<p>^or as we discussed before, MIT has decided Rhode Island is another country and they are counting it as international quota. :D</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>With regard to not needing math kids, the truth is that being good at math is highly predictive of success in engineering, particularly heavily enrolled MIT majors such as electrical engineering and chem E. Math is obviously important for physics as well and for physical chemistry. I’m sure I’m preaching to the choir here though.</p>
<p>Even though math is not used in biology, I also know people who are quite distinguished in biology who were math team stars in high school. I don’t think it’s a coincidence.</p>
<p>(P.S. Sorry about Rhode Island!)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Reading comprehension is important for learning science. Even for AP Physics C E&M, perhaps the most mathematical of the science AP exams, the best predictor of the exam score is not the PSAT Math score alone but the sum of the Math and CR scores. See [AP</a> Potential Expectancy Tables](<a href=“Expectancy Tables – AP Potential | College Board”>Expectancy Tables – AP Potential | College Board) . This pattern holds for the other AP science exams. In the expectancy tables the College Board uses for each exam the subset of PSAT scores that predicts best. For calculus, the PSAT math score alone predicts best. The underlying paper is “The Relationship Between PSAT/NMSQT Scores and AP Examination Grades: A Follow-Up Study”, available online.</p>
<p>I think the CR score may have a higher correlation to g aka IQ than the math score. Critical reading is less coachable, from what I have read.</p>
<p>Mythmom and others: MIT is not a math-sci conservatory. Despite some opinions, it does not exist solely to favor the students QM and some others would like it to. It is free to choose some and not others. That’s been said and resaid. But, we return to this issue over and over and over. A real love fest going on, too. </p>
<p>Why is it that this thread is a clone of all the others where it’s all about what MIT “should” do to serve some kids? And as soon as there is a lull in the “what MIT should do” track, it turns right back to “what MIT says” or “what an interviewer said” or what’s ethical and and and. Lather rinse repeat. Why not start a thread solely devoted to what MIT “should” fix? Complain directly to MIT about blogs you don’t like. </p>
<p>I believe Q stated somewhere here, that she doesn’t think her college is properly serving the smartest, most worthy, that she sees what happens to the smartest when they are underserved. Okay, fine. But it’s not scientific, it’s not rational, to assume what falls in between is pretty darned sub-standard, except for the very few others that have been named. </p>
<p>And so? Where has all this lather gotten us?
We are all smart on this thread, whether or not we are physicists. Alexissss, I can name a number of posters here who have delightful argumentative skills and critical reasoning abilities. And some who do the research, not simply pose the questions.</p>
<p>Apologies for the rant.</p>
<p>ps. Yes, I somewhat agree that being strong in math is predictive for engineering (hence my comments about math-sci B’s.) But, being good at math is not solely highly predictive for being…what MIT wants.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Five undergraduates right now, same as Kazakhstan :)</p>
<p>
I totally agree … can we have a “Discuss MIT Admissions Meta thread” similar to the Affirmative Action thread? Where are discussions on the topic are redirected to that one thread? Moderators, please!</p>
<p>For me this thread was pretty interesting for about 50 pages … and now we’ve had 75 pages repeating the complaints about MIT … nothing new added … and yet another thread drawn off it’s original purpose into a repeat argument.</p>
<p>If people want to make arguments against MIT admissions I’m all for giving them space on CC … I’m all against the argument popping up repeatedly and derailing other unique conversations.</p>
<p>As I’ve repeatedly said, I personally have no horse in this race. I started out with one opinion and listened a little to QM and saw what she was talking about. I’m still not sure why there is so much anger here if people are just exploring ideas. And surely both sides are equally prolonging the thread. No one is forcing anyone to open or read it.</p>
<p>MIT has a wonderful art department which offers a great grad degree. Of course the focus is on contemporary art. Undergrds take a core in “hard” subject, so that we may consider it a technical conservatory it bears some semblance to one. Have been numerous times. Dear friend (PhD in Latin American Lit.) teaches the school software to students and faculty.</p>
