<p>Tiny Tim?</p>
<p>(10 char)</p>
<p>I forgot (no, that’s not the name, I just forgot - it’s not a priority on my things-to-remember list).</p>
<p>But I will find out and let you know. Of course, I’ll have to be sneaky about it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Part of what goes on that those-who-try-to-reduce-it-to-a-formula-so-they-can-understand-who-gets-in-and-who-doesn’t don’t seem to understand is … they may not know they really, really want someone until they see what that someone has to offer. It’s not as though they give 10 bonus points for skeet shooting … but when they see someone who is a gold medal skeet shooter, their collective ears perk up because you can bet skeet shooting makes one 3.9, 2300 SAT stand out from all the rest of 3.85 - 3.95, 2200 - 2400’s in the pile. </p>
<p>But, there are those who still don’t get that the acceptance of the “interesting” skeet shooter is neither a) “unfair” to our hypothetical Johnny Goodgrades who simply doesn’t have anything that interesting, or b) means that Johnny Goodgrades was “rejected” for a “deficiency” in his app. Johnny Goodgrades can still be perfectly qualified and in another year where the skeet shooter wasn’t there, might have gotten in. Or not.</p>
<p>But, it’s always more fun to blame the URM’s / legacies / athletes down the street for “stealing one’s spot” than to recognize that the skeet shooter was simply more interesting. Funny how the skeet shooter didn’t “steal anyone’s spot.”</p>
<p>Just a reminder for those who are newer here. My son had huge deficiencies in his application, including having to answer the “disciplinary issues” question with an essay. He was a recruit- but not in a big sport. We were told by several admissions reps at highly selective schools that his story (and how he bounced back) actually put him on the short list, even without the sport. They are NOT just looking for the perfect kid. They like to see “stories”, too.</p>
<p>QuantMech- fellowship applicants are a small and self-selected subset of the larger university population and in no way mirror the rest of the student body. Rhodes or Marshalls - there’s a large chunk of the magna cum laude crowd that has no interest in heading off to grad school right away- even at Harvard and Yale- they are just as interesting and distinguished as the kids you are seeing, but are not in your applicant pool. You cannot judge the college admissions pool by looking at a very narrow slice of the college senior pool; even if you think you can extrapolate. </p>
<p>Some of the most distinguished and brilliant classmates of my S’s at MIT went directly from undergrad into start-ups. (many of which they’d already been working in for 2 years.) You are not going to see those kids applying for a Rhodes or a Fulbright- they’re going in another direction. MIT isn’t looking to only admit the kind of profile you’re familiar with- they’re also looking for the entrepreneurs and the garage start-up tinkerers and yes- the future military officers who get commissioned on commencement day and head straight to their new post. The ROTC gang at MIT is quite impressive- but you won’t see those applications in your pile.</p>
<p>I guess I mentioned only in a PM to epiphany and not on the forum in general that of course, many of the grads will head directly for employment post-B.S., either with an established firm or with a start-up (their own or others), before returning to grad school (or never returning), or they will spend time with Teach for America, or the Peace Corps, or a multitude of other possibilities. One of QMP’s friends went directly to the Fed, others to hi-tech firms that are well-known, a couple to a start-up that I hadn’t heard of before, but probably will hear of soon, a couple taking gap years of various types before starting grad school, etc. </p>
<p>Still, it would seem a little weird to me, if the overwhelming majority of the most impressive people that MIT admits–and the overwhelming majority of even the moderately impressive people that MIT admits–stop at a bachelor’s degree. This seems counter-intuitive. It’s not totally inconceivable–there must be some reason why Reed, Harvey Mudd, and similar schools rank so high in the % going on to a Ph.D. Of course, Bill Gates, my example up-thread, stopped before a bachelor’s degree.</p>
<p>
I tell them this: “And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them.”</p>
<p>Also, I don’t blame the skeet-shooter (#625). I have some questions about the judgment of the Stanford admissions group that publicized admitting the skeet-shooter, though. Championship skeet-shooting doesn’t make a person more interesting to me, for an academic institution–maybe for the Armed Forces.</p>
<p>I support affirmative action. I do not think that the URM’s who are admitted have “taken” anyone else’s spot. At present, most universities need to practice affirmative action.</p>
<p>Athletics are not important to me–but they are clearly important to a lot of people, and generate revenue (pretty much all of it staying with sports program) and attention (which does not just stay with the sports program). I have not said anything anti-athlete, either.</p>
<p>The legacies and wealthy people I know who have been admitted to top schools (maybe all 3 such people) were more than highly qualified in their own right.</p>
<p>I do fault admissions offices that operate–if any do–on a criterion of “interesting to us” and “stands out from the crowd,” without weighing carefully whether the stand-out feature is much related to college or life prospects. (“Look, I have grown the world’s largest rutabaga!”) It’s understandable, because it’s got to be somewhat tedious to go through 30,000 applications.</p>
<p>QuantMech, I think I understand where you’re coming from, but I just think some of us would value the rutabaga more than you do. If I were filling the last two slots, and the only differences between the two candidates were that one grew that big rutabaga (and wrote about it), and the other had 10 points higher on the Math 2 Subject Test, I’d take the rutabaga kid.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thank you, blossom!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I can’t speak for MIT, but those who graduate from H,Y,P,C,S go to a variety of places. Some start second academic careers, immediately (Thus, some of D’s roommates went directly from one Ivy to a second; others went into life-long second loves, such as shifting from anthro to studio art, dramatic art, education, foreign language, archaeology, or something else – enrolling in a complete program but just not at an Ivy.) Sometimes such students have been financed by parents through the B.A. level, and the program these students are shifting to is not a Ph.D. program per se; thus, fellowship money is not available, the student may be on their own financially at that point (thus also possibly having or choosing a reduced-cost ‘second-academic career,’ and you will never see them, even if they are still STEM students.</p>
