Which schools are true meritocracies?

[molliebatmit]

<p>

also, since this kid was a unique case (perfect test scores, etc.) MIT sort of had to have a “reason” to reject him.

This is not a unique case in MIT’s applicant pool.</p>

[collegealum314]

<p>^^yeah, no kidding.</p>

[Newjack88]

<p>

This is not a unique case in MIT’s applicant pool.

ok? NO! it is EXTREMELY rare for a kid to get perfect scores on the SAT, ACT, and three subject tests. anyways the point is that if MIT is close to being a meritocracy, this kid from my school would have gotten in. but, obviously, kids with lower scores got in over him. if MIT were a meritocracy it would not matter whether or not he showed a “passion” for the sciences/math since, according to his test scores and his grades, he would have been able to excel at these studies because he was simply brilliant at everything he did. </p>

<p>bottomline, MIT is no different than Harvard, Stanford, etc. in terms of the subjectiveness of the admissions process.</p>

[differential]

<p>Actually Newjack88, as CollegeAlum said earlier, just winning a few science fairs and having great test scores on the SAT, ACT, and subject tests isn’t considered physics genius. And please don’t cite the math/science SAT II’s, those exams are absolute jokes for top science/math students. Many science/math students can easily get a string of 800’s with virtually no preparation what so ever (I know first hand), forget physics geniuses.</p>

<p>If I were to label someone a physics genius, I would expect them to have at least made the US Physics Olympiad camp, have covered a significant amount of post-high school mathematics (I’m talking beyond linear algebra, differential equations and multivariable calculus), have a introductory (if not advanced) understanding of topics such as elementary quantum mechanics, relativity, particle physics, etc. </p>

<p>So you can hopefully understand when I say there are VERY few physics geniuses in the world, let alone the US.</p>

<p>“he would have been able to excel at these studies because he was simply brilliant at everything he did.”</p>

<p>Actually no. If MIT had the same structure of education as this kid’s HS, then maybe, but MIT is way different. It is much more intense in a way that most HS students and their parents can’t imagine. A lot of “brilliant” HS kids come here and get their ego smacked really really hard. Not all of them get back up.</p>

[collegealum314]

<p>“bottomline, MIT is no different than Harvard, Stanford, etc. in terms of the subjectiveness of the admissions process.”</p>

<p>Even if MIT made a mistake in your friend’s case, you haven’t proved that MIT’s subjectiveness is equal to that of Harvard, Stanford, etc. I have seen things far worse from the other schools. This is why I said MIT was in between HYPS and Caltech in terms of being a meritocracy.</p>

<p>I actually do agree with one of your points. If someone shows that they have excelled more than other people, forget about what you think their level of “passion” is. However, if I were running admissions at MIT, I would still want to see performance on harder exams/competition than the SATI and SATII’s before I decided who was the genius.</p>

[tokenadult]

<p>I’ve had discussions before in other threads on CC about the MIT application’s recommendation form, which mentions student characteristics in checkboxes for the recommender to check off. One characteristic is “brilliance of mind,” and another is “persistent hard work.” Would it be a reasonable conclusion that MIT is looking for students who have both of those characteristics checked off, or is “hard work” a negative characteristic?</p>

[collegealum314]

<p>^^I have no clue. Did they make you choose only one box only?</p>

<p>I hope they rewrite the application.</p>

[tokenadult]

<p>

@MIT recommendation form

How has the applicant achieved good grades in your class? Check as many as apply.
■ By consistent hard work ■ By grade consciousness ■ By virtue of memory ■ By brilliance of mind
■ Other _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

</p>

<p><a href=“http://web.mit.edu/admissions/pdf/MITevalA.pdf[/url]”>http://web.mit.edu/admissions/pdf/MITevalA.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[kyledavid80]

<p>

MIT doesn’t really consider legacy kyledavid.

</p>

<p>MIT says directly in their Common Data Set that legacy is considered. I don’t see why this is still being disputed, as it’s straight from the horse’s mouth. To what extent is another question that there is currently no data for (to my knowledge); most of those making claims on this thread are basing them on anecdotal evidence.</p>

[collegealum314]

<p>^^because several high-level admission committee members have been quoted as saying that they read the applications of legacy rejects over as a courtesy to alumni parents to make sure no gross error has been made, but that they have never reversed a decision because of this.</p>

[Narcissa]

<p>caltech ? :]</p>

[Newjack88]

<p>

If I were to label someone a physics genius, I would expect them to have at least made the US Physics Olympiad camp, have covered a significant amount of post-high school mathematics (I’m talking beyond linear algebra, differential equations and multivariable calculus), have a introductory (if not advanced) understanding of topics such as elementary quantum mechanics, relativity, particle physics, etc.

that’s how our GC described him. if this kid didn’t do those activities it’s because no one here has even heard of those opportunities or has access to them.</p>

[Narcissa]

<p>lmao…this whole thread is about MIT and legacies…</p>

<p>

I’ve seen an all-state musician, double USAMO/USAPHO qualifier who was on the national champion ARML team get rejected from Harvard. This was back when you had to be in the top 100 in the country to make USAMO. And his grades/stats were perfect. So there are much worse cases than your friend happening at the other elite schools.

