<p>that students were expected to come to class prepared
This was behind my point about whether less prepared kids would be better off at a U where they could be empowered and shine, not struggle to keep up. This is not about some curiosity about, say, history. The subject was high school B’s. Frankly, we see this prep issue in wannabe STEM kids who got B’s in pre-calc (maybe in earlier math and/or science,) may not even be in AP calc as seniors, but “want” to be engineers. How will they keep their dreams in a most competitive atmosphere? How will they be able to test themselves and proceed, when they start behind?</p>
<p>This isn’t about some kid who didn’t have AP calc at his school.</p>
<p>Actually, this came up when she was talking about the Wellesley students taking classes at MIT. Didnt ask if this was also true for Radcliffe/Harvard students, but it was CLEARLY a cultural issue, NOT specifically a gender issue. It pi$$ed off the female MIT students when any outside student did this, male or female. The MIT women were/are wicked smart. </p>
<p>Menlopark is otherwise completely correct-- this came directly from the perspecitve of a female MIT attendee from that era. No need to conjecture other explanations.</p>
<p>lookingfoprward,
from what my friend said, if the student has to struggle to keep up, then they have their work cut out for them at MIT. At least thats the way it was back then. They can organize /participate in study groups, go for extra help after class, and do the work to learn on their own. They may find themselves the middle of the top rather than the top of the middle.</p>
<p>lookingforward, My S2 was a “wannabe STEM kid” in HS . Not all of them should be written off . Some kids,particularly boys, are just underachievers and take more time to develop. My kid would not even TAKE calculus in HS but kept saying he wanted to apply for engineering. I didn’t get it at all, made no sense to me and I told him I didn’t get it. But he proved me wrong- is getting ready to graduate in May in engineering , either summa or magna and was an undergrad TA in C++. Go figure.</p>
<p>Jym, earlier, I said something about there needing to be “compensating strengths.” And, the ability to seek help, knock onesself out, join study groups, find other sources of info that clarify (none of us had the web, when we were in college,) are those strengths. But, admissions has to finely assess whether the kid has that, will dog the challenges- or suffer not just disappointment, but a setback.</p>
<p>Sevmom, agree- there are kids who can do it. This is where holistic helps give a kid a shot. Congrats to him.</p>
<p>QuantMech, with all due respect–WHY?? You have devoted a significant part of your time over the past few weeks to this thread, and thousands of posts later you are still on about “auto-admits.” In what world does a private organization owe ANYONE the guarantee of providing its services to him/her? I just do not understand the logic. If you could please sum it up in a paragraph or less that would be great.</p>
<p>sally305, I don’t think it’s about owing the prospective student the guarantee of providing services. That view seems to regard education as a private good, valuable only to the student who is being educated. In general, I’d like to see a super-top student matched with a super-top school. In many cases, I believe that the benefit of such a match goes to society, rather than going exclusively to the student.</p>
<p>One paragraph, above.</p>
<p>Then some additional comments that need not be read:</p>
<p>A probabilistic analysis based on yields other places and the unpredictability of admissions at “super-top” universities suggests to me that some of the “super-top” students MIT rejects wind up not being admitted to any “super-top” school. Harvard, for example, has a different mission from MIT’s, and less reason to take them (in my view).</p>
<p>Re: time. I read fast. Posts on this thread, I write fairly fast also. I need breaks from “grinding” every so often. I am not here as often as my icon is lit up–I often fail to close the window while doing other things.</p>
<p>Is my time worth it? I realize that to a lot of posters, I am simply annoying. I am sure from PM’s that I have been helpful to alh and bogibogi. Several people, including mythmom, have been very helpful to me. </p>
<p>mythmom in particular wrote that she “recoils” from statements that anyone is less than fully human. I understand that they are intended as jokes. This just really gets to me. The MIT alum who interviews inadvertently reinforced the currency of “robotic clones” with a remark about interviewees.</p>
<p>lookingforward, no MIT professor with whom I have spoken “trash-talks” any identifiable individuals who are not doing well in their classes. However, a lot of faculty are upset/saddened/angered/petrified by poor performance in their classes (each faculty member according to his gifts).</p>
<p>Wow! That attitude was pervasive at Stuy when I attended and the hardcore nerds…STEM or non-STEM aspiring…both exhibited this very type of impatience for students whom they felt were “slacking” or "not keeping up with the pace…along with most teachers. </p>
<p>This was reinforced by most teachers teaching at the speed of the top third or sometimes even top fifth of the class while everyone else was expected to keep up or sink. In HS, I was probably the student who “asked many stupid questions” and angered other students who felt they were a “waste of their time”. However, as one sympathetic freshman teacher put it, that’s one of the things I signed up for when I opted to attend Stuy. </p>
<p>While for some personalities, this atmosphere can be demoralizing and sometimes even toxic, for others…it can be seen as an enormous challenge to be overcome. </p>
<p>Was a very interesting experience to go from this atmosphere to an undergrad where the Profs really went out of their way to try helping everyone and being competitive in the classroom as with in HS was actually strongly discouraged. </p>
<p>However, that’s not to say I agreed with that mentality as I’ve shown when I’ve interceded on behalf of younger students at their request when they were intimidated/disrespected by older students who put them down harshly for their less than perfect answers while taking grad courses at an Ivy. </p>
<p>Being approachable by intimidated younger students surprised me as I’ve always thought I gave off an aura similar to those older students after spending 4 years in a HS environment where that behavior was strongly encouraged by the teachers and for being an ENTJ who’s so not “touchy-feely”.</p>
