BlunderingGod said:Astronomy, physics, math. I am doing well in all of them. All As, where I should be. Studying is not much of a big deal since they are easy. They are needed for my major. I guess I'm fully capable of becoming the next Einstein; I haven't realized it.
BlunderingGod said:I do not believe that an ordinary guy can become the next Einstein like Feynman had said. John von Neumann... I have lost a substantial bit of confidence in myself after learning about him.
actually this is wrong. Caltech is a research institution with pretty bad undergrad teaching. You seem to be confused. MIT is rather different.BlunderingGod said:Greatest quality education + being around highly intelligent people like possibly myself + best astrophysics school + NASA JPL (where I want to work at).
A basic bayesian analysis would be to count all the people who think they belong at caltech and had at least a 3.9 at high school (and generously ignore all the C's you must have had given a ##\lt 3.0## gpa in college). Then compare that to the number of admissions to caltech. It's a very small school. If you are actually interested in maths, studying probability could potentially save you from the Wile E. Coyote effect (i.e. you've already fallen off the cliff, but won't crash until you look down).BlunderingGod said:I refuse to believe that I do not belong at Caltech.
StoneTemplePython said:actually this is wrong. Caltech is a research institution with pretty bad undergrad teaching. You seem to be confused. MIT is rather different.
A friend of mine is a a caltech grad with a math major. A lot of them are gathering in less than 24 hours for a serious math + beer competition, like the old days. I can poll the audience if you want, though I'm willing to bet on the outcome (i.e. poor undergrad teaching). If you're actually interested in Math, learning directly from MIT, or from Tao et. al at UCLA seems hard to beat.A basic bayesian analysis would be to count all the people who think they belong at caltech and had at least a 3.9 at high school (and generously ignore all the C's you must have had given a ##\lt 3.0## gpa in college). Then compare that to the number of admissions to caltech. It's a very small school. If you are actually interested in maths, studying probability could potentially save you from the Wile E. Coyote effect (i.e. you've already fallen off the cliff, but won't crash until you look down).
TLDR: focus on getting good grades in undergrad, and then worry about whatever outstanding grad school after you have 3 years of good grades (and learning) under you belt.
symbolipoint said:You are trying too hard to compare yourself to others who may or may not have been geniuses.
BlunderingGod said:Caltech students get drunk?
I'm aware that I'm not special whatsoever.
BlunderingGod said:Though, it will be hard for the elite colleges to reject me in grad admissions since I will be godlike. I was thinking of trying to transfer to Caltech after two years, but I think that the better idea would be to stay at UCLA and become a god here by winning lots of prestigious awards with a high GPA (probably will be a 3.94 in the end) and make the elite colleges believe that they had made a big mistake overlooking me in undergrad admissions. I will make sure that this happens.
StoneTemplePython said:Yes. Note: you didn't get the invite...
Look, you're already the BlunderingGod. I'd drop this whole payback mantra and focus on the underlined part. Getting a high GPA and deep understanding/ learning at UCLA will do you a startling amount of good. Maybe you'll even stop blundering...
BlunderingGod said:"Maybe" and making fun of my username... I guess you were trying to insult me there by reminding me of all of my undeserved blunders. That is some great help in times of depression like this. I'm still going to go with payback and have my revenge.
BlunderingGod said:Lol. I wonder how they got in when they are drunk-heads.
Right, I won't make an embarrassing mistake again.StoneTemplePython said:well no, I was having fun with wordplay, as always. My hope was that you'd be able to laugh and step back a bit: i.e. drop the revenge MO, focus on learning a few things deeply, and maybe remember that UCLA is an outstanding school. Your idea of focusing on excellent grades at UCLA struck me as quite smart.
to be clear, in post 33 I did say grads from there. I.e. they are no longer in an undergrad program. Some recent, some not so much.
Also, occasionally pairing alcohol and math doesn't make you a drunk head. (Sticking with the grunge heritage of my name, your comment does sound like an AIC song called Junkhead though.)
