<p>That is not the post to which I was referring. Yes there was another. I specifically asked her, as our families are vacationing together, and wrote a summary and posted it this morning. Dont know where it disappeared to.</p>
<p>The concierge thread? That is equally perplexing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Interesting. So, those who problems…especially perplexing ones are just as, if not more intelligent than those who solve them? :)</p>
<p>That’s something I’ll concede is of fair debate. :D</p>
<p>In that case, a certain MIT reject who built a nuclear reactor in his family’s garage must be highly intelligent judging by today’s international news headlines. :D</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, I learned (Tetlock) that even experts are not good at making predictions. I suspect the reason is the unconscious motivated cognition (Kahan). Using a structured approach should help to discipline my thinking and, hopefully, helps to improve my decision-making.</p>
<p>Dividing the wealthy into affinity groups is a good way to make sense of the world:</p>
<p>[Who</a> Rules America? An Investment Manager Breaks Down the Economic Top 1%, Says 0.1% Controls Political and Legislative Process | AmpedStatus](<a href=“http://ampedstatus.org/who-rules-america-an-investment-manager-breaks-down-the-economic-top-1-says-0-1-controls-political-and-legislative-process/]Who”>http://ampedstatus.org/who-rules-america-an-investment-manager-breaks-down-the-economic-top-1-says-0-1-controls-political-and-legislative-process/)</p>
<p>Hunt is on to something, as demonstrated by this section:</p>
<p>Unlike those in the lower half of the top 1%, those in the top half and, particularly, top 0.1%, can often borrow for almost nothing, keep profits and production overseas, hold personal assets in tax havens, ride out down markets and economies, and influence legislation in the U.S. .Most of those in the bottom half of the top 1% lack power and global flexibility and are essentially well-compensated workhorses for the top 0.5%, just like the bottom 99%. In my view, the American dream of striking it rich is merely a well-marketed fantasy that keeps the bottom 99.5% hoping for better and prevents social and political instability. The odds of getting into that top 0.5% are very slim and the door is kept firmly shut by those within it.</p>
<p>PG, if you are not convinced that parents would go to great lengths to garnish an advantage for their children despite my Blair article, perhaps this article will change your mind:</p>
<p>[Nursery</a> School Scandal - ABC News](<a href=“Nursery School Scandal - ABC News”>Nursery School Scandal - ABC News)</p>
<p>I still think, however, this one takes the cake:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/1991/09/04/us/verdict-is-guilty-in-cheerleading-trial.html[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/1991/09/04/us/verdict-is-guilty-in-cheerleading-trial.html</a></p>
<p>I am speechless after reading the Nursery School Scandal. What is wrong with people?</p>
<p>The Nursery School Scandal reminds me of Jack Donaghy helping his nemisis, Devon Banks, get his gaybies into the most prestigious preschool on 30 Rock.
Then Jack realizes he used his pull to help Devon & his own daughter will have to attend public. School! ( but then is pleased because he attended public school & he " beat" Devon who attended private.)</p>
<p>Those people are sad. I really cant imagine.
Their kids already have more advantages than many kids on the planet.
