<p>^Right. And that leads back to the question of faculty–how can these students possibly learn from professors who were educated elsewhere, as the majority of MIT faculty were? How can a PhD-educated MechE professor from Illinois or Berkeley possibly give the super-geniuses what they need, and what they will be completely lost without?</p>
<p>Since I couldn’t find anyone but Golden who claims the TMG comment was actually made, I’ve been wondering if the greater damage has been done by everyone from Asian/Asian-American advocacy groups to CC repeating and perpetuating it. ?</p>
<p>I have been reading this thread on and off, mostly shaking my head. Are we talking only about MIT here? If so, I am stepping out of the discussion. </p>
<p>If the points being made are more broadly applied, I’m more than a bit taken aback by what I’m reading. For one thing, the “stratospherically brilliant” kids have abilities that manifest themselves in all sorts of disciplines and aren’t limited to the extremely narrow field of mathematics. For another, while MIT may be an exception, I think it’s pretty clear that the HYPSMs of our world aren’t necessarily looking for stratospherically brilliant students. Their institutional agenda is broader than that and they admit a class with a range of abilities depending on what they want that particular year. They aren’t missing the brilliant kid, they’re choosing not to admit the brilliant kid. </p>
<p>What I have seen is that the brilliant kid can find mentors in a variety of different educational settings, even the enormous state flagship. Whether it’s being admitted to grad level classes or groomed for post-grad study or taken under the wing of a particular professor, there are ways to thrive.</p>
<p>No one is entitled to admission anywhere and no one should expect it.</p>
<p>Yeah. MIT was a very long detour.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The stereotype of the textureless math grind is also not helped by the arrogance of believing one “deserved” MIT (over other applicants), as well as the arrogance of not valuing other talents such as communication, creativity, leadership and so forth. </p>
<p>What I mean by this is the belief - “I’m more worthy than the 2300 kid because I have a 2400 and I won USAMO.” Yeah, well maybe the 2300 kid can actually talk with people without boring them to death with pedantry. </p>
<p>What I also mean is the belief - “I didn’t get into MIT, there must be something wrong with me as a person, maybe I shouldn’t study science at all, there’s no way I can possibly be satisfied at CMU or Berkeley or UIUC or whatever.”</p>
<p>Frankly, people who hold the opinions above come across to me exactly like the textureless math grind stereotype. When you think you are “better” because you’re smarter in some areas, de-value areas you are weak in, and think that only a handful of schools can possibly help you reach your potential - that’s unimpressive. And don’t think adcoms can’t smell it.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl – I don’t recall anyone on this thread saying
</p>
<p>Or saying that they think they are “better.” Is this coming from someone you know IRL or are you making assumptions?</p>
<p>Agreed 99. @pizzagirl, Why do you continue to make claims about folks feeling that “they are better or more worthy” then others who don’t win\qualify for USAMO? Are we reading the same thread?</p>
<p>Btw, you should keep an open mind about the possibility that you might be just downright wrong about how desired
ot desired these kids are to the elite schools. Look it up for yourself… you will find w/o much effort that these kids who perform at the highest levels are being courted to attend, not too much unlike athletes.</p>
<p>As I’ve stated before, it is news that a USAMO winner or qualifier doesn’t receive admission into school X only because the expected outcome is that he/she get in.</p>
<p>In an earlier incarnation of this thread, QM said exactly that - that there was a young student of her acquaintance (not sure of the context) who got into Harvard, didn’t get into MIT and asked plaintively, “Is there something wrong with me?” It is clear her heart was touched, which is great, but to me there’s something drastically wrong with an environment in which a kid who GOT INTO HARVARD isn’t jumping up and down with excitement and toasting his good fortune. </p>
<p>I feel the same way for anyone who gets into any top 20 (and I’m not being anal about 20 as the cut-off point, so Michigan and Berkeley fans, chill) – that for them to have an attitude of ANYTHING other than absolute sheer delight at their wonderful fortune is not a good reflection on their character. You see it here as well on CC’ers with kids who whine that they “only” got into U Chicago or Duke but not HYPSM. Really, now. You can only go to one school; one acceptance is all you need. There is a lot of ego being tied up here, and the kid who doesn’t get into MIT but who gets into CMU or Berkeley or what-have-you and thinks these places are beneath him or sub-optimal has plenty of ego, and it ain’t pretty.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, yeah. So the “problem” that super-geniuses are being hung out to dry and forced to settle for schools well below their intellectual capabilities is a vanishingly small one.</p>
<p>And comeonpeeps - since you’re a newcomer, read the thread. QM’s position is that <em>none</em> of these super-geniuses should be denied - that unless they can be found to kick small puppies, they should be auto-admitted. THAT IS THE PREMISE OF THE THREAD. No one is arguing that MIT doesn’t want or select for a bunch of really, really smart kids.</p>
<p>^ the sense these kids will be crippled by a reject starts waay back. Definitely there.</p>
<p>Since, as comeonpeeps says,most of these kids who perform at the highest levels on these tests are being courted to attend top schools, I really do fail to see what the problem is?</p>
<p>Tunnelvision about dream schools certainly isn’t limited to gifted students.</p>
<p>@pizzagirl, Yes, agreed. For the extremely, insanely gifted, I find it hard to believe that it’s a big problem. If you take math for example, you would be hard pressed to come up with even a single example of a USAMO winner being rejected across the board at Harvard, Princeton, MIT (assuming these are his top 3 choices). It’s news when he/she is not accepted at even one of these schools precisely because the expected outcome is that he/she get in.</p>
<p>I think the argument you’ve been having with others might get a little more murky when you consider those who say qualify for AIME, USAMO, USAPho semi-finalist but not a finalist, etc.</p>
<p>And also, may I ask for you to be more sensitive about how you describe gifted kids as “textureless math grinds”? I don’t know what your beef is with smart kids, but your preconceived notions about these wonderful kids come across loud and clear.</p>
<p>Whoa, whoa, whoa. I am not describing gifted kids unilaterally as “textureless math grinds.” I think it’s quite possible that SOME gifted kids are “textureless math grinds”, just like SOME normal-bright-but-not-genius kids are “textureless math grinds” too.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course not. No one said it was.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Agree though part of that comment does prompt a good chuckle considering Duke was Top 5 in the mid-'90s when I graduated and many classmates who were admitted to Ivies, including HYPS were rejected by Duke* back then. It was also understood because Duke was so popular among top HS students back then that it was considered just as hard/harder to get in as/than HYPS. </p>
<ul>
<li>The MIT/CMU/Caltech/other top engineering/STEM-centered college crowd tended not to gravitate towards Duke as it was viewed as “Too Arts & Sciences centered” and “too sporty/wild fratty”.</li>
</ul>
<p>@pizzagirl, care to define “textureless math grinds”? Curious. You seem to have a great handle on who is and who is not.</p>
<p>^ no don’t define it. It’s a raw wound and also in the thread history.</p>
<p>@pizzagirl, I’d be extremely intereted in your definition of “textureless math grinds”.</p>
<p>Jeeeez peeps. Read the rest of the thread to find the context. </p>
<p>I hate when people come on a thread they haven’t read and then start accusing someone else of bringing up something that has been a part of the conversation for nearly a hundred pages.</p>
<p>peeps: are you a new poster who just joined to participate in this thread? Or are you a new SN for an old poster?</p>
<p>If you are new? It is etiquette to read the thread before dredging stuff up that’s already been gone over ad vomitum.</p>