<p>epiphany, post #870: I wasn’t suggesting that the group of people connected by “or” constituted the admissions committee! Just that one of the group was the regional rep on the committee, or the major rep, or however else the applicant pool is split for a first reading.</p>
<p>Actually, when I said that epiphany seemed to be arguing that the admitted students were just “better,” I had in mind “better holistically” in the context of the pool and the institutional mission–wasn’t trying to set up an argument that some of the rejected students were “better” academically . . . </p>
<p>Do the admissions staff really believe the statements that 2 or 3 classes “just as good” could could be composed of students who were rejected? If so, is “just as good” being used to mean “equivalent in academic statistics” or "equivalent in academic statistics, EC’s, essays, letters, personal qualities . . . " but in either case, just not as desirable?</p>
<p>Let me add the question: Do they mean “just as good” holistically? And also the qualifier: Perhaps epiphany’s university doesn’t say that they could have admitted other groups just as good as those they took.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl and epiphany, would you be willing to join me on threads this coming spring when a student with 2400 scores is rejected, and the predictable characterizations of “robotic” start being hurled? (Provided that the student does not complain about URM’s, athletes, legacies . . . being admitted?)</p>
<p>The rejection of a 2400 is no sadder or more shocking than the rejection of the 2300 or 2200. Again, your assumption is … Yeah, yeah, it’s all holistic, but shouldn’t the 2400 be enough to break the holistic tie? Well, obviously not.</p>
<p>And of course I’m not going to make any judgment about an individual 2400. I have no a priori reason to think that the distribution of robotic vs interesting looks any different among 2400s as it does among 2300s, 2200s, etc.</p>
<p>"Do the admissions staff really believe the statements that 2 or 3 classes “just as good” could could be composed of students who were rejected? If so, is “just as good” being used to mean “equivalent on academic statistics” or “equivalent on academic statistics, EC’s, essays, letters, personal qualities . . . " but in either case, just not as desirable?”</p>
<p>No, QM. They don’t believe it. They believe they have found the sole shining gems in their 25,000 apps and every single rejected student is just pretty much an abject failure @@.</p>
<p>Did you not read my analogies to dating and careers? Did you not read epiphany’s description? This is really simple. I don’t know why you’re not understanding it.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl, no one tends to call a rejected student with a 2200 “robotic.” At least, I have never seen it on CC. </p>
<p>I don’t understand the extremes in post #884. (I get that it’s sarcastic.) But it seems to me that the admissions people do think that the students they admitted are “better” in some way than the ones they did not take. Otherwise, they really would resort to throwing darts, tossing the applications down the stairs . . . I think they are operating with some set of criteria in mind, and they make decisions about preferences. Then the use of “just as good” seems a little dubious to me.</p>
<p>If they had to take their second or third class, the class would be probably slightly less appealing holistically but not in any meaningful, significant way that would radically change the caliber of the student body, be noticeable to profs, etc. Because the seconds and thirds are still very strong at these schools that have amazingly qualified applicants. </p>
<p>I mean, what do you THINK would be the difference between the first and hypothetical second classes? They’d likely differ only slightly if at all on stats. They’d still contain plenty of leaders, angular geniuses, BWRKs, and so forth. I don’t know why you would think otherwise. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise.</p>
<p>I have never said that a 2400 is sufficient to break a holistic tie. What I have said: when a student with 2400 + a number of other strong qualifications is rejected, there do tend to be a lot of accusations on CC that the student is “robotic” or the equivalent.</p>
<p>So, if students with high stats and other unusually strong “paper” qualifications are rejected, and the CC commentary starts to suggest that the rejection is due to their personal limitations, then</p>
<p>Next spring, will you join me, Pizzagirl, in posting something to the effect that they are amazingly qualified, just about as likely to be good people as the students who were accepted, and probably just didn’t capture the imagination of admissions?</p>
<p>(Again, I’m never leaping to the defense of students who blame URM’s or students in other special categories.)</p>
<p>Often, the 2400s have been misled to believe that their credential is so special than it’s an automatic in. It’s glaringly obvious that colleges do indeed just look for the “floor” and once you’re above the floor, the 2200 vs 2300 vs 2400 matters at the margin. MIT Chris says this multiple times on CC in his capacity representing MIT, but I guess what would he know about elite admissions.</p>
<p>QM, this is simple. These schools have so many strong applicants they have the luxury of being able to pick and choose who ever best suits their fancy on holistic criteria, and they don’t have to assign getting a 2400 some huge, overwhelming weight. Much as those who get 2400s would like them to, or sometimes feel entitled to.</p>
<p>collegealum314 has posted quite a while ago (elsewhere, and “quite a while” = at least 2 years) that he knows students MIT rejected, who concluded that they just weren’t cut out for top-flight science/engineering, and decided to do something else.</p>