Do they really think a preschool is going to make a difference?</p>
<p>There are…elite nursery schools?</p>
<p>Kidding.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, as someone who is most likely in the “bottom half of the top 1%,” I’ve already “struck it rich” compared to, well, 99% of people in this country and probably 99.9999% of the world. I can send my kids to good schools fully paid, afford good healthcare, travel, retire early, blah blah blah. Why would you even assume that I aspire to get into the top 0.5% of this country or that I would see it as a “problem” that I don’t have global power or legislative influence (which I don’t)? Who CARES? Being a “well-compensated workhorse” at this level is just fine as far as I’m concerned. My H runs a small business. I work for a small business. We do just fine. Maybe you sit there and envy people above you socioeconomically. I think it would be pathetic to be at the bottom half of the top 1% and spend one minute’s time being all grumpy that I’m not in the top half of the top 1%. So if your premise is that I’m just a wage stooge without the power of those in the top 0.5%, well, yeah, I am but whatever.</p>
<p>Canuckguy, you don’t need to convince me that “parents would go to great lengths to protect / enhance their children’s chances of success” a la the Nursery School scandal. Of course I know that. </p>
<p>But you made some very specific charges about <em>me,</em> that I was the kind of person who did such things and would do and advocate things at any cost just to ensure my precious snowflakes’ futures were assured. I am not part of the elite-NYC-Nursery-School social class, and I have no desire to be. My kids went to public schools in a nice but not exclusive suburban area. They had the normal upper-middle class complement of tennis lessons and so forth, but nothing fancy. They chose activities they were interested in and enjoyed, and that along with good grades and test scores as well as good fortune got them into good schools. I’ve never been one of the “top 20 or die” mentality, and any honest reading of my posts would back that up. You made charges about <em>me specifically</em> being a “certain type of person” / having a certain affinity group of protect-the-snowflakes-at-all-costs, and you had no basis for it. An apology or retraction would be appropriate, but I won’t hold my breath.</p>
<p>I don’t really like calling my kids snowflakes, don’t they just melt and disappear? I like to think of them as forever shining stars.</p>
<p>Will try to repost a synopsis of what my friend said about being a female MIT undergrad (and grad) student in the 70’s. She loved it. Said that even though the undergrad female population was about 10-15%, she did not feel any animosity from the male classmates. The women were super smart and got along well with each other. What she liked was that there were a broad spectrum of personalities but they were all accepted, not shunned in any way. The only thing she said was annoying was already mentioned upthread by someone else- that students were expected to come to class prepared, and in the sciences, questions were asked if relevant to the topic and helpful for all. She said if you didnt know or understand something you either talked to the professor or preceptor person later,or went home and learned it on your own. You were expected to do the work. There was little patience for someone, typically a student from a nearby school, who asked questions that the other students felt were a waste of their time,. and detracted from the class. It was not considered appropriate to ask the professor to go back over something because they didnt understand it. Of course in the humanities classes, etc., open discussion was appropriate, but the “ask, challenge, query, discuss” mentality that may have been appropriate at some of the nearby LACs was not ok in the MIT science classes. Other than that she had nothing but positive things to say. Enjoyed her philosophy major friends as much as her engineering friends.</p>
<p>I think there was more but I can’t recall at the moment. Thats the gist of it. Oh, she did tell me about some international students who literally lived in the library, as they could not afford housing. This is no longer tolerated and the library is no longer open 24/7, but there was an area of study carrells that were known to literally be the place these students “lived”. They showered in the gym, carried their toothbrush in their pockets,etc. Not sure where their clothes were kept. Forgot to ask.</p>
<p>What I dont understand about Pizzagirls comment in #1714 is this: PG seems to suggest that a prejudicial stereotype about a group should not concern me if I dont belong to that group, or if I belong to that group but I am certain that the stereotype does not apply. (In this case the stereotype is often . . . knew how to grind, but brought nothing else to the table.) </p>
<p>I would object to prejudicial stereotypes about people based on race, cultural heritage, gender, sexual orientation, or socio-economic status, in groups to which I do not belong. </p>
<p>I dont see the 2400/2400/4.0 UW + a gazillion EC group as being <em>so</em> different from the others that it is now ok to overlook the stereotyping. (I realize that nobody is born with a 2400.)</p>
<p>In my reading, I have seen no U.S. university other than MIT, where on the official Admissions web site that is currently up, an adult who is or was employed by the university
a) makes fun of rejected applicants by a set of characteristics (as here: <a href=“http://mitadmissions.org/blogs/entry/many_ways_to_define_the_best[/url]”>a | MIT Admissions, or
