<p>I don’t know the students who decided to opt for something other than science and engineering, but I wouldn’t be too hard on them. The last time I read about it, there were faculty spots in research universities (in the U.S.) for about only 10% of the physics postdocs. I believe that fewer people are hired in physics each year, at American research universities, than are drafted into the NFL.</p>
<p>Of course, some of the physics hires were undergrads at state schools. And a student might decide to give physics a try, despite the long odds, just because she/he would enjoy studying it as an undergraduate, even if the career odds were similar to a high-school basket ball player’s making it into the NBA.</p>
<p>But studying physics is actually fairly arduous. (Studying Arabic, or history is also arduous–I’m not making an exclusionary statement. Playing varsity sports at a Division I school is also arduous–not saying it isn’t!) </p>
<p>If the odds of success, in terms of being able to continue for a career in physics look quite low, the person making the decision is 17, and other fields are more open, I don’t think it’s any more “wrong” for the person to decide to opt out of physics than it would be for an athlete who played varsity football in high school to decide to be pre-med. And I wouldn’t blame them if they took rejection as a sign that they aren’t likely to keep making the cuts along the way.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl, of course I am not saying that the highly qualified students who were rejected are not good people! But that type of charge is fairly commonly leveled against them on some of the results forums!</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>So basically you’re privileging a) kids of current scientists who have access to labs and / or b) kids who live in urban areas / near such labs. The emphasis on research always struck me as being a very upscale marker. I know my daughter couldn’t have done work at either of the major labs in our metropolitan area because it would essentially require us buying her a car to get back and forth, or having a parent who could spend hours a day driving since they aren’t on any public transportation lines. The interns at these places are undoubtedly extremely bright and deserving kids – but they’re all rich kids who used major connections to get their internships. Good for them taking advantage of their opportunities – I’d have done the same for my D but my connections weren’t as good – but I don’t like using a rich-kid marker any more than I’d want access to lacrosse or water polo to be used as a sole marker. So the smart kid who has to babysit his siblings instead of go to the lab, or the smart kid who lives in East Podunk or in the 'hood is just plumb out of luck, eh? Don’t you have to judge kids based on how well they took advantage of the opportunities that were available to them in their context, instead of presupposing that they all should have done something?</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>No - I’m not objecting to such a statement, I’m objecting to “have their ideas be evaluated for actual do-ability by the professors in those fields.”</p>
I don’t know what you mean by “career odds.” Certainly not everyone who undertakes any field of study should expect to be a tenured researcher, or post doc, or anything like that. But if they enjoy science or technology, why whould they give that up merely because they weren’t admitted to their first choice school? And if they don’t actually enjoy it, why study it anyway?</p>
<p>Not everyone with a physics degree has to work in academia, or go on to graduate school for that matter. I happen to know something about this, because my first undergraduate degree is in Physics (Biophysics actually - from a UC school) and I got a job in the defense industry. I don’t think I was the only one, and I don’t believe that even today Physics majors are unemployable out of the university research setting. When I worked for a semiconductor capital equipment company the industry was replete with Physics majors.</p>
<p>Yes, of course, physicists can work in many fields! It’s possible that Wall Street is less interested in them right now than it used to be, but there are many opportunities out there. </p>
<p>But I can understand an alternate choice of field (rather than physics) by a 17-year-old who would ideally like to do research on dark matter–which most of the alternative careers will not permit–but appears to be facing very long odds of that.</p>
<p>Addendum: You are right, bovertine, I should have written something like “odds for a career in research on independently chosen topics.” Some companies do offer that also–sometimes after a physicist has done impressive work and has been named an IBM Fellow, or something similar.</p>
<p>Only because I can’t imagine adcoms having an idea about what the students are talking about if it gets too technical.</p>
<p>The education pyramid in this country is biased against poorer kids in most cases. They cant get internships and if they did, they can’t get there. That is one of the reasons the holistic approach of the application that gives weight to low income, URM etc works in their favor. But just like dreams, all of these kids have imaginations. It does nt need more than google and an idea of what one likes to write that essay.</p>
<p>MIT accepted a blind kid from India last year who is setting up computer centers in India this summer. The only idea he had was along the lines of setting up some of these centers in India to help other disadvantaged people before he joined MIT and MIT is helping him fulfill his idea.<br>
The thing that most impressed me when we toured Caltech was something the student guide said. He mentioned a freshman student who answered a question on how to isolate the HIV virus with two sentences. It was just a bonus point question that had nothing to do with the material taught. The answer was so innovative that the professor took the idea, wrote a proposal with the student and got funding from NIH/NSF to do research with that idea.</p>
