Why was he rejected?

Colleges & Universities Massachusetts Institute of Technology
61

<p>

</p>

<p>Nobody is claiming that. Certainly MIT admissions is not claiming that. They are making a very different claim. They want to enroll students who will prosper at MIT. They have found that below a threshold, SAT scores are very highly correlated with future MIT success. Someone admitted to MIT with a combined SAT of 1700 is likely to struggle. However, once students pass that threshold, then increases in the SAT correlate much less closely with future MIT success. That does not say that a student who scores 2400 is not more likely to do well than one who scores 2300, but merely that that difference does not correlate sufficiently well enough with what MIT is looking for for that to be any sort of determining factor. It becomes other parts of the application that matter more.</p>

<p>None of us see the application. We do not see the essays (regardless of how brilliant other folks claim they might be). We do not read the letters of recommendation or the interview report. We just do not see the entirety of the application folder. And people do not apply to universities; application folders apply to universities. MIT struggles to meet the person behind the folder, to get that person into the folder (a key function of the interview) but all that they will see is that folder. Therefore it is pointless trying to guess why a particular student was or was not admitted. We truly have no grounds to guess how an applicant was perceived. </p>

<p>Every year, as an international EC, I meet brilliant, talented, wonderful, dynamic students who are rejected. It is just a numbers game. That being said, every international student I have ever seen accepted is really quite wonderful.</p>

62

<p>

</p>

<p>Obviously a good statement.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>While it’s touching and great for them to remember the students this way, it doesn’t make this a valid reason necessarily (depending on what the interesting fact is) for admission. This is exactly what collegealum objected to earlier, which I object to as well. </p>

<p>For those of us who care to figure it out, different stellar maths/science applicants are different. They’re not all part of an amorphous category called “very intelligent”. They can be talented in different ways where their dedication/talent can be gauged through hard and fast evidence.</p>

<p>For all I know, MIT already does all this, and they don’t follow the attitude I am objecting to, and that’s just speculation of some posters here. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>With due respect, is this not a lazy and dismissive answer? I think there’s a lot more subtletly involved to all this than whether a perfect SAT should be guaranteed admission or not. I think there are very few of us who in our heart of hearts believe that the SAT should be the measure to get people into MIT. I don’t even see a point debating this – I haven’t seen anyone arguing otherwise anyway. The point of further discussion is more subtle.</p>

63

<p>

</p>

<p>I think this is very much a good thing, although I think there are plenty, including MIT students themselves, who would have strong opinions as to what parts should be seriously considered, and how much can be extrapolated from other parts.</p>

64

<p>“Good grief. MIT doesn’t care about wealth - it’s not a factor. That’s why I wish people would stop speculating about what MIT does or does not consider when looking at thousands of applications.”</p>

<p>lol if you have a spare 10 million dollars sitting around and you donate it to MIT, I’m sure they’ll take you</p>

65

<p>

</p>

<p>MIT doesn’t do this. You know, Michael Dell (yeah, that Dell) made a multi-million dollar donation to MIT and he wanted to meet with some of the profs. They totally blew him off. I overheard this in the EECS department office.</p>

66

<p>

</p>

<p>If “math/science/award/genius/perfect score stuff” bores someone, maybe they should find a different line of work than as an admissions officer at MIT. Anyway, I find that people that don’t meet a certain threshold of intelligence and/or experience in academics can’t tell the difference between academic types, and therefore think they are all exactly the same and boring. Mathboy expressed some sentiments in this regard that I agree with. It also reminds me of the Feynman bongo drums story. An encyclopedia wanted to do an entry on him and they had heard he played the bongo drums, so they asked for a picture of him playing the drums. Feynman happily obliged, and the encyclopedia people wrote him back a thank you, saying that it was nice to be able to show him doing a “human activity.” Feynman wrote back an angry letter, saying that theoretical physics was not inhuman. If you look at the '92 Dream Team in basketball, the players were all outstanding, but they weren’t carbon copies of each other. They didn’t even approach the game the same way. Even if you took only the stars at one position, they were totally different personality-wise and how they approach their work. The same is true in math and science. </p>

