<p>There are super gifted folks who are not accepted where they might flourish best. Of course, any person with any inner resources understands that s/he is not owed admissions and forges ahead, makes the most of their situation and succeeds.</p>
<p>That doesn’t mean that something wasn’t lost or that we can’t scratch our heads over some admissions choices.</p>
<p>And yes, tunnel vision about MIT is silly, but I took it as an allegory.</p>
<p>Holistic admissions definitely has a place, especially when contrasted with numbers only practices, but there are folks with amazing portfolios passed over.</p>
<p>Perhaps this argument is a tempest in a teapot because numbers are small and impacts seem mineral, but I don’t think these points of view are necessarily in opposition. Both can have validity in describing the same overall system.</p>
<p>I think it’s fair to ask for the definition. I’ve met dozens of really top math kids. I’ve never met a “textureless math grind.” I’ve met shy math kids who were actually very funny when they felt comfortable with me. I’ve met brilliant math kids who were really excited to talk with me about a concept that I struggled to understand, but that I am sure would have been fascinating if I had greater insight. But I’ve never met a person who I would use the word “textureless” to describe.</p>
<p>So I, also, am curious about who these “textureless math grinds” are.</p>
<p>geomom, this has been gone over way back in the thread, and it was originally raised by QM, as something that was said, or some variation thereof, by an MIT adcom on a blog. It is a part of the thread.</p>
<p>And: athletes are courted. Legacies at a certain level may be. If you are talking about common mailings
…nothing is set til the admit letter comes.</p>
<p>Actually, texture less math grinds only appears in the blog as a question to a blogger (who disputes its attribution.)
It originated in a book by a reporter who never worked in admissions. At this point, repeating it is like “innocently” repeating any generalization or slur or uncomfortable phrase.</p>
<p>One possible issue some may have with holistic admissions…whether in general or in certain situations is a genuine fear that it’s more open to undue influence and political manipulation precisely because of its subjectivity. Depending on criteria used in holistic admissions, it could be just as easily to address differences in SES, harsh life circumstances, or other “overcoming adversity aspects” or conversely…to maintain and perpetuate an effectively exclusive cliquish club. </p>
<p>That’s not to say that current elite university admissions here in the US are completely that way. However, we’re still having heated debates as to what criteria to use and how to tailor holistic admissions to serve the interests of the students, institutions, and society as a whole. </p>
<p>However, it wasn’t that long ago that this was a historical reality and was used as a means to openly keep out “undesirables” due to race, ethnicity, religion, or “cultural fit”(a.k.a. Not looking like/acting like upper class WASP). </p>
<p>There’s also still vestiges of that as shown through the continuing of legacy admissions which tend to overwhelmingly favor the elite from the highest SES and the well-connected…albeit in much watered down form compared to what transpired before the mid-'60s.</p>
<p>"Not that it really means anything, but Linus Pauling and John Bardeen both attended state schools for undergrad. They each earned a pair of Nobels. I know that was a while back of course. "</p>
<p>Bovertine - I have pointed that two of the Nobel winners from last year are from Minnesota Duluth (chemistry) and Berkeley (physics). Granted they got their PhDs/MDs from Ivies (apparently they are not peers of MIT in STEM but I digress).</p>
<p>Einstein was considered quite weak in math. So if intelligence were only to be measured by USAMO, you have lost one big one.</p>
<p>@texas, I think the myth about Eisnstein that we were all taught in school never seems to die… that because Einstein was bored in school due to his brilliance, folks have (incorrectly) concluded that he wasn’t all too gifted when young. You’d be surprised to know that many physicists today would readily admit that it is not possible to be a great physicists w/o also being a great mathematician. There is a reason why it’s considered the mother of all sciences…</p>
<p>While that does play a part, I believe what I posted above also plays a critical part in why some are suspicious/hostile to holistic admissions. </p>
<p>To say it’s about folks being under-informed about the nature of the competition and the variables is IMO, presenting an incomplete picture of the motivations of some holistic admissions skeptics/denouncers.</p>
<p>Re Tollfree #2030, and other posts with similar statements: If you are arguing against my auto-admit idea, please look again at my post #2001. I am not saying that a student has to have a good USAMO score to merit admission–not by any means. I understand that there are very bright students who don’t have access to the test, and also very bright potential math majors who just don’t like contest math.</p>
<p>Since the of my suggested auto-admits is about 1% of the total number of MIT admits, I think they could be admitted without disrupting the overall holistic process.</p>
<p>The philosophy at MIT seems to be that there is absolutely nothing that a student can do, to “deserve” admission to MIT. I don’t think that other “top” schools take this view, although they also have holistic admissions.</p>
<p>Ben Golub, who was a student rep to admissions at Caltech, and also posted on CC posted on the MIT thread a comment that boiled down to: “What if I already have the Nobel Prize when I apply? Is the Nobel Prize enough?”</p>
<p>I don’t agree with Ben on affirmative action. I support it, and he does not (or, rather, he did not 5 or 6 years ago–maybe he’s seen the light by now). However, a number of his other opinions are sound, I think; and I like the “reductio ad absurdum” of his questions.</p>
<p>Sorry for the disjointedness of the posts. I am in and out.</p>
<p>However, I would like to post a comment or two in support of “grinds.” First, I’d like some really bright people to be grinding on the problem of novel antibiotics. We are going to need them.</p>
<p>Second, I have always like a poem that I believe was written by Niels Bohr, but perhaps was only quoted by him. My translation goes something like:
Gifts? Who doesn’t have them?
Talents? Playings for children.
Only earnestness makes the Adult.
Only diligence makes the Genius.</p>
<p>At the intersection of high native ability and the capability to grind, you find some exceptional people. It is not that easy to grind, actually.</p>
<p>Personally, I would do better if I did more of it–off to do that.</p>
<p>Why don’t we think about what happens when word gets out that MIT is auto admitting people with XYZ award? How many kids start killing themselves to get that award, with their true interests being stifled in the process?</p>
<p>You can’t make the argument that group XYZ should be auto admitted without justifying WHY a school would encourage the above mentality.</p>
<p>I can’t speak about the philosophy of MIT admissions, but I’m pretty sure no one who was a member of the US IMO team has been rejected. So even if it’s not MIT"s policy to auto-admit members of the US IMO team, effectively they do. This is probably true even if you look at USAMO winners.</p>
<p>On the other hand, I can think of more than once instance in which Harvard has rejected a member of the US IMO team.</p>
<p>On a personal note, I like the way unicameral puts his/her points across. Just for that he/she deserves the MIT admission - the clarity of thought.</p>