<p>to bluebayou ,</p>
<p>Kids, educated from third-tier colleges can’t compete with international students. They are behind, because they had no access to first-class labs.</p>
<p>But the choice isn’t HYPSM or third-tier school where the professor is really the football coach recruited to teach physics on the side. There are plenty of excellent colleges / universities in this country. If our hypothetical brilliant person gets shut out of HYPSM/Caltech/Berkeley/whatever … well, didn’t he have a list that included a bunch of other universities in the top 40-50 or so, as well as a state flagship or two? </p>
<p>What, you say he didn’t? He just applied to the tippy-tops?</p>
<p>Well, then he WASN’T VERY SMART. I don’t care if he had a 2400 SAT. He demonstrated arrogance and lack of common sense if he couldn’t “read” the world out there enough to understand he needed back-up plans just like everybody else. </p>
<p>I’m sorry for his disappointment, but it’s really no sadder for our hypothetical brilliant person not to get into his dream school of, say, MIT than it is for our hypothetical “nice bright” person not to get into his dream school of, say, Duke.</p>
<p>"where do the geeks GO? They wind up somewhere. " </p>
<p>Good question. I don’t know. "</p>
<p>Sure you do. They go to all the other universities in the top 30 or so that are not HYPSM, as well as to flagship state universities. Why are you pretending you don’t know this? What, do you think they wither up and die?</p>
<p>cali, do you think colleges should have studio art departments? There is a lot more to dance majors than performance. They are no less marketable than many other liberal arts degrees.</p>
<p>Stealing from another thread on this topic:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/dance-major/1342523-what-point-dance-major.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/dance-major/1342523-what-point-dance-major.html</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You can’t teach them? That’s not part of the job description? They have to come to you fully formed, or you’re not interested? Potential doesn’t matter?</p>
<p>Just wanted to remark that although I think that Ph.D. students in physics are a pretty bright lot, only a small number of them are the exceptionally bright types who would benefit substantially from the difference between UIUC and Caltech or Harvard. Caltech will accommodate them, but it’s not the best choice for all of the exceptionally bright students. It’s not that the student will wither away at UIUC–he or she will probably get a perfectly fine education. But I think there is a difference in the educational opportunities, that the student could take good advantage of.</p>
<p>
I don’t know. We only had modern at my university.</p>
<p>Hmmm. UIUC, with an almost 70% acceptance rate (probably much higher in the past) has produced Marc Andreessen (creator of the first web browser), James Thomson , stem cell pioneer who made the cover of Time magazine and probably should have been awarded a Nobel, and countless other successful STEM professionals. And that’s just one state flagship. The glut of PhD’s means there’s plenty of talent out there at “third tier” schools doing a great job of teaching.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My head spins. We need non-holistic admissions for undergrad. We need holistic admissions for PhD programs. We need leaders/teachers in PhD programs. We don’t. We need native-born Americans because they care about the Bill of Rights. We need Japanese students because they are better prepared and have worked in better labs. We need better labs. We need whatever lesser labs are doing to produce life-changing research.</p>
<p>All I know for sure is that there is a bias against ballet dancers among some of the STEM folks here.</p>
<p>I find myself wanting to argue with both extremes, here.</p>
<p>I think there are some posters being unfairly dismissive of the high scoring, upper middle class, “typical” elite school applicant. There is no reason to assume talent can’t be found outside that pool, and it is important not to be overawed by accomplishments that are in part a function of opportunity and class at the expense of promising students from different backgrounds. At the same time, I don’t see what is so threatening about acknowledging that most elite college applicants are really smart kids who have worked hard and deserve genuine credit rather than scorn over purchased SAT scores and application packaging. I’m sure there are apps that have more than a whiff of calculation to them - the ones overloaded with unrelated ECs the student couldn’t possibly have devoted real attention to, for instance - but a lot of students are jumping through hoops that are worth jumping through rather than demonstrating some sort of robotic, even ethically suspect obedience. There is no inherent virtue to eccentricity. If I see one kid who has the standard “elite kid” application and another who is obviously very bright, but has a more inconsistent academic record, I don’t automatically assume that the former is a passionless automaton and the latter is a bold and iconoclastic figure nobly resisting the evils of the American secondary school system.</p>
