"How did HE Get In?"

[mathmom]

<p>I’ll hang my head and volunteer that I discovered in grad school (completely ungraded) that I was somewhat more motivated by grades than I thought. When it came to planning time for studying structures say, vs. working on the presentation of a project that would end up in my portfolio, the portfolio always won. I knew I wouldn’t flunk structures even if I didn’t study, but I did get C’s on a couple of exams. Amusingly years later when I studied for the registration exam, I studied those structures like mad and did really well! So I’m inclined to cut those MIT freshmen some slack. I always like the story about Harvey Mudd where they send letters to freshman who get straight A’s that they are working to hard, and they should go out and play a little.</p>

[lookingforward]

<p>re Bel’s comment: practically, how does an adcom distinguish when multiple kids have 4.0 and equal rigor?</p>

[Beliavsky]

<p>

@QuantMech

The reason for my focus on MIT is that I wouldn’t expect to get much traction from an argument that Harvard should accept more hyper-talented math students. I don’t think that a hyper-talented math student is particularly likely to wind up on the Supreme Court, nor as a Senator, nor as a leading publisher, nor as a [whatever career it is where one makes a “squatumatillion” dollars (please see earlier citation to Donald Duck comics)]. There are some exceptions–e.g., Bill Gates. But I think that overall, Harvard’s admissions goals are somewhat different from MIT’s.

</p>

<p>According to [Full</a> List of Schools - PayScale College Salary Report 2012-13](<a href=“http://www.payscale.com/college-salary-report-2013/full-list-of-schools]Full”>http://www.payscale.com/college-salary-report-2013/full-list-of-schools) , MIT graduates earn more than Harvard graduates out of college, $68,400 vs. $50,700, and also at mid-career, $118,000 vs. $111,000 . The Harvard undergrad population certainly has its share of aspiring academics.</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>You are aware of the many pitfalls of Payscale, right, Beliavsky? Not to mention that it “downgrades” universities with major art, theater or music components because those grads don’t make as much – which of course is completely irrelevant to, say, the economics majors at those places. (And, of course, makes those universities more interesting places to be than math/science über alles, but that’s another story.)</p>

[yolochka]

<p>Belyavsky, of course, salaries of technology institutions graduates will be higher on average. Harvard graduates in History or Philosophy aren’t going to make as much money as STEM majors.</p>

<p>Also, I don’t think it’s unfair that admission is often not income blind to international students, especially in this economy.</p>

[Beliavsky]

<p>

@Pizzagirl

You are aware of the many pitfalls of Payscale, right, Beliavsky? Not to mention that it “downgrades” universities with major art, theater or music components because those grads don’t make as much – which of course is completely irrelevant to, say, the economics majors at those places

</p>

<p>I suspected that some of those factors were at work. In general I surprised at how closely bunched the starting or mid-career salaries were, and now I think that the school attended matters less than I did before. Still fun to debate admissions, though.</p>

[Beliavsky]

<p>

@yolochka

Also, I don’t think it’s unfair that admission is often not income blind to international students, especially in this economy.

</p>

<p>No more unfair than Americans earning more on average than Mexicans, Chinese, Indians etc. It’s not the responsibility of American universities to educate the world’s youth at low cost.</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>I think it’s arrogant of internationals to expect financial aid. Of course American universities should take care of American students first. We can’t save the world.</p>

[sally305]

<p>^Wow, does everyone agree on this? Might be a first on this thread.</p>

[oldfort]

<p>I absolutely agree with taking care of American students first. Why should the internationals expect FA from an American college. When D1 went to study abroad in Sydney, the school charged her twice as much as as Australians because she was an international. Private colleges maybe private, but they still benefit from the infrastructure American tax payers support.</p>

[PAGRok]

<p>We should keep in mind that America has the highest number of top universities, and in so many countries it is impossible to get an education like that offered in America. It is my belief that US universities should welcome the brightest students from all over the world who are not able to get a comparable education in their home country. Why should these students be shut out cause they weren’t lucky enough to be born in the US? There are thousands and thousands of students out there who are as brilliant as the top students in the US, they deserve to have an affordable just as much as any student in the US. But I understand an institutions main focus is on students from its own country, though it would probably be extremely easy for most of the top schools to meet the financial needs of interntional students.</p>