<p>Well, certainly those fields need people who can deal with setbacks, so there might actually be a bit of a mis-match there. On the other hand, the students are mostly 17, and they have yet to test their wings outside of their home environments. So they really don’t have a good way of assessing whether they can be successful or not. I can cut them some slack about that.</p>
<p>We could really use good people to solve problems in science and engineering. We lose a lot of them at each stage of the educational process. Another “will you join me” question: Will you join me, Pizzagirl, in posting to the discouraged students that they are probably not significantly different from the students who were admitted?</p>
<p>Pizzagirl, I don’t think you understand what I am saying. When you read the admissions data tables, it is quite obvious that a 2400 is not an automatic admission. I think the 2400 scorers are aware of that.</p>
<p>I am writing specifically about the CC phenomenon of jumping on a 2400 scorer, when the student is rejected. If the student has a 3.2 GPA + 2400, no one says that the student is robotic–at least, I’ve never seen anyone say that. It’s the students with 2400 + very high GPA + AP’s + creditable list of EC’s who draw that comment. Presumably this occurs because other students imagine that’s a lock for admission (in the absence of personality defects).</p>
<p>“Next spring, will you join me, Pizzagirl, in posting something to the effect that they are amazingly qualified, just about as likely to be good people as the students who were accepted, and probably just didn’t capture the imagination of admissions?”</p>
<p>“just as likely to be good people” is an odd phrase. We aren’t talking about people’s inherent goodness – people who are rejected from elite schools aren’t all of a sudden not good people. Did you mean that?</p>
<p>But leaving that aside – well, of course they might have been qualified and just not captured the interest of the adcom. Duh. But, if they got acceptance into some other fine school, then I’m really not to engage in any kind of pity party. Hitting any school at (say) the top 20 level is still hitting the jackpot, and I will not indulge the whininess of “I got rejected from the Ivies so I have to settle for Vanderbilt, Rice, Carnegie Mellon and Duke.” I wouldn’t tolerate that attitude in my kids and I’m not too tolerant of it in others.</p>
<p>Sure, I’d join you.</p>
<p>" has posted quite a while ago (elsewhere, and “quite a while” = at least 2 years) that he knows students MIT rejected, who concluded that they just weren’t cut out for top-flight science/engineering, and decided to do something else"</p>
<p>Then their parents failed them by not explaining the difference, or they aren’t all that bright despite whatever scores and grades they have. Why on earth would they draw such a conclusion?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As someone who suffered my first “academic” type rejection at age 16, I’d have to agree with this.</p>
<p>There are kids accepted by Caltech but rejected by MIT and vice versa, for goodness sake.</p>
<p>Really, I think this entire line of thinking and debate could only occur on this website.</p>
<p>Heck, I don’t know why a kid would draw such a conclusion even if they got rejected by BOTH MIT and Caltech!</p>
<p>
Me neither. But I used that as an example of why it is completely illogical to draw such a conclusion.</p>
<p>I’m certain there are many future scientists and engineers in state schools as I type this.</p>
<p>My reaction to rejection (and I suspect the reaction of a lot of young kids) was always “I’ll show those b@st@rd$”. Of course, I never did show them. but I didn’t abandon all my life plans based on some unfavorable result in something. That’s really sad to even think about.</p>
<p>90 comments on a Friday afternoon/evening, all about Ivy athletics. Only on CC. :)</p>
<p>"I think that’s a horrible idea, to grade 18 yo’s based on some presupposition that they darn well better know exactly what it is that they are going to do, and that they’re expected to predict the future of it in some way. I think that’s a very linear, in the box approach – you declared yourself interested in chemistry, you’d darn well better have researched everything about chemistry. No room for serendipity in life, no room for admitting that you don’t know everything. I grow more and more convinced every day that I don’t belong with my fellow math majors anymore. In. The. Box. "</p>
<p>Pizzagirl - We are talking about top 5000-10000 kids in the nation/world who might be a fit for these elite schools in STEM area. If they don’t know how to imagine a future and what they want to do in it with their major, then may be they are not ready for MIT and Caltech at that point of their life and need to apply 4 years down the line for graduate program. </p>
<p>MIT has a question about what department you want to be in and why does it appeal to you in this year’s application. In my opinion, it just does nt go far enough since they allow only 100 words or something.<br>
UPenn has a question for dual degree majors in business and engineering that says.
“Discuss your interest in combining management and technology. How might Penn’s coordinated dual-degree program in business and engineering help you meet your goals? Please be sure to address the nature and extent of your interests in both business and engineering. (Please answer in one page, approximately 500 words.)”</p>
<p>^^^^ #899 In addition, the kids know how to do research. If the answer isn’t in their HS knowledge base, look it up.</p>
<p>However, most probably have many years of Star Trek and other science fiction to stimulate an answer. I know my son wrote about Jurassic Park in his graduate school application, and he could have written about very advanced scientific knowledge.</p>