<p>
</p>
<p>The academic job market is perennially tough, even in STEM. I don’t think there is a shortage of STEM PhDs, and I will advise my children not to go to graduate school unless they are real stars as undergrads (top of the class at a top flight school).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then STEM PhD programs should be selecting for leadership and teaching potential too. Are they?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, and that is the whole point. Leadership ability has nothing to do with contrived extracurricular activities. An undergrad who has leadership ability may not, in fact, be using it as an undergrad. They are better off just being a student at that time if they intend to be a scientist or engineer (or any field which will rely heavily on their undergrad training).</p>
<p>First of all, a big part of leadership is mastering the ins and outs of the field that you are in. The easiest way for people to respect you as a leader is to be the best at your job before you are promoted to lead the team.</p>
<p>Second of all, exercising the people skills part of leadership is not really a necessary part of the training as an undergrad. If you have it, then you’ll be able to use it later. If you don’t, then you will have trouble. There is no reason to cut into your studying time by doing other stuff unless you actually want to for a diversion. And there is no reason a grad school would or should require that.</p>
<p>If you are exceptionally weird/inappropriate, that may find its way into a rec and hurt you (actually seen this happen once.) But if it’s just that you happen to be quiet and studious, that doesn’t and shouldn’t hurt you.</p>
<p>to QuantMech,</p>
<p>Kids knowledge, education is NOT a factor in admission, unfortunately. </p>
<p>My D. is at US school with 60% Asian kids. The level of education is amazing. Yet, Ivys are not interested in these kids. Year after year, no one from her HS school is accepted into Ivys, (with the exception of minority students). BTW, many kids end up at Berkeley, MIT, Caltech. </p>
<p>A kid may jump over a couple of years in math at elementary or middle school. By the time they are in HS, many kids learn college-level math, at a very serious level. Do you think it helps them at admission? No, not at all. </p>
<p>UC is accepting 6 AP classes, maximum. The rest is not counted towards GPA. If a kid is taking math analysis and gets A-, … he is at disadvantage, in comparison to a kid with Algebra 2 and A+. </p>
<p>If college Profs would have more power to select undergrads - it would be very different.</p>
<p>Bingo, Sally. Don’t complain that the culture rewards “non-essentials” like leadership when what’s really needed is just pure academic smarts and drive – and then say, why that’s not true, in order to be a PhD you have to have leadership ability. Wasn’t it californiaa who said upthread that getting a PhD wasn’t about leadership ability – if you want to be a leader, go into politics, but none of that has anything to do with science and is not necessary if you just want to sit and dream and experiment in a lab all day? </p>
<p>I think the statement below encapsulates what the real issue is :
</p>
<p>I think that’s the heart of the matter – sympathy for “geeks” who have brilliance in the classroom / lab but don’t often have the other things to offer that are so prized. Most of the time, they’ll still get into their dream schools; sometimes they won’t, and they’ll have to slum it at Carnegie Mellon or U Michigan. But there seems to be an undercurrent here that their disappointment is somehow worse than the disappointment of the “regular bright kid” who tried to go to Duke and wound up at Tufts. Is it sympathy because these kids are often maligned by society, so wanting to give them a bigger break on the college admissions thing? Is it personal identification with them?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Getting to college level math is not particularly rare among those with the academic credentials for the super-selective schools.</p>
<p>UC admissions GPA counts up to 8 semesters of honors/AP/college courses with +1 weighting. However, UC admissions readers also see unweighted and unlimited honors/AP/college weighted GPA, as well as the list of courses and grades. +/- does not count for calculating any of the high school GPAs seen by UC admissions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So they wind up at Berkeley, MIT or Caltech instead of the Ivies. So WHAT? What’s so special about the Ivies that it’s important that they go there? Do you really not get that you are talking about differences that are dancing on the head of a pin here? Are you under some delusion that the Ivies have special magic that Berkeley, MIT, Caltech, or probably about 20-30 other schools don’t have? </p>
<p>And there are 30,000 high schools in this country, so frankly I think it’s awfully arrogant for you to assume the Ivies, or any elite school for that matter, “owe” any kid from YOUR high school an acceptance. </p>
<p>There are plenty of geeky geniuses wandering about Ivy League and similar campuses. There is no shortage of geek-itude at any of them.</p>
<h1>617</h1>
<p>Gaokao is the Chinese college entrance exam, which determines who get accepted into specific majors of specific universities, scores only. </p>
<p>Of course there are students who are way beyond any curriculum offers, and I can give you many examples in American schools as well. I was referring to typical Asian students and the Chinese Gaokao math requirement.</p>
<p>to Beliavsky,</p>
<p>I usually agree with you, but not this time :)</p>
<ol>
<li><p>“The academic job market is perennially tough, even in STEM.” - yes, everything is tough, nowadays. Ph.D. in STEM offers lots of flexibility, many scientists go into industry, even law firms (to prosecute patents), and business development. I agree, its not easy to get tenure … but it is not that difficult either. </p></li>
<li><p>“I don’t think there is a shortage of STEM PhDs,” - yes, but most are foreigners. </p></li>
<li><p>“I will advise my children not to go to graduate school unless they are real stars as undergrads (top of the class at a top flight school).” - NO! NO! NO! Strongly disagree!
