MIT Deferred: Picking Up Grades for Mid-Year Report

[Tom McCurdy]

I got a letter today from MIT stating that they were going to review my application again during the regular admission time. They said that it was good that I was able to make it past the early admission cut off, as most people are rejected at this point... I don't know what to do. I am happy and yet a little worried becaue I have to really pick up grades in two classes for mid year report.

 

[kdinser]

If I had everything to do over again, I would probably set my sights on a school like MIT. Good luck to you man, if you don't get in, UofM is still a good choice.

 

[Tom McCurdy]

thanks alot
I hope I get in as well :0 but I really have to get my physics and math grade up if I want to have any reasonable chance.

 

[karen03grae]

I wish you luck too...I wish I could go there. Am at A&M now

 

[samoth1]

To not get rejected outright from MIT is very respectable. Care to post your stats? I'm sure there are many other prestigious you could get into.

 

[Tom McCurdy]

Actually my stats are quite a bit less than what I had hoped for... I hate standarized tests

PSAT
math: 80

Sat Math: 730
Sat Verbal: 620
Sat 2 math ic: 740
Sat 2 math 2c: 730
Physics: 670-- i think can't remember

ACT:
math: 33
science: 31
reading: 31

best combined 29--- I always screw up on one section badly those scores were from 2 different tests

anyway i thinks that's pretty close to what I got...

 

[Tom McCurdy]

Most of the reasons I would be considered would be things that are not scores... activities I do outside of a normal schedule...

 

[kdinser]

Schools where admission is very competitive like to see that your busy, 80+ hours a week busy. Things like, working, playing sports, volunteering in the community, math clubs, and student government can go a long way to making up for some weaknesses in other areas.

 

[poolwin2001]

Hats off Mc.
I too am applying for MIT.but we foreigners don't have the early admission option.:(

 

[marlon]

I always have been fasinated with you americans and your "admissions" to universities...For example if a European student would like to apply for let's say MIT, does he/she stand a chance or not...What if this student already has a college degree and wants to pursue a phd...is that possible or not...

regards
marlon

 

[Gokul43201]

I always have been fasinated with you americans and your "admissions" to universities...For example if a European student would like to apply for let's say MIT, does he/she stand a chance or not...What if this student already has a college degree and wants to pursue a phd...is that possible or not...

regards
marlon

It's very possible. All you have to do is go to the University website, and find the Physics Dept page. Somewhere in the Graduate Studies section of this page, there will be a Graduate Admissions form (along with instructions). You can download the form (it's usually a pdf file), fill it, and mail to to the University, along with the other requirements (GRE and Physics GRE scores, TOEFL scores, 3 reference/recommendation letters, official transcripts of your college grades, resume, and a Statement of Purpose).

Some Universities, such as http://www.applyweb.com/apply/mitg/menu.html, have most of the application online, and you only have to mail transcripts and reference letters.

Marlon, I'm quite sure you can easily get into a great university. I'm a foreign student myself, and despite not having a Physics degree, I got accepted by most of the Universities I applied too. It should be a piece of cake for you...but hurry if you want to apply for 2005. Must deadlines are in Dec/Jan. If you have any questions, feel free to PM me.

Also, keep in mind that each application involves a fee of anywhere from $40 to $100.

 

[Grogs]

Tom:

I want to wish you the best of luck getting into MIT. It's certainly a prestigious honor and should really help you achieve all you can academically.

My take on the early admissions process is that it's the school's way to make sure it gets the 'superstars' from the applicants by letting them know early they've been accepted. I got accepted early for college (USMA) and after that I never sent in another application.

That they didn't reject you out of hand is certainly a good sign. It means you've probably got at least the minimum 'reasonable' standards to get in. If your GPA is in line with the top SAT score (the 1470) it should put you within the bell curve of the applicants they accept. As you and kdinser eluded to, with as many applicants as they get each year, the admissions board needs some sort of discriminators to determine who they think will make the best student. This is why extracurricular activities are so important.

Once again, good luck. I wish I could go to MIT, but I think my undergrad grades were low enough that I'd have a snowball's chance in hades.

 

[pmb_phy]

I got a letter today from MIT stating that they were going to review my application again during the regular admission time. They said that it was good that I was able to make it past the early admission cut off, as most people are rejected at this point... I don't know what to do. I am happy and yet a little worried becaue I have to really pick up grades in two classes for mid year report.

