the Ph.D. candidates are – how much more info there is to consider [though, of course, some Ph.D. programs tend to have microscopically few spots]. It seems to be a reality that connections play a role in quite a few places. That doesn’t mean quality is necessarily being compromised, but the idea is that instead of leaving things up to chance after developing a good application, one gets a little boost. I’m not saying I adore this, but I think there are legitimate reasons not to condemn the idea in general.</p>