This can no longer be taken as a student genuinely interested in getting admission to an elite school for Math, Physics, or the related.BlunderingGod said:I'm aware that I'm not special whatsoever.
Though, it will be hard for the elite colleges to reject me in grad admissions since I will be godlike. I was thinking of trying to transfer to Caltech after two years, but I think that the better idea would be to stay at UCLA and become a god here by winning lots of prestigious awards with a high GPA (probably will be a 3.94 in the end) and make the elite colleges believe that they had made a big mistake overlooking me in undergrad admissions. I will make sure that this happens.
You really missed the point.BlunderingGod said:Are you saying that John von Neumann the polymath was not a genius? Some people have said that he was on a different level from Einstein in terms of intellectual ability.
Tell me the point then. I would love to know.symbolipoint said:You really missed the point.
BlunderingGod said:Astronomy, physics, math. I am doing well in all of them. All As, where I should be. Studying is not much of a big deal since they are easy. They are needed for my major. I guess I'm fully capable of becoming the next Einstein; I haven't realized it.
BlunderingGod said:I do not believe that an ordinary guy can become the next Einstein like Feynman had said. John von Neumann... I have lost a substantial bit of confidence in myself after learning about him.
symbolipoint said:You are trying too hard to compare yourself to others who may or may not have been geniuses.
symbolipoint said:You really missed the point.
(Note I am having some trouble with the multiquote part of the system.)BlunderingGod said:Tell me the point then. I would love to know.
This thread isn't really about gaining admission to colleges, but it is about the importance of talent and giftedness in becoming a genius like Einstein. I'm holding conflicting views on this. Does talent exist? If it does, can pure hard work beat talent and giftedness all the time even when it works hard? I also do not even know if I have a talent in anything.
BlunderingGod said:I refuse to believe that I do not belong at Caltech.
Well, that was exactly how you wanted to portray him.Dr Transport said:Obviously something in your application package wasn't impressive and I agree with @symbolipoint , your attitude is not something I would want to have around and you accused my co-worker of being an arrogant brat (I'd look in the mirror if I were you to see the definition of that).
Yes, but I feel total envy that these guys have it much easier than I do at life. They probably had high IQs since birth while I probably have a mediocre IQ due to stupid genetics and environment. I'll do whatever to get all As; it shouldn't be a problem as long as I study.symbolipoint said:(Note I am having some trouble with the multiquote part of the system.)
The point is that you are YOU! You are not Einstein; and you are not Feynman; and you are not Von Neumann, nor any other highly accomplished scientist. You are overly proud of your earnings of high course grades and you believe you will always be able to earn them. Courses become, usually harder, as you progress to successive ones. Maybe you will need to struggle, soon (sooner or later) to stay above grade of C in one or more courses. You also seem to ignore the very limited slots for students admitted tof MIT or CalTech compared to the very numerous quantities of extremely qualified potential students who also want to attend there. ... But back to the point: You must put in your own effort to learn, and if both lucky and talented, you might learn to do some research, as LEARNING experience. You need some good grades and some lab practice through course work FIRST. Then, based on those, and how your skills meet some professors's research interests, you may find some academic research to do. You need to feel fortunate to have found it - not proud to have found it. Do well in it or at least give your honest effort to do well. (Think this: What can you show to a professor right now to convince him/her that you would be useful in helping in his/her research area? This is not a sales task; it is a "what is your evidence" task).
BlunderingGod said:That graduate you spoke of sounds like an arrogant brat, the worst kind of individual I have ever encountered in high school.
BlunderingGod said:Astronomy, physics, math. I am doing well in all of them. All As, where I should be
No, I have a 4.0 average. I don't know what you are talking about.Vanadium 50 said:Judge not, let ye be judged.
That's not what you said before, in the late, un-lamented thread.
I'm prepared to believe you got all A's. I'm prepared to believe you got a 2.5 average. I'm not prepared to believe both simultaneously.
If you are what you think you are, we will hear from you. I'm not convinced that this will happen. I think enough has been said.BlunderingGod said:I guess I'm too genius or too mentally retarded for people to understand me. I'm taking the former.