<p>
</p>
<p>Perfect example. No one believes that you have enough sample size among your female HS classmates and former neighbors that you heard “multiple” complaints about girls waitlisted at LAC’s but less qualified boys getting in. We pretty much believe that you hear one or two things from people and you extrapolate it to “many” or “much” or “most.”</p>
<p>Thanks, lookingforward. :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>PG - really?</p>
<p>LF: Do you feel you could comment on the MIT blog post I copied?</p>
<p>My bet is there was no kid who built a nuclear reactor in his garage.
Think about it.
I think that was an allusion.
I did have an app from a kid who built a scary weapon, from scratch, at a young age. I hope he gets the admit because everything about him was self-motivated, appropriately detail oriented for an engineering sort, inquisitive, and socially adept. He had the range of experience to give him the right start. The personal aspects to let him fit.</p>
<p>I laugh at many of the MIT blog posts I have seen, alh, because they are frank. Those I have seen. And, in light of the fact that readers just don’t seem to get it. They (kids/parents) are so intent on finding the magic formula, that they miss the discussion.</p>
<p>I am still catching up, but agree with oldfort’s posts in the early 1600 range.</p>
<p>Why should MIT have AA for women (assuming it does)? Because hundreds of guys like my son had MIT as their first choice because they liked that M/F ratio. Given that MIT has done internal studies showing that women are performing at higher levels then men with higher stats, why shouldn’t they give women a break? I have absolutely no problem with MIT’s admissions policies on that score, and I think most tech schools do the same, but just don’t get enough female applicants to actually achieve as nice a ratio.</p>
<p>There is a kid who did try to build a nuclear reactor in his backyard - a book was written about him called The Radioactive Boyscout.: <a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m thinking it’s the current rotundfaced leader of a nation that’s irking not only the US, but even allies like Russia or China. </p>
<p>Either that or a President whose appearance caused issues at a certain urban Ivy and whose name rhymes with “I forgot my dinner jacket”. :D</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There was a kid who built a nuclear reactor in his garage. His work was verified by MIT faculty in the Dept. of Nuclear Engineering. He did, however, have pretty spotty grades for an applicant for a top school. In my opinion, here was a case where I would have endorsed looking past the grades, assuming the dept. of nuclear engineering was impressed with what he did. I don’t know why MIT didn’t admit him.</p>
<p>Cobrat, that was my point. Yes, women complain of gender discrimination at some LAC’s, but I guess that doesn’t count here because it is not MIT and STEM majors.</p>
<p>That radioactive boyscout story is actually quite a good read, and very scary in a lot of ways…</p>
<p>"I put that in to shed light on how some engineering/CS folks/alums perceive such career paths because it bears directly on why some older alums may hold the narrow-minded positions they do when it comes to admission decisions for elite engineering/CS colleges. "</p>
<p>Many engineers go to business schools and move on outside of engineering because they find the money is capped in the engineering field and they want to move up. I don’t know of a single engineer who has a problem with another engineer moving out.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Possibly because if he’s the former that I hinted at, he may be “too interesting”, too “free thinking and acting” for the rest of the campus, and his insatiable appetite would mean the massive starvation of everyone in the greater Cambridge/Boston area even with college cafeterias and plethora of campus food trucks/eateries.</p>
<p>If the latter one I hinted, he did fine work, but may end up causing a campus-wide riot with his free-spirited remarks…especially regarding the women on campus and reintroduction of some ghasty '70s disco fashions. There’s also the real risk even the senior clerics in his country’s government may bar him from returning home which poses the real risk he’d be a permanent irksome presence for the US rather than an unfortunate temporary one. </p>
<p>On the brighter side, he’d be a major ego boost for many male students considering his 5’2" height. :D</p>
<p>:D</p>
<p>I absolutely support women in science programs and at MIT. We need more female scientists. I do not support admitting them as “date bait” for heterosexual males - I know that is not what some of you mean, but that is what I am reading.
:eek:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not convinced the affirmative action for women at MIT is anything but slight. The ratio is like 53-47 right now. I suspect that it may be 58-42 or 60-40 without it. No one really knows.</p>
<p>AA is a controversial issue, but I don’t think it is helpful to exaggerate the effects of its policies.</p>
<p>Ok, caught up.</p>
<p>As now pointed out, there are roughly 18000 kids denied by MIT. Stands to reason that some had super stats. To me, that’s where it should end. We can’t micro this to death without seeming hyper-focused. We can’t argue based on fear that some one or two kids who may have changed the world, if admitted to MIT, successful at MIT, had to go somewhere else. </p>
<p>As for this beaut’ - However, do you really want to trust MIT adcom’s assertions over mine? the answer is obvious. I don’t trust an “education researcher” with a sample from one tiny cohort. No Nada Nope. We wouldn’t even be talking about MIT if their processes were so darned flawed.</p>
<p>Alh, I’ll go back and find your quote.</p>
<p>CA, I thought there was some back story to the reactor kid, thanks for adding that. (I thought it was that 2+2 didn’t equal 4.) There are times when something marvelous outweighs grades, yes. But from the U’s perspective, do you want a kid who has that one trick pony and whose other aspects suggest he won’t continue to perform at the expected level? Try this perspective out: an elite college admit is not a reward for what you did in hs. It is for the potential you show to meet that college’s challenges (academic and social.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree. I think it’s insulting.</p>
<p>Let me add another thing many of us on this thread already know, but that got lost in the snowflake thing:<br>
as far as I know, from years here, nearly every parent piping up here has one or more extraordinary kids- some past college, some in, and some yet to go. The bits I’ve picked up from these posters show many fine, respectable- and even exciting- traits or accomplishments in our kids. We come into this discussion with some kids at the very top schools (I’m comfortable calling that the top 20) and some at other schools that, nonetheless, have offered these kids every opportunity to grow, become finely educated, become further empowered and make their mark. How does any one, individual poster presume to pontificate about one or two they know and think “deserves” the best of the best, over other kids? An open mind is an asset.</p>
<p>It would seem to me that truly talented and driven students would succeed and make an impact not matter what university they go to (within reason, assuming a “good” school). If someone absolutely has to go to MIT (or really, any other of the tip top schools) to make a splash, are they really all that awesome?</p>
<p>
That is the most pathetic thing I have read in a very long time. Texaspg was spot on when he said that many engineers see the limits in the field and expand their skill base, interests and opportunities. My female MIT mid 70’s grad friend has been quite successful working for a large international firm. Was one of the highest ranking females in the company. But if some self proclaimed engineer purist thinks her career has been a failure, then they have bigger problems to address, and surgery to have the blinders removed from their eyes should be scheduled ASAP.</p>
<p>Well, then you’re reading it incorrectly. No one is saying or even insinuating that MIT is admitting “decorative girls” who are clearly unqualified just to serve as arm candy. </p>
<p>And spare me if no one has a sense of humor over the stereotype of the MIT nerd (or geek, I’m not really up on the lingo these days).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>When there are 30,000 high schools in the country, I have always thought it arrogant to presume that one’s own high school “deserved” an acceptance to (elite school of choice), much less multiple acceptances - which is inevitable in the “they always take at least 2 kids from our school and this year they took A and B but not C, D, or E.” How snotty and entitled do you have to not to realize that maybe, just maybe, elite schools would like to cleanse their palates and not just give acceptances to the same high schools time after time? That maybe, just maybe, it might be more important in the long run to give a spot to the kid from Nowheresville High School in Alabama than 5 kids in Short Hills or Kenilworth?</p>