<p>now, after reading the previous page, some people don’t like the word “mediocre”… I wonder why. Anyways, I’m willing to stop using it if it’s counterproductive. How do I describe people who are maybe gifted but not talented? Those who do well in school and college, and become good professionals, but won’t move science to new levels? I am one. Even though I’ve been a good student and am a successful professional, I’m mediocre by my own standard. What is the word I should use to describe such people? Not for labeling, but to describe. I’m not a native English speaker. Please help.</p>
<p>so what is MIT’s mission?
from their website “The mission of MIT is to advance knowledge and educate students in science, technology, and other areas of scholarship that will best serve the nation and the world in the 21st century.” - it’s rather ambiguous. Raising good STEM professionals will serve the nation. Raising STEM leaders will serve the world and the nation. </p>
<p>someone here keeps asking why fascination with MIT. I guess because it’s known in the world as an institution that develops leaders in STEM. Thus, it is expected that MIT will admit those potential STEM leaders. Otherwise it would be just like any other technical college. </p>
<p>So how do you identify those potential STEM leaders? I doubt test scores, grades, and ECs should be the main factors by themselves. How do you see that spark in them that will propel them to new heights in science?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Try “99.999999999% of the worlds population.” I agree with poetgrl on this. How do you purport to determine the future leaders of science by watching 15 kids interact in a high school robotics club?</p>
<p>MIT’s goals include creating a community that nurtures scientific talent blah blah blah, not just identifying the talent and sticking them in labs for 4 years. </p>
<p>Anyway, what makes you think MIT isn’t doing a good job identifying such talent? Because you are SURE the 15 kids of your acquaintance who didn’t get in were more deserving? Well, guess what. Every year MIT gets 30,000 apps and admits 2,000 ( or whatever) and guess what, 28,000 sets of parents are convinced horrible mistakes were made. Not all special snowflakes can get in. That’s the breaks. You can tear your hair out over MIT or you can say congrats to these kids for getting into other great schools. Your choice.</p>
<p>[Nobel</a> Laureates by University - WSJ.com - Interactive Graphics](<a href=“http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/st_nobel-prizes_20091012.html]Nobel”>Nobel Laureates by University - WSJ.com - Interactive Graphics)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>One of my children was admitted to a top 20 school. We will just say that her stats were at the bottom. Many of her fellow students, one teacher (loosely termed teacher) and other parents asked how the heck did she get it?</p>
<p>After 2 other kids who’s college counselor failed to do his job (same one) I took over. I made sure that her private coach and agent got recs into Admissions (something that the teachers and school coach) didn’t happen to get around to finishing up.</p>
<p>Yes…her English teacher…went around the room asking all where they were going…(AP) when my daughter said …He actually said, “How did you do that?” Lots of other kids/parents questioned why and whether is was true. </p>
<p>I smiled and said, “We made a donation.” (not true)…I really got fed up with the jealousy. </p>
<p>My daughter, who was woefully under qualified (according to some) graduated with a 3.5. Just smile and move on.</p>
<p>I stand proud with the mediocre of the world, plugging along, happy not to move science (or much of anything else) to new levels, and not expecting that my kids will either.</p>
<p>You could use me as a flaming example of “How did SHE get in?”, except that I didn’t get in, didn’t apply, and don’t care about whether or not anyone else did either. </p>
<p>I’m off to ride my unicycle now.</p>
<p>The guys in high school I knew who went to MIT sort of just went to the SAT and hit the 800 math component and then had a cheese sandwich after and watched some cartoons. Then they flipped through the physics course book for an hour and got 5 on the AP and a 98 on the final exam. One of them came close to the Westinghouse scholarship. They could read mathematics the way most people read a newspaper. My niece who went to MIT was someone who kept trying to organize dorm gatherings. One of her friends asked to her stop organizing because it was fatiguing having so many activities. So she rearranged all the furniture on her side of the dorm. When I went to see her she had her half year schedule mapped out on a dry erase board (6’ x 8’) with 8 subcategories to each category with four categories per week. She was upset because some guy in the dorm had eidetic memory and would quiz her about what she was doing on week 8 at 3 pm, and so forth. People at MIT like to torture each other in this manner as a pastime. I am terrified of MIT people.</p>
<p>I always wanted to go to the Vulcan Science Academy! I can’t do much with the Romulan Ale, being tee-total, but perhaps someone at MIT could.</p>