<p>I have extensively explored humanities offerings so I know what goes on. DS, with masters in Art History, is exploring PhD programs.</p>
<p>People are floating ideas for consideration. The ideas are being raked over with a legalistic thoroughness instead of a spirit of inquiry.</p>
<p>I really do understand that MIT has a right to make its own decisions and test scores are a boring and perhaps weak perameter, but nothing says that we can’t question MIT’s decisions or the pointing of its administration just as we do with other institutions.</p>
<p>I still can’t see what is controversial in QM, as a physics prof with more inside knowledge than I have saying that MIT is mistaken in its decision and leaning too far from gifted stem kids. You may disagree, but I don’t see why it’s not a valid opinion worthy of discussion or why it makes some folks so angry.</p>
<p>See, saying we can just ignore certain posts- though we all already know how to do that- is taking away some of our own interactions and conversations. Sure, threads evolve. But the extra (almost sole) emhasis on MIT here is what’s difficult. This thread has become about MIT, one or maybe both interviewers and the blogs. Repeatedly drawing attention back to some feelings about MIT. A lot of it based on, sorry, but it’s conjecture about what admissions does and ill feelings about some phrases. It’s the over and over that gets me.</p>
<p>Myth, no one here has “inside knowledge.” Not a whit. Someone may have spoken with some profs, certainly we have an occasional post from a student, at least two are alums (incl Exie,) and Molly chimes in, once in a while. (Some have explored the school for UG or G- and many of us have read the blogs or CC posts from bloggers.) </p>
<p>Why aren’t we looking at these uber kids at other schools, as well? If we (make that “we”) want to take the gifted issue to a talk of other schools- more about CMU UIUC, VT, etc, plus those not yet named, we could share and learn. Argue our perspectives, what we might know or wonder about- not what’s wrong with MIT, “Spotlight MIT.”</p>
<p>What are the other great programs, beyond the small handful mentioned? How satisfying are those for bright lights? That’s all.</p>
<p>There’s no “spirit of inquiry” evident when the assertion goes as such …
-Brilliant kids not admitted into MIT is a travesty. Not only are their feelings hurt, but they can’t do groundbreaking work elsewhere and society suffers as a result.
- There aren’t other schools where these kids can soar?
- Nope. MIT or bust.
- C’mon, I have to believe some other schools might be acceptable. Look, would you mind telling us what schools might at least be acceptable?
- oh, I don’t know. Never really looked into it. Could be a handful, could be a lot. </p>
<p>-</p>
<p>@3togo: “For me this thread was pretty interesting for about 50 pages . . . .”</p>
<p>I think you typed an extra zero after the five – might want to edit.</p>
<p>“Reading comprehension is important for learning science.”</p>
<p>Beliasky - It is not necessary to know English at all to do engineering or medicine. In India, they teach in their own language in various states until 12th grade and many of them do engineering or medicine starting at that point and do quite well. Both those are taught in English. I believe there are other countries who have similar policies. I was studying in an English boarding school starting around 7th grade and when I joined engineering, there were about 50% of students who studied in their own language until that point and the rest in English medium. The guy who was at the top of our class after the first year studied until 12th in his own language, was given a gold medal at the end of 4 years for topping our class for all 4 years, came to UT, got a masters, worked, got a PE, went back to UT and got an MBA and still lives in US. In the end, drive is all that matters.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because I was trying to answer this question:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So I am a bit bewildered by your imperious tone when it turned out…my comment was relevant to the discussion. </p>
<p>Not to mention that for those with gifted kids who are ill-served by most US K-12 schools with their LCD teaching mentality and a campus culture often disdainful of above-average academic achievers…much less true nerds, this concern is such that it is a genuinely concerning crisis which fills them with understandable fear that their child(ren) will be ill-served in lesser schools. </p>