<p>Most "super- top students " end up at perfecty respectable schools. MIT and Ivies,etc. do not have a lock on all the great students, either those out of the box high achievers from the day one or those that take more time to develop. Many very high achieving kids probably still go to their state schools . There is alot of outside validation for kid and family to get into places like MIT,Ivies,etc, (he/she must be special, brilliant)) but lots of kids are well served by other schools. Most kids still stay fairly close to home. Finances are a reality for most people.</p>
This is still pretty true of modern MIT, at least insofar as I am still modern. (I’m now at the age where all that cheerleading as an undergrad leads my shoulder to make very strange and unfortunate noises when I move it in certain directions.) Everyone is very live-and-let-live, and there’s very little judgement of the personalities and life choices of fellow students. It’s an incredibly accepting environment.</p>
<p>There is considerably less tolerance for wasting the time of other students. It’s perfectly acceptable to ask a question in lecture, or a billion questions in recitation section or office hours. But the second it seems that a student is talking to hear him/herself talk, or to show off for the professor, the dagger stares come out. I can’t think of a time I was irritated with another student for asking a “stupid” question, but I can certainly remember times that some annoying premed in the front row was raising his hand to hear himself talk again.</p>
<p>I am sure MIT women liked to find fault with Wellesley women. Barnard women get this from the Columbia women all the time. Part of the game and a sad way women treat each other.</p>
<p>QM: You seem to share my sentiments, at least a bit, but using the quotes might suggest otherwise. Perhaps my word is too strong, but I really feel the kids who work really hard, have amazing stats, and are hyper-focused <em>do</em> have the same hopes and dreams as everyone else. Full disclosure – this would not describe my kids who would not be MIT’s ideal candidate.</p>
<p>Actually myth, that was not the sense I got at all- at least not from my friend. It was the issue mollie esplained-- the intolerance for someone wasting the other students’ time. I think that would hold true no matter what school they came from.</p>
<p>Not always. From what I’ve heard from MIT or other elite U classmates or those in rigorous honors programs or observed at my HS, many topflight students tend to have little patience for those who come unprepared and subsequently end up taking up a sizable chunk of the lecture/seminar period asking questions which should have been addressed in the class preparation stage or worse yet…something covered just 5-10 minutes ago by the Prof if said student had bothered to pay attention. </p>
<p>Moreover, female HS classmates and university students can be just as impatient about those they perceive as unprepared or otherwise “wasting their/lecture time” on excessively "stupid questions. </p>
<p>In all these cases, it seems to be more a case of “can’t stand the idiotic questions/slackers sucking up valuable class time”. </p>
<p>As for the Barnard/Columbia College rivalry…it’s grossly exaggerated and wildly overblown from what I’ve observed on the Barnard/Columbia campuses and heard from friends who are recent graduates of both schools. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>To some extent, the feeling is reciprocated towards most MIT students who take Wellesley courses. </p>
<p>One complaint I kept hearing from several Wellesley students/alums was how MIT students have far more generous add/drop terms than Wellesley students and most end up “wussing out” of Wellesley humanities/social science courses when they find out the grading isn’t going to be as much of a “cakewalk” as they thought.</p>
Well, there’s definitely more institutional support for students who are struggling. But there’s still a strong student culture of getting through impossible situations by sheer pigheadedness – of biting off more than you can chew and living to tell the tale.</p>
<p>mythmom, #1834, I don’t think I understand the comment directed to me.
I was really glad to find a kindred spirit, who finds some of the MIT rhetoric objectionable. I have been re-quoting a few things because there are a few posters who arrive mid-thread (and often do not have time to read the entire thing–I wouldn’t want to start it from the beginning now).</p>
<p>I think the only stupid question is the one that goes unasked. If a student asks a question during lecture, and I have the sense that 98% of the class gets that point (usually based on the answers on problem sets and exams), I would generally suggest that the student come to office hours, or if a schedule conflict precludes that, see me after lecture to set up a time to go over things. My most admirable colleagues will make time very freely available to work with a student who is trying to understand the material.</p>
<p>sevmom, although I was admitted to MIT (a long time ago), I went to a large, public research university. I now work at a large, public research university. I have a reasonably good sense of what we can offer and what we cannot. </p>
<p>My idea of a “super-top” student refers to an exceedingly small number of students. If a student would logically begin course work in his/her major area in a graduate-level course, as an incoming freshman (as happens in a very small number of cases), I think that student really ought to go to a “super-top” university.</p>
<p>Just want to bookmark this thought.<br>
Now, how do we think admissions at a most competitive should determine who might be willing to take the big bite(s) and see them through, (while also being socialized and having non-academic interests?) Kid got high stats, maybe got far in a competition? Maybe a hs club title, a sport, signed up to go along on some volunteer work? Or, some wide(r) pattern that may include those, plus some history of taking on and balancing a variety of challenges? Some for himself, some for the group(s) he’s part of- and some because a need exists and he’s willing to climb out of his high school comfort zone and commit.</p>
<p>And remember, this is today. With all the fierce competition.</p>
(Don’t know the keys for an apologetic smiley face)</p>