Why was he rejected?

Colleges & Universities Massachusetts Institute of Technology
81

<p>

</p>

<p>Would Bill Gates have looked like someone with people skills at 17? He was spending all of his time in the computer lab at that time.
I know another billionaire CEO personally, and while I think he did have people skills, in high school he was just a regular guy. I don’t think he had any EC’s, nothing to show he had people skills. You don’t have to be a people skills superstar. What he did do was fool around with his computer a lot trying to do different things that were not available on the web. I know other CEO’s that are successful and who have unremarkable though adequate people skills. But when you are founding a company, it’s a bit easier. At MIT, are we training people to rise to middle management through their people skills or to found their own company? I would say the latter should be emphasized. </p>

<p>Most of the time, people who are enormous successes in a field are concentrating on developing the skills needed when they were younger. In fact, they often are obsessed with it. If you had interviewed Michael Jordan and asked him about his activities, would you have concluded that he couldn’t have transcended his field and didn’t have leadership qualities based on the fact he was spending all his free time in the gym? </p>

<p>Often these other abilities lie dormant. Beyond just checking whether someone seems relatively normal, there’s no way to chart it like with, say, mathematical ability.</p>

<p>Even if we accept that people skills are important, the question we have to ask is if we are measuring it in the right way. This is important, because I’ve seen pushy, aggressive people that appear on paper to have social skills because they were able to organize people in a bunch of activities. They were quite successful in college admissions, but I’m not sure if this is the sort of person that would work well in groups. In fact, it reminds me of a story a friend told me where he had founded a software startup with some people from another school, doing all the software work and them on the business end, and then they cut him out of the company. </p>

<p>Also, are we assigning to much weight to it considering the most successful people will be engrossed in developing their academic skills at that age. Another thing is that people develop people skills as they get older, while extreme academic abilities are usually evident at a young age. The nerdy, awkward guy may become a personable professor in 15 years. In fact, it may take them longer to develop people skills because they spend so much time academically. But it doesn’t mean they can’t work in groups.</p>

82

<p>

</p>

<p>In fact, I would almost argue that with time, people do become more personable. A professor I know who went to Harvard as an undergraduate said he was extremely uncomfortable talking to professors when he was an undergraduate. He now routinely communicates with the titans of his field, and back in the day, he was just focusing on learning his fundamentals. And he’s also known as one of the nicest, friendliest, unawkward professors when you talk to him outside of class. If someone really loves a field or line of work, (s)he will go work in it and do what is necessary to be at least as personable as necessary. In a few cases, they will still turn out crabby and sour, but I see no reason to consider this the majority.</p>

<p>I have a little analogy to make on this note. Developing people skills can actually involve a lot of what developing good writing skills does. When people measure writing skills at a very young age, what they are measuring is how quickly the individual has matured, not how well they will write one day. An English teacher I learned from actually said in as many words that we would grow in our writing abilities whether or not we went through his class, simply because we were in a phase of maturing. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Exactly the attitude I was calling disrespectful and ridiculous. The world isn’t divided into good people and Death Eaters anyway. </p>

<p>By the way, I have a relative working in a technical field who has interviewed young college graduates who seem to communicate very well, are very personable, but were very technically mediocre. Sure, in a majority of positions out there, people skills will get you farther than technical expertise, because a position that requires technical expertise is simply a rarer one. That’s why it’s called “expertise.”</p>

83

<p>

</p>

<p>Please don’t misunderstand me. Those who are very academically inclined may well be friendly. Indeed, these are the folks most likely to get into MIT. They also tend to take the initiative to sound out like-minded souls. One candidate that I interviewed who got in noted that he had quite a few friends his own age who he communicated with regularly after school, just not that many that he had met in the flesh. That might or might not be a risk but at the interview I was quite confident that he could interact socially in the flesh, and he was recognized by MIT as an academic star, and he got in.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Again I do not think that anyone is arguing this. However, I do not believe that any part of admissions at any university can be based around judging dormant or latent skills simply because these are unmeasurable and unknowable. Nobody argues that admissions is perfect, simply that they must select from the application folders in front of them. Any admissions officer will tell you that mistakes are made. Its just that these mistakes are only recognisable with hindsight.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>And they would be unlikely to get into MIT. Academic excellence is a necessary but not sufficient criteria for admissions. Most people focus on the insufficiency of it, but please do not overlook the necessity. The simple fact is that MIT can fill its class multiple times over with academically excellent people. It may well be able to fill its class with academically excellent people from India and China alone. There were some 900 identified academic stars in this years applicant pool. Being one of these is hugely beneficial to an admissions decision. A weakness in some other areas can be offset by sufficient “starriness”. </p>

