<p>^great link, thanks.</p>
<p>lookingforward, #2338, I’d have to guess that some of the students admitted because their “fun” personalities tipped the decision in their direction are in the group that doesn’t work very hard the first semester, and then has some difficulty catching up. I think that the applicants with exciting personalities should be viewed with just as critical an eye as the applicants who are hyper-talented, but may appear bland on the surface.</p>
<p>Words fail me, QM. On what basis do you assume that there are students whose “fun personalities” tipped their application, and that even if that were so (no data to support that) that these students would be any less serious a student than any other? Whose to say it isn’t the grind student who lets loose once they are away from home and finally has a taste of independence that has less skill at handling it and may crash and burn first semester? Or the student who might have felt that they were not living up to someone’s expectations and MH issues surface and interfere with their performance? The notion that the “fun” personalities were either ill equipped to handle the rigor of MIT or would somehow be less likely to work as hard is, frankly, offensive. In fact its so ridiculous, I am beginning to think you are pulling our legs on this thread. Surely, surely you cannot be serious.</p>
<p>What "fun"personalities?<br>
I can only speak ime, but the oversimplification over many pages is just that: oversimplification. This isn’t about taking exciting personalities over academic superstars. Nor some guess that superstars are bland. I think you’re pulling my leg. x-posted, same thoughts.</p>
<p>My apologies, too, but anyone engaged with this age group- and this academic arena, especially in the U setting- should already be aware of the many dimensions to these kids, the growth process and adjustments that they make.</p>
<p>
Ok, we all know that U Chicago is “where fun goes to die”, so that must be where the “fun” personalities go, not MIT. ;)</p>
<p>While on the subject of fun, or not so much, I do recall that MIT students have shown that in spite of their relative brilliance they can be as stupid as the rest of the 18-25 bunch.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No one gets admitted because of a “fun personality,” QM. There may be something about the person that is fresh, engaging and differentiating but that’s not inconsistent with high-level smarts. Are you commingling “interesting and refreshing candidate from the point of view of the adcom who is bored senseless by looking at 20,000 applications that all look alike” for “lampshade on head, life of the party, eh, where’s my math book, why bother?”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You don’t even know my occupational field, and as I’ve said many times, I grew up in a working class neighborhood so please don’t feel you need to “keep it real” on my account.</p>
<p>We’re not allowed to comment on “textureless math grinds” but people with fun personalities are fair game. I see. </p>
<p>So glad neither of my kids is interested in the rarefied air of MIT and similar institutions. I don’t think they could possibly keep up with (or enjoy) the constant judgment and questioning of their worth.</p>
<p>QM, to a first approximation, except for the kids who come from relatively inadequate high school backgrounds, no one at MIT works hard first semester. In fact, there are a number of freshmen who find the first semester courses fairly easy. So they take it a little easier that they will later in their college careers – they join a student group or two, make friends, get the phys ed requirement out of the way, start an undergraduate research job. </p>
<p>There really aren’t that many (if any; I didn’t know any) who take a semester-long nap and then awaken rudely in the spring when they’re suddenly on grades. Mostly it’s that first semester serves as a catch-up mechanism for students who didn’t go to top high schools, and then everybody starts second semester on the same page.</p>
<p>Gotta wonder if QM is really messing with all of us. The constant, perseverative, obsessive focus on the USAMO as the be all, end all for admission to MIT, the suggestion that personality and intellect can’t coexist, or that if they do, perhaps the personality part of the brain is taking up space that would otherwise be occupied by math facts and that we’d rather participate in a “probabilistic analysis” than have a conversation. Um, no.</p>
<p>Not to mention the perseveration on MIT as “the” institution. Good lord, I love myself some elite colleges, but you know, there are plenty of fish in those seas.</p>
<p>Actually, I am not “messing” with all of you. I am certainly not saying that incredibly brilliant people can’t be “fun.” MIT graduate Richard Feynman is a clear-cut counter-example. </p>