<p>Others take 1-2 years off by working in their undergrad fields, or in a tangential field, then applying to some specialized program which doesn’t happen to be available at MIT, but which is definitely “on the map,” academically, and which seeks fine students from many U’s, including but not limited to “the Elites” by name.</p>
<p>The world of undergrad and graduate excellence is far bigger than MIT, and includes universities not in this country.</p>
<p>QM - I suspect some of the MIT graduates find out that engineering becomes career limiting and go get MBAs, if they are not going into research or not doing cutting edge work. OTOH, most colleges, well known or regular run of the mill State and Private colleges have a lot of faculty that went to MIT at some point. Back in 86, I had two professors who got Ph.D.s from MIT (20% of faculty!) in a current top 20 state school in grad school. </p>
<p>So as Pizzagirl says, they all go on to lead productive paying gig lives if not making a spectacular impact in the world.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Just as an fyi, skeet is an Olympic sport. I know you’ve already stated that Olympians are not interesting to you, but Stanford is very interested in top athletes.</p>
<p>adding: btw, shooting/riflery is also an NCAA sport. MIT was the best in the country for a long time. I don’t know what its status there is now.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There you go with your false dichotomies again. (A better term in this case than logical fallacy. ;))</p>
<p>It’s not either/or, QM. It’s both/and. This whole quirky/weird mythology is just that. The committees don’t need to strain to look for personal eccentricity specifically, and certainly not as a significant element of admissions. Unless it’s an agricultural program, the student wouldn’t be admitted because of the rutabagas; it would be what any particular essay reveals about the student’s “other life” than book-study; that’s all. If such personal revelations indicate ingenuity, persistence, openness, attention to detail – all of which actually do impact the academic world, and could relate to the student’s major, depending on that major – those are simply additional insights or pieces of information into an applicant; they are by no means determinant or overwhelmingly important. But it’s more that the committee wants to see that the student is not merely an academic robot, can reflect on self with some age-appropriate (not adult) maturity, and is possibly likely to bring that ability to reflect on the wide variety of subjects he or she will be exposed to.</p>
<p>And such information is being examined or compared among already-rock-star-level students, academically. (That’s the both/and)</p>
<p>Since it is generating so much debate, here is the original post. I was ok with the entire story except for the kid with 50k Intel prize not being admitted. Makes me wonder if Stanford is a false zebra, trying to be an Ivy when they are more closer MIT or Caltech in terms of being a technical school.</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/12617436-post8.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/12617436-post8.html</a></p>
<p>just came back from the Stanford Admit weekend and during the welcome ceremony the Dean of Undergraduate studies named off a list of the accomplishments for the incoming class of 2015. It was very impressive from a world champion tap dancer to a world champion skeet/trap shooter. His list consisted of about 15 very different things that kids did before they got to Stanford. The point being that Stanford really appreciates individuality. They aren’t looking for cookie cutter students. Its not all about grades for them. Yes, you have to have very good grades but individuality, leadership and service are really key components. My S was accepted this year and I’m pretty sure that it had a lot to do with his extra curricula activites. There were at least 2 or 3 kids from our very large and competitive school who also applied and were waitlisted. Two of these kids were our valedictorian and saluditorian. They both had 2400 on the SAT, (first sitting), all of them were intel national finalists and one of the even came in 2nd in the country (recd a 50K scholarship). However, they were all very similiar in that they were all work and not much else. My s had started his own community service programs for our town and created 90% of his own opportunities for leadership and community service. When he received the acceptance letter in the mail there was a hand written section where the Admission counselor made mention of his work with the environment. She mentioned how his service work would fit in perfectly in the Stanford community. </p>
<p>So although I think its necessary to have a few things on your resume like VP of student body etc. try to do something on your own. Create something new. Stanford is all about creativity, and ingenuity. In the college process its so important to stand out. You have to look different than the other 34,000 applications that they are receiving. My s applied to 12 schools and got into all of them. I really think he did something right. He was different!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nor is it true for Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia, Penn, etc. Stanford is not unique in that respect.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>For 2010 MIT bachelor’s degree graduates, 49.2% went to work, 40.1% went to graduate school, and 10.7% went to “other”. However, in some previous years, the percentage going to graduate school was greater than the percentage going to work.</p>
<p>[Graduating</a> Student Survey - MIT Careers Office](<a href=“http://web.mit.edu/career/www/infostats/graduation.html]Graduating”>http://web.mit.edu/career/www/infostats/graduation.html)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[NC</a> Rifle Championship History - NCAA.com](<a href=“http://www.ncaa.com/history/rifle/nc]NC”>http://www.ncaa.com/history/rifle/nc)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah, but a LOT of engineers end up going back to ‘grad’ school – for a MBA. It doesn’t matter if the undergrad is MIT to Podunk State Engineering.</p>