[1449] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Re: A new ballgame at MIT
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jimmy C Wu)
Tue Sep 16 10:02:01 2003
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 08:35:50 -0400
From: Jimmy C Wu <jimmbswu@ALUM.MIT.EDU>
To: MIT-Talk@MIT.EDU
Wow. I woke up and this has turned into a full discussion.
> nonconformity) are still the Big MIT Traits. The admissions dept likes
> well-roundedness to the extent that it protects students from
> high-velocity burnout and obsessive behaviour, I think, but I don't get
> the impression that they're actually going after any of the UA-poseur
> types we so universally despise. They simply won't admit an entire class
> of student council presidents, because the things most important in the
> admissions process have nothing to do with running committees. If there is
> an increasing likelihood that MIT students will have done a bunch of
> activities in high school, it's probably due (in part) to a kind of
> redistribution of geekiness. Geeks are probably more likely to take part
> in school activities now than when we arrived. In other words: a deserving
> MIT student is now more likely to be socially savvy, but the reverse is
> not really the case: socially savvy students aren't more likely to be cut
> out for MIT than non-savvy basement-lab-monkeys.
This may be, but do we have numbers to back this up, or is this anecdotal
observation?
One thing we can say is this: Starting at around 1997, Marilee Jones took
over as head of admissions, and Course 15 undergrad enrollment starts
rising. A couple of years later, Course 15 was, and is, the 2nd biggest
undergrad department. Why is that?
You may say that it is because that is where the money is, so students go
after the money. That does not fully explain this trend, though. If
consulting/management is where the money is, why didn't students go after it
pre-1997? Why are students going after it now after the market has crashed?
I posit that Course 15 is so big because Marilee admitted a bunch of frosh
who were unwilling to take on science/engineering. By going after
"well-rounded" students, Admissions took in people who are only interested
in science/engineering only in so far as to get them admitted into MIT.
Once at MIT, they find out they cannot stomach (or more?) engineering
courses, so like the mercenary they are, they go into 15, which is easy and
promises instant payoff. And the Course 2 undergrad enrollment shrivels.
There are many people who double majors 15 w/ a technical major, and I
applaud them. 15 is something you should double into, not as your sole
major.
So that was that,
B, the defender of status quo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wally" <wally@sub-zero.mit.edu>
To: "Will Hafer" <williamh@MIT.EDU>
Cc: <MIT-Talk@MIT.EDU>
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 7:31 PM
Subject: Re: A new ballgame at MIT
> > >If a person is good at rowing boats but can't hack it at MIT, they
> > >won't be let in. It already works that way.
> >
> > I think you might be surprised how much sway the athletics head coaches
> > have in admissions--as in, surprised that it's non-zero. I've heard of
> > coaches who make phone calls on behalf of freshmen they want for their
> > team, and they wouldn't do it if it didn't work. That kind of "under the
> > table" influence is extremely sensitive to political winds--meaning that
> > if the athletic dept. goes on a highly publicized crusade, admissions
> > officials are sure to cue in and allow coaches an even more influential
> > role in admissions.
>
> The athletics dept has limited input into the admissions process. And I
> get the sense that the admissions dept would resist any coach silly enough
> to suggest that s/he knows who/what is best for MIT. Some students seem to
> have an amount of political motivation behind their admission, but I think
> that's a tiny percentage. Elsewhere it's a much much larger percentage.
> (See below your comment about Princeton - a good example of the school MIT
> will simply never become, because the intellectual culture here just could
> never forgive a school that contained so many legacy-admit-wankerss.)
>
> Honestly, the lack of definition about whose input matters frustrates the
> hell out of me. I'm friends with a couple of admissions counselors, and
> they talk about the importance of admitting the people who really belong
> here. And I believe them. But the trends you (to my mind correctly)
> identify stem from a combination of two things: (1) High schoolers come
> from a completely different information environment today than they did
> ten years ago. (2) The kind of lab-geek-in-basement aesthetic so 'prized'
> here is dying out in American culture, in that the lab geeks are coming
> *out* of the basement.
>
> Neither of which trends makes any difference re: sports.
>
> > >The admissions dept. doesn't go after the 'well-rounded', they go after
> > >the interesting students.
> >
> > It's pretty much common knowledge that MIT is going after well-rounded
> > students. Plenty of admissions department quotes have supported this,
> > without mentioning anything about students being "interesting".
>
> You should sit in on one of the admissions dept's prospective student info
> sessions. (Caveat emptor: not all the speakers are equally competent.)
> They're not great entertainment, but they make the point, to greater or
> lesser degrees, that self-motivation and independent intelligence (genuine
> nonconformity) are still the Big MIT Traits. The admissions dept likes
> well-roundedness to the extent that it protects students from
> high-velocity burnout and obsessive behaviour, I think, but I don't get
> the impression that they're actually going after any of the UA-poseur
> types we so universally despise. They simply won't admit an entire class
> of student council presidents, because the things most important in the
> admissions process have nothing to do with running committees. If there is
> an increasing likelihood that MIT students will have done a bunch of
> activities in high school, it's probably due (in part) to a kind of
> redistribution of geekiness. Geeks are probably more likely to take part
> in school activities now than when we arrived. In other words: a deserving
> MIT student is now more likely to be socially savvy, but the reverse is
> not really the case: socially savvy students aren't more likely to be cut
> out for MIT than non-savvy basement-lab-monkeys.
>
> Huh, maybe that's a completely false statement. But wouldn't it explain
> some portion of MIT's changing demographics? It would explain something of
> the sense of entitlement that Marilee Jones' (weird) article about
> 'millennials' talked about: students come here more convinced than ever
> that there should be institutional support for their interests, because
> it's more likely than ever at the high school level. (Not true in poor
> areas, but it never has been, has it?) The admissions dept doesn't let in
> students because of those opportunities, rather irrespective of them.
> Think of it as a recentering of the applicant pool. (Consider: there is
> clearly some effort to reach gender parity in admissions, but it's almost
> a moot point, because gender parity in the applicant pool, ability-wise,
> already changes the shape of the incoming class.)
>
> > >I wouldn't worry too much about the changing demographics of MIT: I get
> > >the sense they're largely a consequence of changing high schoolers. The
> > >educational mission of MIT hasn't actually changed, has it?
> >
> > The point about changing a high school demographic is tough to quantify.
> > it's 50/50 whether Marilee Jones, when she talked about the "changing
> > young person" a couple years ago, was the savior of MIT's future, or
> > just an administrator who wished she were at Princeton.
>
> Somewhere inbetween. I think she wants a less socially inept MIT, but I
> don't think she at all wants Princeton.
>
> > As to your last rant: just because MIT still has plenty of relics from
> > the past, doesn't mean they're not exactly that. This place is changing.
>
> The last rant was meant mainly ironically, but point taken. Still, I
> wouldn't call Steer Roast a relic of the past. You're just bitter 'cos MIT
> thinks your frat is totally goddamn stupid and doesn't care whether you
> survive!!! Ha ha ha ha ha ah ahahaha.
>
> W.
>
> ps. They think the same about mine, don't worry.
>
> pps. And all the others, come to think of it.
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Documentation on the use of the mailing lists mit-talk, all-talk,
mit-news, housing-talk, and the mit-talk Zephyr class is available at:
http://web.mit.edu/institvte/talk/