<p>So I don’t want to shortchange the imaginations of these kids that get into MITs and Caltechs. it is just that no one is asking the question.</p>
<p>I agree. It’s a really odd train of thought being described - that rigid, in-the-box thinking that sadly characterizes so many on CC. What – you love science, but if you got rejected from MIT and Caltech, you’d take your ball and go home and never ever touch a science course again rather than suffer the horrors of having to be with the unwashed science major masses at Johns Hopkins or Duke or Carnegie Mellon or Northwestern or Michigan or whatever? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, as they say. The only thing I hope is that the MIT’s and Caltechs CAN sniff such people out, and broom 'em. That attitude is simultaneously that of an arrogant snob and that of a loser. And honestly, someone who really seriously thinks that way – there’s something not right about that person, pathologically speaking. Yes, that’s right, there isn’t possibly anything you could possibly learn from anyone else unless they are a professor at MIT / Caltech. Excuse me while I go throw up, ok? </p>
<p>The adulation and exaltation of certain schools as the only places worth being at – whether it’s HYPSM or bust, Ivies or bust, or MIT/Caltech or bust – is ridiculous and worthy of all the scorn and opprobrium I can possibly heap on it. I can semi-understand it among 18 yo’s who don’t have a clue, but I expect their parents to knock some sense into them. If there are parents who facilitate this kind of thinking in their children, then shame on them.</p>
<p>“So basically you’re privileging a) kids of current scientists who have access to labs and / or b) kids who live in urban areas / near such labs. The emphasis on research always struck me as being a very upscale marker” #903</p>
<p>pg, actually I was thinking of online research for the college application. Most kids have access to a library. However, most kids can’t afford Ivies, so it doesn’t really matter.</p>
<p>I forget which school was asking for the 10, 20, 30 year projection, but to me that is making good use of critical thinking skills and imagination or right brain thinking.</p>
<p>It also will tell the school something about an applicant’s “research potential”, which is what many schools are all about. Fame and fortune.</p>
<p>It’s some of those elite schools that have the largest endowments and can offer a student the best financial aid package. A student is not going to know unless he tries.</p>
<p>parent1986 - I dont think any school is asking the question. Sevmom asked me what I would I do to admit the STEM kids at MIT/Caltech/HarveyMudd/Olin if I was an adcom and that is what I proposed.</p>
<p>So I am stuck in the unenviable position of defending the proposal. May be there is a grant in there somewhere for me.</p>
<p>Oh, ok, sorry - I was thinking that you were talking about hands-on research. I certainly think that it’s fine to ask questions about projecting into the future. If not directly asked, a student who has some interesting ideas about future applications for XYZ technology could certainly work that into an essay topic, no?</p>
<p>I guess I’m asking what is it about the current process that you think penalizes, disadvantages, or doesn’t showcase the bright young stars you’re talking about, who are somehow unfairly getting turned down. Are you bothered that the adcoms who are making these decisions aren’t necessarily highly-science-literate themselves (I mean, beyond the general level that a generally educated person is) and may not recognize the transformational power of an idea that Little Johnny has?</p>
<p>In response to Pizzagirl #908: I don’t know, really, since I don’t know the students. collegealum314 mentioned their existence; apparently there were multiple people. </p>
<p>I don’t think they believed that they couldn’t study physics elsewhere–just that the message they were getting from MIT is that a rather large number of people look more promising than they do. </p>
<p>If the student’s top choice of career is independent physics research, given that the number of people in the system just keeps shrinking from undergrad physics majors, to grad students, to post-docs, to tenure-track faculty positions at research institutions, if the student apparently doesn’t look so great, relative to the [unknown] competition, right out of the starting block–well, why not go with the second choice, which might be outside of physics?</p>
<p>Continuing with the thought above, what made you think that the students we are currently writing about thought they couldn’t learn anything from someone who wasn’t a professor at MIT or Caltech? Maybe you have students like that in your area?</p>
<p>Instead of seeing the choice of something else as pathological, maybe it’s healthy to opt out of a low-odds plan for something that is apparently more achievable and almost as desirable–which doesn’t happen to be physics?</p>
<p>I would regret the alternate choice, though, when made by someone who might have advanced the field in a creative way, in physics research. </p>
<p>A suggestion: I’d think that MIT could automate a response-to-applicant system so that they could press a single key and spit out the message: “Hey, Applicant, we think your academic prospects look great, but we are more interested in entrepreneurs and political leaders right now.”</p>
<p>I think the mere fact that these top schools continue to churn out the top scientists is evidence that they are not completely screwing up their admissions. Certainly, they may reject some students who would have made more of a contribution, or as much of a contribution as the students they accept. No system is perfect. But I am certain that predicting accomplishment from high school performance is not as simple as it seems, even with the existence of all these standardized test and grades, and ECs. Especially at a time when some kids may still be developing intellectually, whereas others may have peaked in high school (myself ) Not to mention all the other social and emotional factors which can influence a kid at college.</p>
