<p>I am an international EC, and that may color my view. Negative letters are not all that unusual here. They are still not particularly common, and I agree that they represent a failure of judgement on the part of the student, but they do genuinely occur at a rate that may seem highly unusual to someone only exposed to the American secondary school establishment. This is where cultural differences occur.</p>
<p>I recall the time when the French government brought charges against McDonalds and four other American corporations for the hideous offense of implementing the Sarbanes-Oxley act in France. The key provision that was objectionable was the provision of whistleblowing hotlines. In the US, tattling is considered rude, in France, it is appalling, right up there with incest. For the French government, putting in an anonymous whistle-blowing hotline, which could be used maliciously but would never actually be used for actual whistle-blowing was unthinkable. They saw putting in a process to deal with whistle-blowers as akin to putting in a process to deal with zebra stampedes. </p>
<p>Given that, I will accept that I may be speaking about something unknown or rare in the US, but MIT gets heaps of applications from around the world, and I can assure you, receives negative LoRs, or more commonly nuanced LoR’s talking about the positive and the negative aspects or a candidate. </p>
<p>Based on my limited experience, I agree that letters of recommendation in other countries tend to be a lot franker and a lot less hyperbolic. One of my friends who was a Cambridge undergraduate received a tutorial report that just said, “Good.” I think it meant that the student was virtually guaranteed a First. Another friend once explained to me the difference between “Quite good, really” and “Really quite good,” as well as the inversion of “quite” and “rather,” relative to American usage. I don’t recall hearing about negative comments about personality, though, because so much of admissions decision-making in the UK is so strongly academically based. </p>
<p>With regard to the French, that is a whole different story! My daughter attended a pre-school in Palo Alto, where a number of the other pre-schoolers were French. The head teacher would not let the American students make harsh comments about each other, but would let the French students call each other things like “stupide.” (I probably don’t have the spelling on that right–I never took French.) Her rationale was that this was more common–even acceptable–in French culture. I can’t say whether that was right or not, on my own authority. But when my daughter was complaining about a couple of the French students, and I made suggestions about how to make friends with them, or at least get them to modify their behavior, she announced, “There is nothing that can be done about X and Y. They’re French.” So much for the experiment in international understanding.</p>
<p>I also participated once in a multi-European-cultural discussion of what happens when two people bump into each other on the streets. In England, generally both will back off and say, “Sorry!” The French post-doc claimed that in France, it is essential to determine who was at fault. </p>
<p>I heard this “myth” or “rumor” that its easier for a girl to get into MIT than for a guy. What do you think of that? </p>
<p>The person I hear it from’s reasoning was that because not at many girls apply and that they try to maintain a 50/50 ratio of boys and girls, it would be easier for a girl to get in.</p>
<p>On the other hand, male applicants are encouraged to apply everywhere and female applicants are discouraged from technical environments. MIT Admissions has noted that while there are fewer females applying, they tend to be academically stronger than the average male applying.</p>
<p>Absolutely, as an interviewer, at the top end there isn’t much to separate the boys from the girls, but at the bottom end, it it huge. I have interviewed only a small handful of girls who obviously do not match for MIT. I have interviewed, many, many boys who obviously haven’t a chance. MIT is a competitive school to get into. If you are applying with a transcript full of C’s and D’s and are telling the interviewer how much you hate school and how you cheat on your exams (I kid you not, I absolutely have had someone tell me this), then you are unlikely to get into MIT. </p>
<p>Of course, that kid could have been deliberately trying to blow his interview. We get a handful of kids in that category every year. These are kids who clearly do not want to go to MIT, but their parents are making them apply. The interview is one of the few bits of the applications folder that the parents cannot review, so every year there are kids choosing to consciously sabotage their interview.</p>
<p>Mikalye, although I agree that their is more self-selection in the female pool in general, I think the disastrous interviews (and candidates) you describe are extremely rare in the domestic pool compared to the international one that you deal with. </p>