<p>And I feel what some admissions directors (like Jones) think is interesting is actually a caricature of the zany scientist. Like a science guy who juggles or something weird like that. It’s insulting. You shouldn’t force future scientists to put on a clown suit in order to distinguish themselves.</p>

<p>And another thing, “we don’t admit people who can’t do the work” is such a cliche’ and should be banished from admissions. The point isn’t to admit people who can pass the classes; it’s to find the people most likely to transform their chosen field. That may mean rejecting a 2400 scorer for a guy with 2250, but it probably doesn’t mean rejecting a USAMO qualifier for someone who got straight B’s in math or science. </p>

<p>There are a lot of candidates that may roughly look the same; for instance, high-scoring valedictorians with no major awards. However, if people rise significantly above that in terms of academic achievement they should definitely get in over those less accomplished. The words “less accomplished” is not always clear, but sometimes it is obvious. </p>

<p>Rant over.</p>

67

<p>

</p>

<p>Sure, but data points in a direction to where high scores are disproportionately favored over lower scores.</p>

68

<p>

It doesn’t. At least not the data you posted. Just because the relationship between SAT score and admittance rate isn’t linear doesn’t mean it’s anything more than correlation.</p>

69

<p>

</p>

<p>Actually that won’t necessarily do it. I actually put that question to Stu Schmill about 18 months ago, and asked if he had the flexibility to reject folks like that, and he swore that he did. He also noted that most of his colleagues at other colleges and universities across the US did not have that freedom, and he was aware how fortunate he was to enable MIT admissions to remain actually need BLIND.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>This is actually one of the tamer version of this sentiment that I have seen on this forum, but it ticks me off every time. It is fundamentally the idea that the admissions officers just don’t get it, they they don’t have a proper understanding of what MIT is and what science is. After all, they aren’t full time scientists or engineers. This has always struck me as a tautology. Of course people who have a full time job in admissions have a different job than scientists. Duh… </p>

<p>The MIT admissions office by and large do get it. Heck, many of them are MIT alums. Dean Schmill is an alum, Kim Hunter, Matt McGann, Mikey Yang, etc are all alumni of MIT. Admissions officers visit events across the US looking to recruit applications from national competitors in the FIRST Robotics competition or entrants to the Intel International Science & Engineering Fair. I do think that the admissions officers know exactly what they are doing, and how to value these achievements. And yes there are many, many academic stars each year that do not get in, but that is definitely not because MIT needs to see them playing the bongos.</p>

70

<p>

</p>

<p>Have you constructed that acausal (“it’s just correlation”) model yet, or are just speculating that one might exist?</p>

71

<p>Well, I form judgements based on what people say, and not simply their career choice. And when I refer to “admissions directors,” I’m not necessarily singling out MIT. In fact, I think it’s worse at the peer schools. I don’t know many of the people you named, and in fact I was and am impressed with Stu Schmill. Besides seeming like a down-to-earth person, I was impressed with one of his blog entries about how applicants don’t have to take the kazoo (it was some weird instrument like that) in order to distinguish themselves. I wished he had taken over in '98 instead of last year. </p>

<p>However, as I’ve said, I wasn’t impressed by Jones at all. And I still see her rhetoric trickling out of various representatives of MIT. For example, the MIT interviewer posting about how two hypothetical MIT applicants who won the Nobel Prize at 10 may “blur” together because they are the same; so maybe one of them gets rejected in favor of someone without the apparently boring “math/science/award/genius/perfect score stuff” profile. And, more disturbingly, it seems to have changed the mindset of some high school students. Specifically, I feel like some students think they shouldn’t master their fundamentals because MIT admissions doesn’t seem to value that. Or if they have mastered their fundamentals, they may say people with much worse grades getting in over them and think that maybe they are approaching school wrong. Anyway, I think Jones has heavily influenced her protege’s in the admission office. Though I personally have confidence in Stu, I wonder if Stu Schmill has the desire or force of will to change this culture. In order to change something, you have to have a pretty strong conviction and a willingness to ruffle some feathers. </p>