[PAGRok]

<p>Haha this is similar to my feelings on in-state/out-of-state costs for students with weak in-state options but cannot afford an out-of-state college.</p>

[poetgrl]

<p>as long as US universities are non profits and pay nothing in taxes? They aren’t going to give the same financial aid to internationals. At least some of the aid given the US kids is federally funded or guaranteed. Why would that be available to someone from China or Kenya? I don’t really even understand that.</p>

<p>OTOH, if we were smart, we would admit the smartest ones and pay for their education as long as they agreed to become US citizens and live here. But, I don’t think we’ve figured that out yet even about the ones who come here and pay and WANT to stay.</p>

[alh]

<p>

OTOH, if we were smart, we would admit the smartest ones and pay for their education as long as they agreed to become US citizens and live here. But, I don’t think we’ve figured that out yet even about the ones who come here and pay and WANT to stay.

</p>

<p>^^Great point! This makes sense to me. (the visa issue?? - I will not go sideways, cross my heart) I guess it doesn’t make sense to those who oppose QM’s auto-admits?</p>

<p>2427

"How do we identify the people who could most benefit from the best science and technology education we can provide? And how do we identify the people who can potentially benefit society the most if we make this education available to them?

</p>

<p>At this point, it has occurred to me (LOL<em>LOL) that all don’t see identifying these people and providing them the education as a *good thing</em>, even if they may potentially benefit society. I don’t know why that is. I think we may have proved canukguy’s thesis. :eek:</p>

<p>2430

Earlier on, lookingforward asked whom I would displace, in order to admit a small number 10-15 of hyper-talented mathematicians. I suggested displacing the students who do not work very hard in the first semester, on the grounds that the “grades do not count.”

</p>

<p>This makes absolute sense to me.
…</p>

<p>I agree with xiggi that the actual mission of the most competitive schools is fundraising. This thread is just fantasy. </p>

<p>After Sally’s post re. why the super snowflakes haven’t yet solved the world’s problems, I’ve been thinking all day about businesses, especially consulting firms, identifying new PhDs with very special skill sets and making them huge monetary offers to lure them away from academia. Does this highlight another problem in the mission of universities? (the fantasy mission, of course)</p>

<p>and thinking about Margaret Atwood’s Oryx and Crake trilogy</p>

<p>internal vs external motivation? lots of sideways thoughts on that ;)</p>

[molliebatmit]

<p>

@Beliavsky

how are admissions officers supposed to assess the motivations of applicants?

In some cynical sense, I think the public emphasis placed on being oneself and marching to the beat of one’s own drummer by top school admissions officers is a strategy to confound the grinders.</p>

<p>What the adcom wants is for everybody to do what he or she actually finds interesting and worthwhile, so that they can be sure(r) that the applicants who do math competitions, for example, are doing it because that’s just what they like to do with their free time. They’re hoping to weed out the kids who are just doing it because they think it’s their free ticket in. A homogeneous-appearing applicant pool, after all, has to be the nightmare of every college admissions officer at a selective school.</p>

[lookingforward]

<p>^ actually, ime, a balance can be more important than just doing what you like. After all, life isn’t always about your own preferences.</p>

[mathmom]

<p>I think I could argue that it’s good for America to help educate the world (especially the less developed world) and perhaps also inculcate them with the idea that we aren’t as evil as we sometimes come across in international media and that we also don’t live a life of luxury one might think on a diet of US television.</p>

[oldfort]

<p>How many internationals would you have to educate in order to get that message across? We have so many Americans we need to educate that I would worry about how we would do that first.</p>

[sally305]

<p>Completely agree. Where does it stop? When we can effectively educate our own population, maybe then we can open up to the world.</p>

[lookingforward]

<p>From the diversity perspective, underwriting some FA for internationals makes sense to some colleges.</p>