<p>There’s no grade inflation at MITand Caltech!</p>
<p>NQO: I don’t have any studies in hand, but personal experience. I started at an engineering school 30 years ago & plenty of the guys breezed through calc & physics, yet failed English Comp. All very smart guys, but their aptitude for humanities subjects wasn’t very strong. I’m talking about first year, entry level composition, not some intense, esoteric Lit course. So while different majors may have different GPA averages, some of the difference could be accounted for by humanities kids just studying in a major that suits them.</p>
<p>“I think it’s unlikely that Caltech would accept someone with say, a Math II of 700 and an SAT Math of 680 just because he’s an award-winning novelist and champion swimmer.”</p>
<p>I agree. But what if they had worked in a biology lab and were first author on a paper?</p>
<p>For what it’s worth, I remember a LOT of Biology majors (mostly informal pre-med types) dying on the hill of the Humanities Core when I was an undergraduate. They were generally pretty bitter about it, too, “Why does a surgeon have to know all this writing and literature nonsense?” I don’t know from grade inflation, but I do now that my son was perfectly happy trying to reinvent calculus in his algebra class homework, but there is no way he would want to write four pages on “Moby Dick.”</p>
<p>As I said Rick, there are exceptions, but the averages are systematic and clear. If someone has a study for a top 30 university that says otherwise, I’d like to see it.</p>
<p>farawayplaces: I’m not disagreeing with the sense of your remark, although strictly speaking there has been grade inflation. Just less than other places.</p>
<p>Consider that a few decades ago, a third of Caltech transferred out, partly because of poor grades. Maybe 40% of the entering class failed at least one subject in the first 2-3 years. The class average for the graduating class that survived was usually around a 3.0. It’s not quite that brutal today, so there must have been grade inflation in between.</p>
<p>I think the impression that math/science types have weak social sciences/humanities skills may be a little out of date. I read some report a couple of months ago that concluded that engineering students were not only the best at math and science but also the best at English and history. I’m serious. Unfortunately, I don’t remember any details at all, because it was no surprise to me. (I guess now I’m obligated to search for it and confirm I wasn’t hallucinating.)</p>
<p>Why wasn’t it a surprise? I have undergraduate degrees in both history and biochemistry (one much later than the other, at a different school). Without question, the science types were better at English, history and philosophy than the English and history majors were at math or any science. I think the study of science and math helps develop crucial thinking skills that carry over to every field. An anecdote from this week confirms that prejudice of mine. My son’s high school has three winners of the NCTE Award in Writing this year. All three, two boys and one girl, are very strong math and science students; all have multiple AP science classes with scores of 5, and at least two of them take post-Calc BC math classes at a university this year. </p>
<p>I have a theory about this. I know a lot of cc posters denigrate the AP English and history courses, but at this school they have involved a lot of writing. Now, science and math types who want a strong hs record take the relatively challenging AP English/govt/history classes and, as a consequence, are learning to write. (And creatively, too. The essays and poems they read at their reception were great.)</p>
<p>Back on topic: Rick OP, the Univ. of Washington is a well-regarded university. I did my PhD work and taught/researched in the field of molecular biology and biochemistry on the east coast for many years. Nobody ever spoke about the Univ. of Washington as if it were a second-rate research institution. A large research school like that could well be a very good place for a smart, hands-on kid like your son. If he goes there, tell him don’t be shy about getting to know a prof with an active research lab.</p>
<p>I just wanted to point out that I recognized the tpyo in the thread title right after my first post. There is no way to edit it and it is sort of making me crazy. Go ahead and take a Sharpie and add an “s” at the end of “Get,” OK?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The point of view I take is that there are a bunch of really great kids in the applicant pool, but that not all of them have perfect grades/SAT scores/what have you. There is a real distribution of moldable talent and ability in the pool, but that distribution isn’t modeled perfectly by “stats”, and that’s why admits don’t track with GPA or SAT scores as well as people expect them to.</p>
<p>I don’t see admitted student narratives as a guarantee – I got in with a 1430 on the SAT, but there were plenty of other people who got turned down with that score. No doubt. But I think it indicates that it is possible, or normal, to get into MIT with that sort of profile. After all, the title of this thread asks if only superhumans get into MIT – and an applicant on the MIT board asked the other day if winning a national-level math/science contest was a requirement for admission. Both of these are patently untrue, and since I can provide evidence from my own experience that they are patently untrue, I chime in.</p>
<p>But I totally agree that it’s basically impossible for us to say “this applicant is a shoo-in” or “this applicant has no chance.” I also agree that a hypothetical perfect applicant has a better shot than an imperfect applicant, but from conversations with the MIT admissions officers, I don’t think “perfect” means the same thing to us and to them.</p>
<p>EDIT: And midmo, thanks for that post. I always feel vaguely insulted when people insinuate that scientists are terrible writers.</p>
<p>EDIT 2: Regarding grade inflation at MIT – although people argue that there’s no grade inflation at tough schools like MIT, I don’t entirely think that’s the case. I saw once that the median GPA at MIT is equivalent to a 3.2 on a 4-point scale, which is not really all that much less than Harvard’s much-maligned 3.4 mean GPA.</p>
<p>Then you must correct this misinformation as well - Sherman was the boy! Mr. Peabody was the Dog!</p>
<p>Whew, had to get that out of my system. </p>