<p>I obviously do not know for sure. That being said, I would be surprised if that was so. The majority of no-hopers that I interview are actually expatriate Americans, who have an understanding that of course you apply to at least one “reach” school, which is a concept that really does not exist in the same way elsewhere. That being said, most of the radical (and foolish) honesty that I have encountered, has been from internationals.</p>
<p>@Mikalye @PiperXP So would you say that this “myth” has some truth to it? As a girl, it would be easier for me to get in (of course if I had the academics and interviews etc.)…</p>
<p>I mostly agree that being a girl doesn’t necessarily give you an edge. MIT doesn’t have to struggle to find extremely competent female applicants. I’m sure that if there were 2 applicants one male and the other female and the female was not as a great an applicant as the male, MIT wouldn’t accept the female just to balance out the class. However, since it seems likely that MIT does try to balance out the class, I believe that extremely qualified women will have an edge just because there are fewer of them applying. More men that are extremely qualified must be rejected only because there are not enough spots available. But a fewer amount of extremely qualified women will be rejected because there are just fewer women applying to choose from. </p>
<p>MIT does say they practice affirmative action for women. This implies that there is some tip factor, so the disparity in the admission rates cannot be attributed to self-selection effects alone. For those who are new to this discussion, self-selection means that the female pool is stronger because only the qualified apply, which artificially increases the admission rate.</p>
<p>However, to livelaugh, such an effect is probably slight and probably would not be evident on a microscale–if looking at candidates at one school, I wouldn’t expect that a girl slightly less qualified would get in over another guy. It’s anybody’s guess how much of a tip factor it is. Certainly, I wouldn’t count on it. </p>
<p>^Outreach practices aren’t really affirmative action. If the only thing MIT is doing is outreach, then they should just say they don’t have gender-based affirmative action.</p>
<p>@collegealum314 - I mean, what sort of affirmative action are you talking about? They don’t have quotas to meet by gender or race. All they can do is focus on recruiting efforts, and take special care to understand how race and gender play into applicants’ lives.</p>
<p>@livelaugh7 - Not quite. The self selection is there to begin with. Men are encouraged to enter technical fields, and are generally socialized to be more assertive and confident. Thus, many will have no problem applying to MIT, including some who are very much underqualified. Women, on the other hand, are discouraged from pursuing technical fields or nerdy interests. They have a larger barrier to entry, so the ones who overcome that tend to be at the high end.</p>
<p>As for what “strong” means here, it means the entire package of what makes a good MIT applicant. Grades, passionate pursuit of interests, some interest in technical topics, someone who constantly pursues opportunities.</p>
<p>Well, I want to be a surgeon but I want to major in bioengineering, or something along those lines. Anyone can tell you I’m confident and assertive, to an extent that isn’t vulgar and rude. And for the most part I have the entire package. I shadowed a pathologist and worked at a psychiatrist office. Junior and Senior year I’ll be attending a Math/Science focus school. </p>
<p>So once you break that “barrier,” proving you have what it takes I guess, then you are on the higher spectrum of the scale?</p>
<p>@livelaugh7 - I’m not sure what you mean by higher on the spectrum of scale.</p>
<p>The women’s admit rate is only artificially inflated. When you get off all the candidates who don’t have a chance of getting in at all, the men’s admit rate and women’s admit rate start looking very similar. I know some truly amazing women who did not get into MIT. MIT can’t accept every amazing applicant it gets, male or female.</p>
<p>Really, though, there’s no use in you stressing over the admit rate. Do what you like, try to be awesome at it, apply to MIT and see if it works out. Have some backup plans. </p>
<p>Well, the second part would be considered affirmative action. But the bottom line is that there is a preference for one group or another which can make up for some degree of deficiency in the qualification dept.; there are a million different reasons people use to explain why this makes sense. One is to assume that candidate XX performed at a certain level because her gender held her back somewhat, and therefore that level of performance indicates more talent than the same level of performance from someone (candidate XY) of a different group.</p>