<p>A fear that’s understandable even while agreeing that the MIT or bust or Ivy/elite u or bust is a bit overblown. However, considering the existence of many academically mediocre institutions…especially with many public directionals…it’s not a concern/fear to be blithely dismissed. </p>
<p>Especially when the problem is often not the faculty, but the administration and local politicians focusing most/all of the attention on the remedial/mediocre average students and those very students themselves. </p>
<p>This brings to mind something a HS teacher’s reaction I witnessed firsthand when a highly gifted math genius type classmate said he was seriously considering CCNY’s honors program back in the mid-'90s. That reaction was first, something along the lines of “Are you insane?!! You won’t get the quality of instruction suitable to your level and considering the high crime rate on campus, you’re putting your life in your own hands.” Ironically, said teacher had a spouse who was a CCNY alum. However, he graduated in the early '60s when it had an elite academic reputation. </p>
<p>Said classmate ended up majoring in math at an HYP and is now a math Prof at an elite public university (Think Berkeley, UMich, UIUC, UVA, etc).</p>
<p>i have followed this thread with interest. I do think kids NOTadmitted to MIT can get excellent educations, at Caltech, Cal, CMU, RIT, GaTech, IU, etc. Even our local U, which is probably at bottom of barrel, has faculty with phenomenal pedigree. When they have an outstanding student, they offer him/her opportunities. The worm was asked to tutor college kids, when he ws a lowly HS student. He was offered research opportunities. I see the same with my 19 y.o. client, who took a mental health leave from an Ivy, who has been offered terrific internship. (If it was up to me, she’d finish locally, continue working in this fabulous place, and move into full-time position.)</p>
<p>Anyway, tomorrow is decision day for MIT hopefuls. I hope they can see how many other schools will be great, and not be devastated by the decisions.</p>
<p>Good point bookworm.</p>
<p>Also, everyone, when the kids are upset, try to remember they are kids and not the adults we have on this thread and give them a bit of time to mourn without getting annoyed with them. ;)</p>
<p>Why has this thread stayed alive so long? I keep waiting for someone to post something offensive enough to put it out of its misery.</p>
<p>QM, re: #1839: Isn’t it an occupational hazard?</p>
<p>I saw an article in the local Metro this morning about the MIT cheerleading squad, which is competing for an national championship – speaking of the well-rounded and non-stereotypical MIT student.</p>
<p>[MIT</a> Cheerleading to Compete for National Championship](<a href=“http://alum.mit.edu/pages/sliceofmit/2013/03/07/mit-cheerleading-to-compete-for-national-championship/]MIT”>http://alum.mit.edu/pages/sliceofmit/2013/03/07/mit-cheerleading-to-compete-for-national-championship/)</p>
<p>
PG, I was restricting myself to group behaviour until you asked me to individualized it for you. I graciously did so and now I owe you an apology? I thought you owe me a word of thanks. </p>
<p>I am surprised at you.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree, but why here in this thread? Am I missing something?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Using the analogy I used earlier, backgammon players do not like chess players. There is a difference in candle power.;)</p>
<p>Thought I will get every ones attention to this thread that is opend recently- <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/1472969-top-students-too-arent-always-ready-college.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/1472969-top-students-too-arent-always-ready-college.html</a></p>
<p>When I was reading this, was just wondering, what people are discussing in this thread- the admission policy- has to do with this trend. Looks like undergraduate educators at (least some of them) raises concern that there is a decline of quality of students.</p>
<p>Hi, molliebatmit! Re your post #1898 (and otherwise off-topic): Not sure whether “sheer pigheadedness” is an occupation hazard, or whether it’s a survival tactic, so the proportion in the scientific population is somewhat higher than in the population overall.</p>
<p>It reminds me of a very early pediatrician’s check up that QMP had, fascinated by a tongue depressor. The pediatrician whisked it away with a cheery “out of sight, out of mind,” and hid it behind a box. Sorry, object permanence having already been acquired, QMP continue to lunge toward it. Pediatrician remarked that QMP was “bullheaded.” QM: “We prefer to call that ‘persistent and tenacious,’ ma’am.”</p>