You don’t have to be a star to become a good scientist. IMHO, students should enjoy making science. Be a self-starter. Persistent, not easily discouraged. Independent, devoted to the project. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>It really doesn’t matter if a kid has bad grades as an undergrad. Watson and Crick were goofy students. In fact, I don’t remember many great scientists that were at the top of their undergrad class.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then in time the market will correct itself. Problem solved.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There is a sort of natural selection for the best positions. As pointed out in an earlier post, good positions (tenure track or industry) are fiercely competitive. Candidates are interviewed and selected based on their research performance, teaching experience and political savvy. They are chosen by a group of colleagues who want someone who can take up their share of the teaching load while still bringing in money and students for the department. The stereotypical antisocial lab geek is usually not going to be chosen for a faculty position unless their research is so cutting edge that it compensates for their lack of social skills. The same goes for industry positions, which depend even more on a team player mentality. One jerk can sidetrack the momentum for everyone.</p>
<p>"Remember that international PhD students are not exactly typical representatives of their countries’ populations or university students, in terms of academic ability and motivation. "</p>
<p>International Ph.D. students not the best in their countries, either. As in USA, the best and brightest kids are going into money-related fields, such as banking, politics, law, medicine, etc.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My head is spinning now. </p>
<p>I thought a few posts back, it was a crime against humanity when a 2400 SAT, straight A student got rejected from an elite school because elite schools ought to value academic brilliance more than they do and it wasn’t fair that they were letting in all those slacker 2300 SAT, one-B students because they exhibited potential in other ways. </p>
<p>Now I’m hearing that – gasp – there are other factors to success other than straight academic brilliance as measured by SAT / GPA’s? Who ever would have thought? I should maybe get on the phone to elite school admissions and inform this of this startling development.</p>
<p>to momsquad,</p>
<p>Actually, it is very easy even for an anti-social geek to find a good job in academia or industry. 
There are plenty of socially-savvy, polished managers. Overproduction. Yet, someone has to work in the lab, generate data, publications (in academia) or designs (in industry). </p>
<p>polished manager + geek = great productivity.
geek + geek = interesting data, missed deadlines.
Manager + manager = big talk, nothing done.</p>
<p>to Pizzagirl,</p>
<p>Current admission criteria are very anti-geek. If I have to choose between a ballet-dancer with bad SAT, and someone with perfect SAT, give me a kid with great SAT.</p>
<p>My perfect student is a kid with reasonable SAT and advanced college curriculum. However, I can’t have such kids … OK, give me an SAT perfect student, at least!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think this is the crux of the whole debate. The most creative and successful scientists were not convinced to pursue science by politicians and economic forces. They were born with a natural curiosity that left them only one path to follow, and a competitive spirit that kept them working hard to be the first to discover something. These people often filter in to higher education from obscure beginnings but make their way to top research programs in time for graduate school. Almost every state flagship can provide them sufficient opportunity to develop their interests and make them attractive grad school candidates. The question is, do we really have fewer of these “born scientists”, or does it only seem that we have fewer because research programs have grown so large in the past few decades that we can’t fill them with home grown students?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You might not be aware, but there are elite universities where they want ballet dancers because they have dance majors. My alma mater is one of them. I realize non-STEM majors aren’t important to you, but most well-rounded people feel differently.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If “current admission criteria are very anti-geek,” then where do the geeks GO? They wind up somewhere. Why aren’t those somewheres desirable for you, then, if they’re filled with all the brilliant geeks who got rejected from HYPSM?</p>
<p>“Then STEM PhD programs should be selecting for leadership and teaching potential too”</p>
<p>No. Leadership is not always a plus in the lab. Ability to be a self-starter is a must … ability to lead others is not. Same goes with teaching potential. Some scientists are great teachers, some are not. </p>
<p>Again, we don’t have enough scientists. I am not talking about “selecting a best potential candidate” … I wish there would be enough students to feel the open slots. </p>
<p>Do you think we are selecting best foreign students in terms of leadership and teaching abilities? No, of course not. I am selecting kids, that can come to my lab and start working in a meaningful way. That’s all.</p>
<p>To Pizzagirl ,</p>
<p>OK, fine, take ballet dancers for YOUR major. </p>
<p>Again, my problem is, that I don’t have enough of MY students. All I am asking … give me MY students. STEM needs geeks, and we don’t get enough of them.</p>