<p>That being said, I honestly don’t see widespread evidence that the college admissions system is failing to identify real talent. I’m sure if I got to sit in on an admissions committee, there would be decisions I’d disagree with. But for the most part, I see no evidence that students who distinguish themselves intellectually even within the elite pool aren’t being admitted to these schools. I just did a quick facebook search for a bunch of members of the US IMO teams over the past few years. Of the 10-12 I looked up and located all but two had gone to Harvard or MIT. One of the other two had gone to Princeton. The other had gone to Carnegie Mellon. Doesn’t look to me like the top schools don’t value achievement. It is just that the achievement has to be pretty impressive to warrant getting in on pure academics (and I’d bet that plenty of the IMO medalists had things other than math on their resume as well)</p>
<p>Question for Californiaa, Beliavsky, Quant, etc: Do you think a valedictorian with a 2370 and awards in state Science Olympiad competitions necessarily deserves admission over someone who has a 2250, is 5th in his class, and, say, started a significant charitable organization? What about either of those students vs. a first-gen minority who is valedictorian of his failing school, has a 2100 in a school with an average combined SAT of 1300, and has spent a lot of time taking care of his two younger siblings? Who “deserves” to get in?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You think? I think kids who get themselves up into advanced classes (in typically tracked subjects like math) have a great admissions advantage over kids who get As in the “regular” track.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Certainly true in sports, as I’ve observed it with my kids. Team captains (voted on by team members) are often but not always the more senior players, and always chosen from the best players. Occasionally, a really good player will NOT be made captain because her attitude is bad…meaning she gets angry easily or is not capable of encouraging others.</p>
<p>I imagine this is the same across disciplines. Leaders must be good at what they do but they must also know how to lead people and be respected by their peers/students.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So why do you say it matters so much that colleges do not take every high achieving HS senior into their undergrad class??? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually if your premise were correct, that would point to a deficiency in undergrad education of STEM kids.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>EXACTLY. You don’t get into MIT so you go to Ohio State or U Michigan or whatever. Scientist rock star that you are, you flourish and go onto grad school and a PhD program - perhaps at the HYPSM that rejected you when you were in HS. What’s the problem???</p>
<p>Not a problem.</p>
<p>Undergrad universities of Caltech physics grad students entering 2012:</p>
<p>Carleton College
North Carolina State University
Carnegie Mellon U
U of Waterloo
Rice University
Cardiff University
U of Chicago
Julius-Maximilians U
MIT
Imperial College London
Stanford
Williams College
U of Manitoba
Yale U
Harvard
Princeton U
U of Utah
U of Minnesota
U of Virginia
Cornell U
[Caltech</a> Physics Grad Students](<a href=“http://www.pma.caltech.edu/GSR/gradclass2012.html]Caltech”>http://www.pma.caltech.edu/GSR/gradclass2012.html)</p>
<p>Quant, again, I’m catching up, but I got your comments about the Bill of Rights. And it’s in line wit a few other comments, just a different discussion, not even suited for the format of a forum. </p>
<p>calif- YOU would like to blame it all on the AO’s. That’s clear. But you will also miss the valid and valuable contributions of the athlete involved with politics because of a deep and clearly stated prejudice against them. Being a “geek” is not the only measure of ability.</p>
<p>And, you clearly don’t know what is coming to admissions. You know your daughter and have impressions of some of her peers. You know there aren’t enough of your personal definition of geeks available to you. The rest is conjecture. And, though I did not end up majoring in STEM, I darned well learned where conjecture fits in scientific inquiry. It is not fact. It is not pursuit of fact.</p>