<p>I was going by what shravas (I think) or someone else who is familiar with MIT said–that there were students who didn’t work hard the first semester because the grades “didn’t count.” To me, that seems to indicate that the student is externally motivated, and not really all that interested. (Also, I think shravas said those were the students who failed.)</p>
<p>I imagine that molliebatmit means that no one at MIT works as hard in the first semester as he/she does in subsequent years. I believe that. It’s in the nature of science/engineering.</p>
<p>I don’t know anyone who is actually successful in a science field who doesn’t work very, very hard. (As a young faculty member, I can recall wondering whether I suffered from “fear of success” when I did not want to work one Sunday after working for about 84 days straight.)</p>
<p>I do support an ungraded first semester at MIT and other schools–though I seriously doubt that a student can make up for a really sub-par K-12 education in the space of a single semester. I’ve argued for an extra year or even two (at Gates Foundation expense, or with support from someone who is wealthy enough to sponsor it).</p>
<p>Obviously, I don’t have access to the files to provide hard data in support of my statement, but reading the MIT web site does suggest that there are students whose engaging personalities put them over the top, and others who seem too “textureless” to be admitted. That’s not to say that the “fun” person didn’t have other strengths in the application, just that being interesting clinched the deal for them.</p>
<p>sally305, being “fun” is generally conceived as a positive quality. I may be the only person on the planet who sees being a “textureless math grind” as a positive quality.</p>
<p>QM, would you describe yourself as having a fun personality or do you think you lean more toward textureless math grind?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t know anyone who is actually successful in ANY field who doesn’t work very, very hard. Nothing special about science. Really. You guys aren’t the special snowflakes you think you are.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl, I don’t actually think that MIT is “the” institution–alh is out of town, but she suggested quite a while ago that it was a stand-in for a larger issue about admissions practices. </p>
<p>I think that H is “the” institution; and judging by their literature, student newspapers I’ve read, press releases, etc . . . it appears that many people at H think so, too. Even so, H would not be my preference, if I came from a wealthy family.</p>
<p>I suppose it would be interesting to see what fraction of the scientists I really admire went to H vs. MIT vs. other places (individually).</p>
<p>limabeans01, maybe I can answer your question with an anecdote: I was giving a lecture in one of my grad classes, and became totally wrapped up in the subject (practically enraptured). The class time seemed to fly by. At the end, I remarked, “Wow, this class seemed really short!” One of the students said, “We thought so, too.” It took me about 60 seconds to realize that he was joking!</p>
<p>I don’t know–do I seem like any fun to you? I’d be surprised if so!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The mentality that H is “the” institution is precisely the kiss of death when applying to places like H. These schools don’t WANT fawning syncophants who will just Up and Die if they don’t get in there! They want people who have made good and interesting use of the resources available to them and who they know will blossom just fine whether they are planted. </p>
<p>Put another way - if you could administer truth serum to two candidates who are otherwise deserving and say - what would your reaction be if you didn’t get into (H, MIT, whatever)? The student who said, “I’d be disappointed, but I’d go kick some butt at (wherever u)” would have the edge over the student who said, “Well, that would be really awful, because there’s really no place else I could ever possibly come to my full potential.”</p>
<p>Treating these schools like the be-all-and-end-all of human existence is just weird, anyway. Really - these schools COULD go away tomorrow and life would go on. 99% of the population never spends one minute thinking about Harvard, MIT, or any other elite college.</p>
<p>Re Pizzagirl’s comment that people in other fields work hard, also: My experience is limited. But to take Dick Zare at Stanford as an example–Dick seems to be in the office/lab by 9 whenever he is in Palo Alto. (He might be there earlier–I just wasn’t there to see it.) I have heard from colleagues that he usually works until 3 or 4 am. He was once speaking at a conference I attended, but was gone for about 8 hours–he flew out to give a talk at another conference, and then returned to the first. </p>
<p>One of my colleagues famously brought a cot into his office when he was a young faculty member, so he could continue working without going home. (He had one, and a wife, and possibly children already.)</p>
<p>Pizzagirl, maybe you missed the word <em>not</em> in my statement “H would not be my preference.”</p>