<p>As to the original question, I’ve found MIT’s admissions policy to be hard to fathom from the outside. Full disclosure: son applied two years ago and was deferred, then rejected. His girlfriend was accepted and is attending. (Girls are accepted at more than 3 times the rate of boys.) She did struggle mightily with the first year requirements, although she had been a straight A, highly accelerated HS student. </p>
<p>When you look at a male MIT applicant who is not a URM, you are looking at an acceptance rate at 11 percent or lower. You can imagine the competition; any weakness is going to send an application to the dustbin. (EA applicants get a round of false hope - about 75% are simply deferred to the regular round.) I know several MIT grads who have stated flat out that they would not get in today.</p>
<p>MIT does look for that extra something in its applicants, beyond excellent grades and scores, but they also want to know that the kid will fit in and can do the work. You’ve mentioned your child’s struggle with ADD and other issues. How do you think he’ll do at a school 3000 miles away that is known as a pressure-cooker? I hope you’ll give the process some serious thought because it seems to me that even an acceptance won’t be the end of your dilemma.</p>
<p>If MIT keeps admitting large groups of “sub-par” (relatively speaking that is) students and rejecting other highly qualified students simply because of the color of their skin or their ethnicity - several different things will by definition likely occur: 1. increasingly larger pools of students way over their heads swimming in very deep water 2. more students switching to soft majors 3. or lowering MITs worldwide benchmark standards</p>
<p>Or
4. More students will learn to adjust.</p>
<p>You have to be naturally smart to attend MIT, but you more importantly have to be able to persevere through large amounts of very difficult work. Intelligence is important for success at MIT, but so is stick-to-it-iveness – I’d say the two are equally important at least.</p>
<p>We’ve already been over the data that show that URM students at MIT are not disproportionately in “soft” majors, and that African-American students are actually more likely than the general MIT population to major in engineering. I will post that data again if necessary.</p>
<p>Re: girls at MIT – girls are accepted at a higher rate than boys are, but they also graduate from MIT at a higher rate than boys do… ;)</p>
<p>“sub-par” is not a relative term, imho. If you are up to the task and an MIT chooses to admit you, there is no reason to expect any of citation’s three negative outcomes. That someone else measures better than you on the available “ex ante” stats says nothing about how you will fare.</p>
<p>Citation X, you can continue to tell yourself that if it makes you feel better.</p>
<p>My son has a friend whose ambition it is to be one of those “‘sub-par’ (relatively speaking)” kids at MIT. He’s ranked in the top 5 (out of 600 or so) at an urban academic magnet school, probably the top Hispanic student in this city (where fewer than 25% of the Hispanic males who start high school graduate). He will be the first kid in his family to graduate from high school, much less go to college. He has had no material advantages whatsoever. His parents are supportive, but have no idea what he’s doing and nothing to offer by way of help except love. He’s a terrific kid, and the drive and strength of character it has taken to get him to the point where he’s qualified to apply to MIT in good faith are amazing. I would admit him in a heartbeat over any number of kids with somewhat higher SATs (including, probably, my son) or higher ISEF placements. Maybe he’ll struggle some, maybe not – he works hard, and he hasn’t had to struggle yet. No one knows what he’s capable of. He’s nowhere near his ceiling yet, and he’s a better bet to set new benchmarks than to lower any.</p>
<p>Good post JHS.</p>
<p>We, and our kids, take the advantages we have for granted.</p>
<p>Rephrasing: </p>
<p>“If MIT keeps admitting large groups of less qualified students and rejecting other highly qualified students simply because of the color of their skin or their ethnicity… several different things will by definition likely occur: 1. increasingly larger pools of students way over their heads swimming in very deep water 2. more students switching to soft majors 3. or lowering MITs worldwide benchmark standards.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And humanities types feel vaguely insulted when people insinuate they aren’t good at math/science and their majors have rampant grade inflation.</p>
<p>Okay, Citation, so you rephrased. Doesn’t change the facts.
Facts: MIT admits some students whose “stats” are lower than other students it admits. All of the students it admits are qualified. </p>
<p>Who gets to decide which of the qualified admitted students are “less” qualified?" You, Citation X?</p>
<p>Sticker Shock, I hope you are not feeling vaguely insulted by anything I have written. As with the rest of life, it is best to dispense with stereotypical representations of “science types” and “humanities” types. That said, earlier this week I witnessed six teachers, one ex-principal (and former English teacher) and one current principal express “amazement” and “disbelief” (their words) that all three winners of the NCTE Writing award were science and math types. They were almost offended that these interlopers had knocked out their favorite future English majors! I found that pretty interesting.</p>
<p>The abilities of various sorts of students are hard to compare using course grades, because students aren’t placed into classes at random. But the grade distribution in various fields is easy to measure, and at Harvard for the last 30 years (at least) the percentage of A and A- grades has been highest in the humanities and lowest in math/science. See for example <a href=“http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/010233.html[/url]”>http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/010233.html</a>
“…grades increase as class sizes diminish. Moreover, grades in the humanities are “notably higher” than in the sciences and social sciences. These distinctions aside, grades generally have risen…”</p>
<p>midmo: Not at all! I’m a mixed bag myself. And hubby is a biomed engineer who I always rely on for spelling checks if I’m away from my dictionary. (And I sure do need them.)</p>
<p>I’m actually convinced that the mind-numbing repetition that kids experience at an early age in grade school is what kills the math/science spark that they might have had.</p>