<p>I am speaking a bit abstractly here, but those of you are regulars here know my outlook and what I don’t agree with in MIT admissions.</p>

72

<p>

MIT admissions has said several times that over a certain threshold the SAT score doesn’t play a role in the admissions decision. The data you provided doesn’t necessarily contradict what they are saying.</p>

73

<p>

</p>

<p>Jones was apparently a strong and opinionated administrator who, one assumes, shaped the admissions office policies and personnel in accordance with her own tastes. Let me requote a few items from the discussion at the time she resigned, after two of the admissions officers (one of whom is an MIT alumnus mentioned in #69 who stayed and has been promoted) posted a message on MIT’s blog supporting her work: </p>

<p>

</p>

74

<p>

</p>

<p>You still haven’t answered the question, and are continuing to mis-state MIT’s comments on tests. If what they look for beyond SAT score is mostly a slate of other national SAT-like tests that measure the same thing (something that is not much of an if for those who have read the MIT admission officer comments here), there is no mysterious other causal factor that the SAT is “correlating” with. It’s essentially one scale and MIT is nailing down your position on it through multiple measurements, as is necessary due to the noisiness of any one. For all the other factors such as grades, work ethic, dedication to engineering, etc things are harder to measure and compare, so the picture of a basic cutoff and not much further sensitivity may (and apparently does) apply for those. It is only the cognitive measuring scale that applies to the entire applicant pool and spreads it out, visibly and with some resolution. </p>

<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/massachusetts-institute-technology/885293-sat-3.html#post1064392864[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/massachusetts-institute-technology/885293-sat-3.html#post1064392864&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

75

<p>

What part am I mis-stating, exactly?</p>

<p>And yes, grades are more difficult to measure and compare, but they also represent an applicant’s performance over a span of several years, not several hours. Used in conjunction with class rank and highschool profile, I imagine they are a far more relevant piece of the application than SAT score.</p>

76

<p>

</p>

<p>Mikalye, as easily as people blow off the ability of admissions to do their job correctly, and as much as this “ticks you off,” does it ever “tick you off” how easily people blow off respectful complaints and qualms?</p>

<p>I think there is offensive stuff spouted from both extremes. There is the extreme that thinks admissions are clowns who’ve never seen a science book, and there is the extreme that thinks everyone who calls for a sanity check in terms of adhering to fundamental academic concerns is either a mindless physics drone with no personality or an insulting pig-head who thinks half of MIT’s students are worthless and *dares to speak without seeing the whole application *. </p>

<p>Perhaps think about it. I’m sure we can be intelligent and not fall into either category if we choose. Perhaps the words of certain individuals really do disrespect things that shouldn’t be disrespected, and both sides can agree on that.</p>

77

<p>Mathboy98,</p>

<p>I am sorry if I offended you; it wasn’t really my intent. I have yet to meet any admitted MIT student who does not have mastery of the fundamentals or have basic academic qualifications. However, I have met both extremes in my years of interviewing. </p>

<p>I have met the brilliant student who was only vaguely human, who spent spare time reading textbooks, had not made any friends per se in school, and was happiest when he did not have to interact with other human beings. There are quite a few of those folks out there. Many of them do very well in some of the exams, and indeed in things like the most important mathematics qualifiers which are essentially solitary pursuits. Most, but not all, of these students do not get into MIT. And I think that that is correct. You suggest that the criteria would be to try to identify those with the greatest possibility to transform their respective fields of study. I respectfully disagree. I think that the goal of admissions should be to identify those who will most successfully prosper and contribute to the MIT community. A lot of classes at MIT are designed to be approached in groups. This is not accidental. Most of modern science is collaborative. Someone who has not managed to make one identifiable friend in all of high school, is highly unlikely to have much impact on campus and may struggle on their lack of social skills alone, regardless of how brilliant they are.</p>