b) comes as close as MIT does to identifying a rejected applicant (as here: <a href=“http://mitadmissions.org/blogs/entry/applying_sideways[/url]”>a | MIT Admissions) and—it seems to me anyway—chortles over it.</p>
<p>If anyone can find items on official web sites that are equivalent to or that go beyond the items linked above, then I will not comment specifically on MIT in the CC forum after I have read the post that identifies them. A Cone of Silence will descend! (AgentNinetyNine, I mean a <em>working</em> Cone of Silence.)</p>
<p>Unlike some of my previous comments that I am off this thread, I will keep this commitment absolutely, should comments of types a or b be found on the sites of any other university, or in published remarks by their Admissions personnel.</p>
<p>Official “rules”: Posts by interviewers (who are volunteers), posts by applicants, posts by enrolled students, and student blogs even if they are linked on the official web site should be exempted from the analysis. Personally identifying reports of the admission of famous people (film stars, Olympians, etc.) do not count, if the person was accepted.</p>
<p>Blogs by university employees who work in Admissions should be included if they are linked on the official site; published comments by the Admissions staff can also be included. </p>
<p>I don’t think anyone will find anything comparable. I am not even reaching the comment by Jones, reported by Daniel Golden:
</p>
<p>I looked up [name omitted] in a Wall Street Journal article published at the time ([WSJ.com</a> - For Groton Grads, Academics Aren’t Only Keys to Ivy Schools](<a href=“http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/Polk_Groton_Grads.htm]WSJ.com”>WSJ.com - For Groton Grads, Academics Aren't Only Keys to Ivy Schools)). His parents immigrated to New Jersey, and saved up the money to send him to Groton. I can’t say for sure whether [name omitted] is a U.S. citizen or a permanent resident; but in my book, he’s not Korean, he’s American.</p>
<p>Thanks, jym626–interesting post. I did not realize that women constituted such a small fraction of the MIT class in the 70’s.</p>
<p>So which is your bigger beef with MIT, QM? Is it</p>
<p>A-they don’t auto admit winners of (x or y competitions) or
B-they trash-talk applicants in your view?</p>
<p>It would seem that if B is your beef, you wouldn’t WANT your favorite brilliant-kid going there.</p>
<p>I can’t rank the two issues, Pizzagirl. They have different context and import.</p>
<p>The element of my thinking based on ethics says B.</p>
<p>The element of my thinking based on science says A–even though there are comparable universities to which the student might have applied (or might not) and which might have admitted the student (or might not).</p>
<p>Without rehashing my entire analysis of students who should be auto-admitted and aren’t admitted already, please note that the number is much less than the number of students who scored 2400’s single sitting in 2012. My number is more on the order of 10-15 (about 1% of the admitted cohort).</p>
<p>In suggesting auto-admits, I am talking about people who are considerably smarter than I am, really. (And I’m packing for the Vulcan Science Academy as we post!)</p>
<p>On balance, weighing the context, I have to say that B is worse.</p>
<p>I don’t think that admitted students have anything to do with MIT Admissions once they have matriculated, unless they are employed by Admissions (which most are not). I have never heard an MIT professor “trash-talking” the students who could handle the courses.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I wonder if this is generally a gender difference, and might affect some of the comments people make about MIT now. Because women ARE more likely to ask for directions :), and I think they are more likely to speak up when they don’t understand something (I know the woman who said this didn’t when she was at MIT, but when you get a critical mass of women in the room… maybe they feel free to ask more questions). Which might lead to the IMPRESSION that more people are unprepared. When in fact the guys in the past did not want to fess up to not getting it in front of others. So they were struggling just as much, but were more reluctant to show it.</p>
<p>What exactly do you want as a response? “Oooh, that’s mean?”</p>
<p>I have never heard an MIT professor “trash-talking” the students who could handle the courses. Inadvertently, are you saying they have spoken poorly of kids who aren’t doing well? Eeeee.</p>
<p>As of roughly the itme Nuclear Boy built this lukewarm coffee heater, there are web comments that approximately 20 kids had built something similar in their gararges or beasements or wherever. I’d guess others tinkered with aspects in some class or club. This is not the same as a threat from Iran or Korea (I’m taking the science blogs at their word.) Surely not all those kids applied to MIT. But, doesn’t it somewhat spread the pain you perceive, to keep bringing attention to this kid, whoever he is?</p>
<p>No intparent, it was NOT a gender difference. The MIT females knew the “rules”. The outside students did not.</p>
<p>“There was little patience for someone, typically a student from a nearby school, who asked questions that the other students felt were a waste of their time,. and detracted from the class.”
Given that this was reported by a student who was at MIT student in the 70’s, and that a “student at a nearby school” was probably from Harvard, I’d say it is more likely that the comment reflected the “who really is smarter ?” rivalry that existed and still exists between the student bodies of these 2 universities.</p>