<p>This, by the way, is one of the reasons why an interviewer never knows whether the applicant before them is going to get in or not. If I meet a monosyllabic kid, whose eyes never leave his shoes, and who seems to have never encountered soap, I will report this to MIT, but I do not know about their 5 patents and 3 solo articles in Nature written while in high school. Similarly I have had the experience of meeting kids who I thought were wonderful, without knowing about their dire SAT results. That being said, if you cannot communicate socially and have never encountered soap, then you better well have stunning achievements elsewhere.</p>

84

<p>

</p>

<p>This all reminds me of the saying: “The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that is the way to bet.”</p>

85

<p>All right, fair enough Mikalye.</p>

<p>Again, I’m not familiar with what MIT does do and I don’t claim things without knowing. But certainly there are things at least other posters have claimed around here that were less than logical. </p>

<p>One comment: </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I think this is exactly why some of us harp on focusing on academic excellence – it usually needn’t be something that lies dormant, and rather, significant achievements and awards generally indicate well that something is being done right. </p>

<p>If people who are friendly and exceptionally academic are the most likely to be admitted, that’s great. But that is markedly not what every poster has been saying, and this is where I decided to comment. There were gross dichotomies being drawn between genius types with no social skills and people with good stats but something pleasant to remember them by. This is what I was objecting to, and I think is a perfectly correct objection.</p>

86

<p>

</p>

<p>How do you measure that anyway? Do you just ask them if they have friends? If they are elected on student council, would that cover it? Is it based on recommendations? If so, how much evidence do they really need? Do they need to be the life of the party? </p>

<p>I just think it’s way overstated and it’s often measured the wrong way. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Well, of course, I don’t think any of us think we should discount an aversion to soap.</p>

87

<p>I would also focus on the reasons people got admitted, not the reasons they got rejected. I got rejected from MIT this year with great test scores, great classes, good ECs, and nothing that stands out as a reason to be rejected. I had a mess with going from EA to RD as a result of scheduling the physics subject test as late as I could and then getting swine flu two days before I was supposed to take it, but even if that had worked out, I would have been waitlisted at best, I think. I don’t think I was rejected as much as I was not accepted. I know a lot of MIT students, but I admit that I’m not a perfect match. However, I’ve been accepted to a lot of amazing schools, including Caltech and Harvey Mudd, where I’m a much better match. </p>

<p>When I told some of my teachers that I was rejected by MIT, they were utterly shocked. Five other students from my rather small school got accepted, and based on that, those students and my teachers fully expected me to as well. I was less surprised by my rejection because I’m not a perfect fit there. Looking at my schools, my decisions make sense compared to each other, based on how well I suit the school (let’s say my essays were very authentic and not very serious). </p>

<p>My friend at MIT who I relate to most closely is not that happy there, and was admitted more because of his incredible intellect than his suitability for the university. So, while I can pin point the reasoning behind my rejection far better than my teachers and peers, I could not predict the outcome. I can just say that the many people I know who got admitted would be much happier there than I would have been.</p>

<p>Also, even if the admissions officers are looking for certain types of students, they will have some variety. I know a lot of math geniuses, many of them at MIT, and they are all very different, but some of them would flounder in a group of others all like themselves. One of them is very nice, creative, and considerate but tends to socialize with one or two people only. He is brilliant and belongs at MIT (he’s a freshman there now), but he needs other types of people as well to function in a community. So, while I doubt they are looking for hardcore jocks, they do want a variety of types of people. You’ll have some sweet but asocial geniuses, some social ones, and some who aren’t geniuses at all but are still really awesome. But they are looking at a community as well as just academics. Students live at a college for four years, generally, so it’s not enough to provide the lectures and the projects. They have to gather a group of students who help each other grow and mature. Everyone is shaped by their communities and too many of any type of person can cause problems. While social skills come with time, they don’t develop in the wrong community. Social skills are important in life, so a place like MIT would want to nurture those skills, as well as more technical skills, in its brilliant students. Choosing students who are authentic and friendly, even if they are awkward or socially inept, is part of it. They can learn together and help each other.</p>