<p>I have also (and much more rarely) met folks who should be admitted despite comparatively modest academic achievement. I have met students from rural backgrounds where hardly anyone leaves school to go to university, who have achieved stunning things given the dearth of resources that they have had to work with. These are extremely rare, but I would say that every one I have interviewed, has been admitted not only to MIT but also to every other American university that they have applied to.</p>

<p>I have also met students with 2300 on their SATs eager to take them again so as to separate themselves from the other applicants, and unwilling to believe that that is not the way to set themselves apart. That is most common, and I have heard admissions officers at most competitive universities trying to assure such students that that is not the way to impress them. Sometimes their vocabulary gets more elaborate than is perhaps necessary, but I strongly believe that, by and large, the MIT admissions office gets it right most of the time.</p>

78

<p>Mikalye, you interview internationally, if I am remembering correctly? I have to admit that I have relatively few acquaintances who are 17-year-old international applicants from countries that have a high-pressure, test-oriented culture–so I cannot really assess your statements in context. Nevertheless, it seems wrong to me to call someone “only vaguely human.” Everyone I have ever met is fully human.</p>

79

<p>No, no offense taken from you Mikalye :smiley: I was actually talking about those with an extreme version of your viewpoint, so extreme that it doesn’t respect a legitimate concern. I am speaking of those who legitimately [some certainly on this thread] refer to the tons of great maths/science achievements as all boring after a point, suggesting other aspects of personality as helpful.</p>

<p>Let me give some brief responses.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>The short response I have is that they’re wasting their time – this is not the sort of academic measure they should be working at anyway, and would likely say little useful for a technical school’s admissions committee.</p>

<p>Nevertheless, there are so many other ways people show explicit involvement in academics. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Remember, I’m not officially for or against their policy, to make this very clear. I don’t even know how they operate extremely well. But I do know that the way certain posters here try to describe it is quite unacceptable and plainly just offensive to dedicated students. The reason I post around here is actually very little specific to MIT, but mainly because it’s a certain center for excellence in maths/science/engineering (and of course other things), and I genuinely think some questionable views about education in this area circulate. </p>

<p>I realize people often post offensive views, like “they got in only because they’re girls” or “because they’re a URM” – I’m not interested in singling out people, but rather pointing out general views people seem to display * in response* to aforementioned which are bothersome. Calling someone a boring, technical drone is really not better to me than assuming they’re unqualified because they’re of an under-represented race. I feel more people sound out the latter case, fewer for the former.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Certainly most of modern science may be collaborative – perhaps the best measure of the success you’re talking of is if the student has mastered fundamentals solidly and also is aware of this collaborative nature, and has actually experienced it. I don’t see how, though, if such fields are by nature collaborative, those prospering in the community should be different from those according to the “transforming” definition.</p>

<p>I am very much against the focus of any school involving identifying whether someone made an identifiable friend in high school. It makes most sense for the focus to be directly looking for signs of success in in the academic side of things, * while acknowledging* the nature of the modern setting in this fields. My impression also is that those who are very academically inclined needn’t be unfriendly at all. More commonly, it’s just that their interests are narrow, they may be aloof from the latest movie that came out, or whatever – instead, they may have been reading the latest physics article. And sometimes, they may have diverse interests too.</p>

80

<p>i got in as a recruited football player with good scores, but nothing crazy, no big science or math awards. MIT definitely likes kids that they think will be succesful and carry out the name well in the world. i took the sats once and got a 1490, and was happy with it. it seems as though you need to fill a role in their applicant pool, the whole student body cant be IMO geniuses etc that study all day and cant interact well. these kids, however smart, are not going to be CEO’s nd such, you need people skills for so many fields.</p>