<p>Thanks, mathmom and alh! Truly, from the bottom of my heart!</p>
<p>PiperXP, with all gentleness, I would like to observe that mathmom, alh, and I are at least one generation older than you are, and I am technically old enough to be your grandmother. My viewpoint has certainly changed over time; it is possible that yours might, also. (And three years is very little time to me, now.) Don’t have any idea how old crazymonster is, but this comment might apply there, too.</p>
<p>
Sort of agree … I think it was a very unfortunate choice of words.</p>
<p>However, I don’t believe it’s worthy of digging up 3 years later to rant about MIT admissions. QM has criticized MIT admission very heavily and for extended periods of time in at least three or four threads while changing the topic an focus of at least a couple of the threads. I’ve been on CC for over 10 years and I can not remember another school’s admissions being criticized like this repeatedly … or another poster go after one school so often.</p>
<p>The irony of this is I believe MIT is a pretty unique place … one of the schools I’d suggest applicants visit because it has a unique culture that most applicants will love or hate. Having a unique environment is not an accident and I assume admissions plays a vital role in creating that unique wonderful place … then on CC we have a unique on-going attach against those admissions folks.</p>
<p>Do I believe MIT admissions are perfect? Heck no. Do they miss some folks they should admit? Yes. Do they misspeak? Yes. But do they in any perform in away that warrants criticism unlike any other on CC? In my opinion, the truth is probably closer to the opposite. </p>
<p>(and I’m 54 and not a kid)</p>
<p>QM - Yes, I am “of mature age” :-)</p>
<p>I think MIT was a great place 40 years ago, and had a unique culture back then. The reason that I have been critical of MIT admissions is that I think MIT is really engineering/science oriented, and so their mission is a bit different from that of Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc.</p>
<p>I appreciate your comments, too 3togo. The acknowledgements in your next-to-last paragraph would go a very long way to silence me on this topic, if they came from an official source. As you know from my posts on another thread, MIT admissions has an official post up stating that their committee process ensures that “every decision is correct in the context of the applicant pool.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you wish to change my viewpoint, you may want to find a better argument than “I’m older, and thus my feelings are more valid”.</p>
<p>I’m not arguing that I’m older, therefore my viewpoint is more valid. I am saying that people’s views do change with age. Speaking purely personally, mine have broadened quite a bit.</p>
<p>I am still here for several reasons: I care about the state of science and math in the U.S. I care very deeply about it. I believe that MIT fills an unusual role in educating many of the scientists and engineers who go on to be leaders in the U.S. and elsewhere in the world. I care about the students who are promising scientists, whom MIT does not take. I care about the students who are admitted, and the types of experiences they have. Many of them will have a lasting influence on American society.</p>
<p>Sometimes I am wrong about ages. I once wrote to a poster named younghoss, "When you become oldhoss . . . " Turns out he was in his mid-50’s. I was directed over here from the Parent’s Forum. At least I thought I was. Maybe wrong.</p>
<p>QuantMech, your point referenced me and tried to belittle my words with dripping, purely age-based condescension. If you weren’t trying to argue, what was your point?</p>
<p>But yes, from other posters on this board, it’s clear that any assumption that this argument is divided based on age is wrong-headed.</p>
<p>I love how the first few pages are dedicated to URM bashing.</p>
<p>So typical it hurts.</p>