lol it was never top 100.it was top 250. but that’s still pretty sickk. btw Harvard also rejected a few IMO and IPhO medalers, cuz they kinda deduced that the applicant really didn’t want to go anyways (they all went to MIT instead).</p>

<p>

It’s very unlikely that the admissions office would give a reason why a specific candidate was rejected. They may have said that one way someone could get rejected despite perfect scores was if they didn’t demonstrate enough passion.</p>

<p>I have been a pretty outspoken critic here of MIT’s concept of demonstrating “passion”, but your example is not a good one. The SAT I and SATII’s have a pretty low ceiling. Did this guy make USAMO? Did he make the training camp for the physics olympics? That’s what most scientists consider a “genius.” Caltech doesn’t care whether you make one mistake on an SAT or no mistakes either–you’ve got to win some contests where the ceiling is higher.

lol when i read physics genius i thought US physics team–altho even if that’s the case there are worse cases of physics/math geniuses being rejected. oh nd having perfect scores across the board isn’t really that rare btw.</p>

<p>

if this kid didn’t do those activities it’s because no one here has even heard of those opportunities or has access to them.

well that’s not really MIT or the school’s fault. everyone has access to the US physics team screening test btw.</p>

[asinine]

<p>But Caltech isn’t need blind to internationals though…</p>

[Narcissa]

<p>

ok? NO! it is EXTREMELY rare for a kid to get perfect scores on the SAT, ACT, and three subject tests.

no it isn’t. lol. i know a few</p>

<p>

is “hard work” a negative characteristic?

on CC and to me hard work is a very negative characteristic. however, for the rest of the world and to most teachers, it is not.</p>

[collegealum314]

<p>“lol it was never top 100.it was top 250. but that’s still pretty sickk. btw Harvard also rejected a few IMO and IPhO medalers, cuz they kinda deduced that the applicant really didn’t want to go anyways (they all went to MIT instead).”</p>

<p>It used to be 150-160 back in 1996. I just said top 100 because a good chunk of the qualifiers were juniors. This guy wanted to go to Harvard.</p>

[Newjack88]

<p>

lol when i read physics genius i thought US physics team–altho even if that’s the case there are worse cases of physics/math geniuses being rejected. oh nd having perfect scores across the board isn’t really that rare btw.

you guys are operating under the assumption that all schools/school environments are like yours. in my state, it’s exceptional to get perfect scores across the board. it’s not like Cali/North East/etc. where you have the stereotypical cutthroat Asian kid/Jewish kid/White/Black prep school kid working his or her behind off to get into ivies. doing all those science fair, math contests, etc to show that they have “passion” for math and science lol. to people here that sounds lame. people here show passion by teaching themselves things in their spare time. it’s more chillaxed here, hardly anyone including my GC has even heard of CC lol… and there aren’t any “nerds.” everyone who is smart here is very well rounded and do sports or at least like them, etc.</p>

[kyledavid80]

<p>

because several high-level admission committee members have been quoted as saying that they read the applications of legacy rejects over as a courtesy to alumni parents to make sure no gross error has been made, but that they have never reversed a decision because of this.

</p>

<p>I’d like to see such a quote; that’s usually what you do when there’s disagreement – provide a source (which I did). From what I’d read, Harvard’s acceptance rate for legacies is something like 40%. I daresay MIT’s would be similar. I could be wrong, so it’d be nice to see some data on it, also. Otherwise, the best we can go on is official information (such as the CDS).</p>

[collegealum314]

<p>"if this kid didn’t do those activities it’s because no one here has even heard of those opportunities or has access to them. "</p>

<p>Well, if we have evidence that another applicant aced the AIME but got 1 wrong on a couple of the SATII’s, do you really think we should take the guy with the perfect stats on the remedial SATII’s? I swear like at least 50 people in my school got 770+ on the SATII’s and an 800 on the math SATII. (Someone found out one guy got a 780 on the math SAT, and he got a little good-natured teasing from the rest of the math team.) I still think your friend was more qualified than some others that got in, but I don’t think the guy’s accomplishments were so awesome that it would have to be a mistake for him to get rejected.</p>

[collegealum314]

<p>“I’d like to see such a quote; that’s usually what you do when there’s disagreement – provide a source (which I did). From what I’d read, Harvard’s acceptance rate for legacies is something like 40%. I daresay MIT’s would be similar. I could be wrong, so it’d be nice to see some data on it, also. Otherwise, the best we can go on is official information (such as the CDS).”</p>

<p>I don’t have a source handy, but I read that Marilee Jones said that. I imagine if you googled Marilee Jones, MIT, and legacy it might come up. Mollieb also said that Ben Jones said it as well. She knew several high-level admission committee members, and she echoes what we have said. </p>

<p>I’m sure the legacy admit rate isn’t 40%. Regardless, a certain part of that could be just genes so it is hard to separate. Feynman’s kid went to MIT–probably he didn’t need any boost though.</p>