<p>Somewhat worthless anecdote - I was a NMSF. Recently I came across my old high school yearbook somewhere on line, and where the kids list their accomplishments one of my old acquaintances listed himself as, horror of horrors, “commended.” I have no idea what sort of SATs he ultimately got, but I suspect they were similar to mine. I do know that we were in pretty much all the same classes, got very similar grades, and were on the math team where we did fairly equally. </p>
<p>Out of curiosity I Googled him, and found out he earned a string of degrees from Caltech and was now some sort of research astrophysicist at JPL. Now I managed to graduate college, and have had a reasonable career, but I highly doubt there is any way I could have earned a PhD in Physics from Caltech, and become a fancy shmancy astrophysicist.</p>
<p>I never understood how they differentiate between 10000 applicants that look the same on paper (I will stipulate 2200 or above, 4.0 or above, great APs and whatever else). I only answered a question about how I would go about selecting the kids as an adcom since quantmech picked me to be on the pool and I restricted myself to STEM and tech schools.</p>
<p>It is nt too far fetched to use faculty since Caltech already uses faculty and students to evaluate applicants and it is not strictly adcoms making these decisions. It is my personal belief that Caltech has the most objective evaluation system in this country since everyone is involved in determining whether a student is a good fit. It probably only works for them since they receive 4000 applicantions and select 650.</p>
<p>Yes, Caltech admissions operates quite differently. In the past, they have had an intriguing part of the application: the box. Empty space. The applicant can put anything there–and perhaps edging to the outside of the box. Really interesting set of responses. I liked the simple ecosystem simulation that one student posted.</p>
<p>But that presumes that because kid thinks at 18 he wants to be PhD in physics, that any life path that doesn’t take him straight there with 100% guarantee isn’t worthwhile. What if he went to one of those (horrors!) “lesser schools” in physics, and found something really neat there, or combined physics with some other academic field? Nope, once you think you want to do X, apparently you can’t deviate. That’s not creative thinking. (You know, really. These other fine universities graduate physics majors and they don’t all just wind up flipping burgers. Get real.) </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The top universities all look pretty similar on paper - they all have top notch professors, beautiful campuses, smart students, etc. How do you differentiate between them? You rely on the feel, the vibe you pick up at A but not at B, of course. Maybe you spark to A and I spark to B. That’s cool.</p>
<p>A lot of smart parents on CC with sound logic, good writing skills and interesting points of view. How do you differentiate between the ones you might want to get to know better and the ones you don’t? You rely on a feel, a vibe.</p>
<p>A lot of top candidates for a job look similar on paper. How do you pick one? etc.</p>
<p>For the life of me, most people (who aren’t neurologically atypical, such as Asperger’s) use soft skills all the time in evaluating people, circumstances, jobs, situations, etc. I don’t know why the use of soft skills, or any kind of evaluation of a person that isn’t rooted in a number, seems so unfamiliar to you. Certainly you’ve made friends, felt favorably towards certain people but not others, liked some campuses better than others, become friendly with this coworker but not that coworker, etc.</p>
<p>Correct. Everyone remembers the historic 1979 NCAA Final Four that featured Larry Bird playing for Indiana State, Magic Johnson for Michigan State, and Mark Aguirre for DePaul. What many people forget is that the fourth team in that Final Four was Penn - that year’s Ivy League champion. </p>
<p>More recently the Ivy League schools can still pull off some big wins. Harvard defeated Michigan a couple of years ago. And in 2010 Cornell advanced to the round of 16 in the NCAA men’s basketball tournament before losing to Kentucky.</p>
<p>“I guess I’m asking what is it about the current process that you think penalizes, disadvantages, or doesn’t showcase the bright young stars you’re talking about, who are somehow unfairly getting turned down. Are you bothered that the adcoms who are making these decisions aren’t necessarily highly-science-literate themselves (I mean, beyond the general level that a generally educated person is) and may not recognize the transformational power of an idea that Little Johnny has?” pg</p>
<p>I’m of the belief that not that many deserving kids get turned down. If I still had my copy of “A is for Admissions” I might be able to support that idea. I remember it comes from that book. It has something to do with the numbers of the kids applying - if you apply the AI to all applicants, very few have the numbers needed to qualify. I don’t believe the other qualities are that relevant. </p>
<p>I also am of the belief that there are “feeder schools” that the top colleges draw from. They have relationships with the HS guidance counselors who can answer any questions about a student that the adcoms have. It is rare a deserving kid gets left out.</p>
– but I don’t like using a rich-kid marker any more than I’d want access to lacrosse or water polo to be used as a sole marker. So the smart kid who has to babysit his siblings instead of go to the lab, or the smart kid who lives in East Podunk or in the 'hood is just plumb out of luck, eh? Don’t you have to judge kids based on how well they took advantage of the opportunities that were available to them in their context, instead of presupposing that they all should have done something?</p>