88

<p>

</p>

<p>This. Very well said. (By the way, you seem to have a very healthy, reasonable and positive attitude towards your college acceptances and rejections- good for you!)</p>

<p>It is also very true that MIT is not for everyone, academic superstar or not. There are some personal qualities that are pretty much required if you’re going to get anything out of the MIT experience at all. I’m not saying that everyone who is rejected doesn’t have those qualities, but don’t roll your eyes too much about “the match” concept.</p>

89

<p>@celesul, your attitude will lead you to success.
Both Caltech and Harvey mudd are amazing. Good luck.</p>

90

<p>First, good for you, celesul! I too am sure that you will be very successful.</p>

<p>Second, with regard to the applicants who seem unacquainted with soap–was that a metaphor, Mikalye, or literal? If literal, was it common? Again, I think you interview internationally? Did you ask the applicants with the apparent soap-related problems how they had traveled to the interview, and whether they had any local accommodations? If an applicant had to travel a long distance to interview, there may not have been any air-conditioned route to reach the interview locale, and they may have had nowhere to stay.</p>

<p>Also, I can’t help observing that in my experience, the place that smelled most like a very badly ventilated locker room was the old Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics (DAMTP) at Cambridge University. I think they’ve moved, though?</p>

91

<p>

</p>

<p>Excellent reasoning! You truly have a thorough understanding of the topic and a keen ability to analyze and comparatively evaluate the available data. I agree.</p>

92

<p>

Exactly right, and indeed you will never hear an MIT admissions officer ever use the term “rejected”. The term used by MIT is “not admitted”. </p>

<p>Re soap: Sadly I am being literal, but it is rare. Actually, the overwhelming majority of the candidates that I interview are great people. Internationally, MIT is unusual in that the applicant pool is quite self-selecting. It is very, very rare that I interview an international candidate applying to MIT who is not soundly qualified (of course it is a reach school for everyone). On the rare occasions that I am interviewing someone for whom MIT is a very distant reach, it is usually an American expatriate (who counts as a domestic applicant).</p>

<p>This actually has the effect of making the international applications even more competitive. Not only is the admissions percentage lower (roughly 3%), but it is 3% of a much stronger applicant pool than the American pool.</p>

93

<p>

</p>

<p>YIKES!</p>

<p>But yes, there are the select few computer engineers who’ve heard of every wonderful piece of technology except soap…</p>

94

<p>

</p>

<p>These are magic words.</p>

95

<p>I realize that this thread is very close to three years old. However, there has been a lot of discussion of it on another thread in the Parents Forum, and it was suggested that I return here to make my remarks.</p>

<p>Actually, I have said it already: I think that it is flat out wrong and not at all humorous to characterize applicants as “only vaguely human,” as Mikalye did in an earlier post on this thread.</p>

96

<p>The post in question was #77.</p>

<p>I believe in free speech, and do not believe in censorship. Accompanying that, I believe that the cure for inappropriate speech is more speech.</p>

<p>On the one hand, I am sorry to be so humorless about this. On the other hand, I believe that every person I have ever met is fully human. I believe that every person I haven’t met is also fully human. It just doesn’t seem to be an appropriate kind of joke, in my opinion.</p>

97

<p>Providing moral support for QM.</p>

98

<p>ditto.</p>

<p>emphatically agree with QM. I find “only vaguely human” inexcusable in any context.</p>

99

<p>I’ll throw one in on the other side.</p>

<p>I don’t think this is a big deal, and I don’t think it was worth reviving a 3-year-old thread.</p>

100

<p>Oh wow, I do agree with Piper that this isn’t a big deal… especially to dredge up a 3 year old thread to indicate that people are not “only vaguely human”. I certainly understood the intent of the statement. </p>

<p>Have you ever woken up in the morning, or after a hard day, or even when you looked in the mirror and made comment to barely feeling/looking human? </p>

<p>Anyway, I do though appreciate reading the thread, I find the exchange and dialogue interesting :-).</p>