<p>C.alum, liked your comments about critical thinking- when we see it in an app, we get excited. It’s rare, no matter what quant stats a kid offers and no matter what sort of hs educational setting it is. </p>
<p>Folks, ignore the ballet distraction.</p>
<p>to apprenticeprof ,</p>
<p>"Question for Californiaa, Beliavsky, Quant, etc: Do you think a valedictorian with a 2370 and awards in state Science Olympiad competitions necessarily deserves admission over someone who has a 2250, is 5th in his class, and, say, started a significant charitable organization? What about either of those students vs. a first-gen minority who is valedictorian of his failing school, has a 2100 in a school with an average combined SAT of 1300, and has spent a lot of time taking care of his two younger siblings? Who “deserves” to get in? "</p>
<p>When you hire for your office, you, probably, don’t think “who deserves to be hired”. You are probably looking for the best qualified candidate, that fits office culture. Believe me, Ph.D students are hired similarly.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>“Do you think a valedictorian with a 2370 and awards in state Science Olympiad competitions necessarily deserves admission over someone who has a 2250, is 5th in his class, and, say, started a significant charitable organization?”. Sure! If me got into state Science Olympiad, I’ll hire him on a spot. How is charitable donation related to his future job performance (unless, it is a charitable donation to my lab?)</p></li>
<li><p>"What about either of those students vs. a first-gen minority who is valedictorian of his failing school, has a 2100 in a school with an average combined SAT of 1300, and has spent a lot of time taking care of his two younger siblings? " - what is he going to do in the lab? I mean, would you hire such person to your office? He may have lots of potential (or may be not), but he would loose against a candidate who is ready to work, right now. I mean, if he has good recommendation letters from any reasonable Prof. who knows him, personally, yes, I’ll hire him, with pleasure.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>TO OHMomof2 </p>
<p>“You think? I think kids who get themselves up into advanced classes (in typically tracked subjects like math) have a great admissions advantage over kids who get As in the “regular” track.” </p>
<p>unfortunately, I think you are wrong. I wish you were right. However, I heard many times, that the kid should be at the top of HIS class, regardless of the difficulty of subjects that he is learning. A+ in South Los Angeles Algebra 1 counts much higher than Calculus BC A- in suburban school.</p>
<p>to mokusatsu,</p>
<p>You listed good schools. University of Kalamazoo, for example, is not on your list. Cal State either.</p>
<p>So, Quant, suppose you’re slogging through apps (and remember, we’re talking thousands of kids with high performance) and you get to something akin to the attitude one poster here presents: presumptions and assumptions, unsubstantiated finger-pointing, anecdote and a general lack of open mind, not to mention some rage. Do the quant stats trump? Or do you find yourself saying, “Let another U deal with her/him?” </p>
<p>The issue about fostering sci potential starts with the fact that not all hs have any structure to offer highest level academics to those kids ready enough. Not all have courses past AP calc or AP physics, nor DE arrangements. Not all states have G/T high schools or programs they make students aware of.</p>
<p>The notion that AO’s arbitrarily dismiss high potential kids is baloney. But it is true that a U has many needs, it’s not all about STEM, and some kids won’t get a slot.</p>
<p>Pizzagal:
</p>
<p>Probably no more mortified than thyself at the fact that you can not disagree without becoming embarrassingly disagreeable.</p>
<p>*However, I heard many times, that the kid should be at the top of HIS class, regardless of the difficulty of subjects that he is learning. A+ in South Los Angeles Algebra 1 counts much higher than Calculus BC A- in suburban school. *</p>
<p>WRONG.
Wrong for top schools, that is.
What some don’t believe is that the kid in some lousy school district IS taking AP calc and is getting a 4/5. This is MY experience.</p>
<p>Everyone is welcome to share their opinion, but I have to say that I disagree with much of what californiaaa has said even though ostensibly our views may appear similar. In some respects, I feel that these posts are the strawmen arguments that Pizzagirl usually rails against–only now someone has actually expressed this point-of-view.</p>