<p>unicameral2013–I suspect that many of the jugglers and tightrope walkers are very well qualified. As a rutabaga grower, I am in no position to judge the qualifications of rutabaga growers. I used extreme examples (not the jugglers and tightrope walkers, specifically) to illustrate a point: It is not that I am complaining about any choice of EC’s at all. I object if preference is given to less academically qualified students on the grounds of having uncommon EC’s. </p>
<p>I am not close enough to admissions at any of the top schools to know whether this is happening or not. The web sites of some schools, by celebrating the unusual types of EC’s, give the impression that it might be happening. But perhaps it is not, and the rare EC’s are used only as tie-breakers between those who are truly equally academically qualified–no quarrel with that.</p>
<p>These days, since the appearance is given that rare EC’s are beneficial, a person who comes up with a still rare EC (sorry, rutabaga-growing is taken) is showing some creativity, so perhaps that should be a plus. Otherwise, I think that rarity makes stamps and coins more valuable, but not people, usually. I have always been able to find interest in people, whether their EC’s are common or not.</p>
<p>“She was upset because some guy in the dorm had eidetic memory and would quiz her about what she was doing on week 8 at 3 pm, and so forth. People at MIT like to torture each other in this manner as a pastime. I am terrified of MIT people.”</p>
<p>Maybe a guy like this – clearly without any social skills – shoud have been screened out in the interview process.</p>
<p>In my universe (where I am surrounded by engineers both male and female), MIT is just another technical school. Like I said in an earlier post…it has name recognition…so what? That doesn’t mean that MIT STEM grads are automatically hired for every job for which they apply. It also doesn’t mean that their engineers are the best team players, or the best engineers, or the best leaders. It simply means they graduated from MIT.</p>
<p>Again…there are MANY ABET accredited schools in this country. At the end of the day, a degree from these schools, successful practice in the field, and the PE for many is what will portray success…not JUST the name of the school on the diploma.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl, re #1572 and #1575, I don’t support any negative stereotyping of any group, including the extroverted class-president types. To the extent that my post about Z (of “Get out, Z” in the lunchroom) was interpreted as promoting a stereotype, I regret it. It was an essentially factual statement about an incident.</p>
<p>My speculation about how the GC might rate the social skills of the lunchroom group vs. Z was purely speculation, based on my understanding at the time of the term “social skills.” </p>
<p>I am still not certain that there is a consensus on the forum about what exactly is covered under the heading of “social skills.” (Not that the concept itself is difficult, but that there seems to be a rather wide range of interpretation.) I put more emphasis on character than social skills, as I understand the terms. For example, I consider kindness and thoughtfulness to be part of character, but I would not include them under social skills. Some might do so. Will be interested to know.</p>
<p>“The web sites of some schools, by celebrating the unusual types of EC’s, give the impression that it might be happening. But perhaps it is not, and the rare EC’s are used only as tie-breakers between those who are truly equally academically qualified–no quarrel with that.”</p>
<p>At my D’s LAC, the welcome letter to the ED-accepted said something to the effect of - and in our class, we have women who (did this EC, did that EC) and my D’s particular EC was noted. It had an academic/ educational component to it, but I cannot identify it more publicly for privacy purposes.</p>
<p>I think, though, that you’re seeing some of this as very stunt-like - oh, I’ll just grow rutabagas since that will look neat on my college app. And while those things can be stunts, they aren’t always, and I think you do these kids a disservice to assume they are all cheap stunts. </p>
<p>And I think the assumption that the rutabagas are used to “resurrect the otherwise unqualified” and make them leapfrog over far more qualified kids is a tall, tall leap. These schools have enough strong applicants that they can find smart kids with interesting ECs. They don’t have to dumb it down to find the rutabaga-growers.</p>
<h1>1568, by alh: beautiful post!</h1>
<p>"My speculation about how the GC might rate the social skills of the lunchroom group vs. Z was purely speculation, based on my understanding at the time of the term “social skills.” "</p>
<p>And I continue to think it an odd reading that GCs and/or adcoms would look at kids bullying your friend Z and conclude “oh, those kids are the ones with social skills.” Anyone who would deliberately and meanly kick someone out of a lunch table, etc. is a jerk; that’s common sense. </p>
<p>Social skills in this context … The ability to carry on a friendly, interesting conversation with an interviewer. To give full answers instead of one word answers. To demonstrate interest in what the interviewer asks. To smile and show a sense of humor if little things go wrong (the coffee spills, etc.). To be able to relate anecdotes and experiences that give a sense of who you are as a person, not just your classroom acumen. The ability to show that you’ve done your homework re the school or program. These cn be done by shy people and gregarious ones, math nerds and theater types and of course all types of racial/SES/ethnic backgrounds.</p>
<p>I do suspect that there is some effort by some applicants to pick a rare EC with the hope of being viewed as interesting. Some of the college admission web sites might make an applicant feel that this is an advantage. I am not saying that the unusual EC’s are always stunts! Clearly not! Though perhaps the fraction that were at least initially stunt-inspired is higher than it was when I applied to college.</p>
<p>thumper1, actually, by this point I do not care all that much about MIT! (Impossible as I am sure that is to believe!) The reason for my focus on it is that it seems to me that the MIT admissions web site is still a bit cavalier in reference to students with “perfect” SAT I’s, UW GPAs, and a “gazillion APs.” They might have reason to look at some members of this group askance; I do not know. I worry about carryover of this view to members of the same group who do not deserve it. Perhaps needless worry.</p>
<p>Have you read the MIT site? alh can probably give you links to some of the items there.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl, the GC’s weren’t around in the lunchroom, and I seriously doubt that anyone reported the incident to them. As mentioned, this was long before serious concern about bullying arose.</p>
<p>Most probably, the GC’s would only have known of the areas in which the boys at the table were showing genuine leadership, or other people skills.</p>
<p>Just wanted to add: I am sure that the GC’s would have “dinged” the boys for that behavior, had they known about it. But odds are extremely high that they didn’t know.</p>
<p>In my opinion, the MOST important social skill is being able to look at something from another person’s perspective in a positive way.</p>
<p>Also, those with good social skills know when they have said enough about a topic…and they move on. They know that “more isn’t always better”.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, I don’t see what the Professor did wrong here beyond his communicative tone and failing to recommend any students with similar difficulties to come to office hours/make an appointment to address it outside class. If a given student was really that far behind in the class for the Prof. to say that, that’s one of the purposes of going to/making an appointment to see the Prof. in his/her office. </p>
<p>Slowing down or stopping to try to help a student catch up during classroom time is the very type of LCD teaching mentality which has been cited by many educators/education critics as a problem with most US K-12 education. </p>
<p>It also tends to really irk classmates who could keep up and want to move on and sometimes Profs who are reluctant to water down their academic standards or fear not being able to cover the entire syllabus by term end. Especially if said course/field has a tendency to practice weeding out as many intro STEM courses tend to be at many colleges. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ha! I happen to be an ENTJ. </p>
<p>I can study alone and in group settings…provided in the latter…everyone can maintain focus on task during the study session and not turn it into a time wasting socializing gabfest. If the latter as I found is the tendency of most students, studying alone is much more productive. </p>
<p>While I love socializing, I’d prefer to do it in times and places when that’s appropriate. A group study session IMO…is neither the appropriate time nor place. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Please explain further. I’m interested to hear what you think should be alternatives. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I heard from a medievalist classmate that in actuality, blonde jokes originated in medieval times as a means for the wealthy powerful elite to make fun of the “lower orders”. </p>
<p>Back then, having blonde hair was commonly associated with the peasantry and those who worked long hours outdoors in the bright sun which can facilitate the “blonding” of one’s hair. Aristocrats and gentry who tended to prefer staying indoors regarded darker hair like black or brown as a sign one is socially superior because they didn’t have to perform outdoor labor. Mentality’s not very different from why tanning was not the fashion among those who wanted to affiliate themselves with the fashionable elite in the US during the colonial, antebellum, and the rest of US history until after WWII/'50s. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>To many, it’s a matter of not wishing to give up one’s self-integrity and become a “phony” to cater to others. </p>
<p>Especially if they come from or sympathize with cultures which regard the pushy arrogant self-promoting behaviors as a manifestation one’s ethical and moral values are dubious at best and/or such values are not compatible to facilitate the personality and thought processes necessary for the types of deep thinking required to be a good scholar and intellectual.</p>
<p>How were the boys able to push her aside? No teacher coach? Or was that the other mom?</p>