There are pros and cons to going to MIT. The pros are that it looks great on a resume and the profs are well known in their field. The cons are that the students are so competative that you can be certain that you'll get less help from your fellow students than in most other universities and its a well known fact that when students work together they do better. The profs have less time to spend with students than the profs at other universities.

The GRE's count for something don't they? Have you taken them yet?

Pete

 

[daster]

I finished my MIT application last week. All I'm waiting for are my December SAT-II scores (I hope they're good!)... I retook Physics (got a 670 last time ) and took Writing, and I already have an 800 in Math 2c. I'm also taking the SAT for the first time this January.

Good luck to the both of us this March.

 

[daster]

pmb_phy, I believe Tom is applying as an undergrad. He doesn't need the GRE.

 

[cyby]

All I can say is, good luck on getting in. A lot of kids from my HS ended up there, but I got rejected due to the mutual unavailability of an interview. Ah well, that's a few years ago. I am at CMU, so still not bad at all :-)

Good luck to all of you, and even if you don't get in, it definitely isn't a rejection of your academic or other abilities. A lot of these schools can randomly pick a class and it would still be of a very good quality.

:-)

-Cyby-

 

[pmb_phy]

pmb_phy, I believe Tom is applying as an undergrad. He doesn't need the GRE.

Oops. I thought he was applying for grad school.

Pete

 

[poolwin2001]

I am scared of my low GPA I got 3.16 while class heighest is 3.66.
What is your GPA?.
P.S:my SAT II Math IIc-700,Physics-770.

 

[Tom McCurdy]

My GPA is 3.659

 

[pmb_phy]

My GPA is 3.659

There is one very nice thing that MIT has over other universities. They sort of artificially inflate the GPAs of the students. By this I mean that during the first year is when students tend not to do so well. MIT therefore does not include grades from freshman year in a students final GPA. Therefore if you do horrible the first year and recover the last three and do great then your GPA will appear as if you did great in all 4 years since the first is not included. Other universities include GPAs from all years.

There is one more thing I wanted to mention, but please don't get the idea that I'm bad mouthing MIT in any way since that is not my intention. I'm simly pointing out the pros and cons (which all schools have).

I know several MIT grads, some of whom I worked with. A few are very good friends of mine and are very bright people. They're also very decent chaps and hence I choose them as friends. However there comes to mind two people I used to work with. One I was friendly with and the other one I couldn't stand to be around (as most people couldn't). The first was very good at what she did. But that meant that it was very very hard to convince her that she made a mistake. That negatively effected her work in that it took me a long time to get her to check her work and correct her mistake . It made my work that much more difficult since it was one of my duties to test things she did. So her delays made my work harder. The other one was very very very arrogant. That made working with them hard in the extreme. Personally, without personally knowing a person, an MIT grad would not be the first person I'd want to work with for that reason.

That is not a reflection on the school itself, but the people who choose to study there.

Let me give you an example: I knew some people there and as a result I was allowed to take the GR course (not for a grade but simply to learn the subject). Very few students ask questions. Not because they know the subject solid and have no questions, but I guess it was an ego thing. I recall one time that I was so lost as to what the prof was doing that I simply put my pen down at one point and waited for the class to end (I'd learn the topic later at home). Everyone was sitting there quitely watching (no longer taking notes) and it seemed odd that nobody was asking questions. There was a glazed look over their eyes (as there was mine ). I turned around to a guy I knew and asked Do you have any idea about what he's (the prof) is talking about? and he responded No. But don't worry. Nobody else does either!

As far as the school itself goes - They realized that the students won't work together and took steps to correct it. E.g. one of the courses (EM) had a drop out rate of something like 50% (as many courses in physics do). The school restructured the class so that in order for the students to pass they were forced to work together. The drop out rate decreased as a result and the grade average increased. I find it very commendable for the school to take those steps and that is one of the qualities I admire about MIT.

I hope you get an accurate picture of what I'm trying to say. Its a great school obvioulsy. But if you don't get in don't worry. There are a lot of awesome schools out there were you can get a great education. But there are some (in my opinion, very snobby) employers who won't hire anyone who didn't go to a big name school. So I urge you to weigh all the factors and not just consider name and reputation only. The complete rep doesn't always get from ear to ear.

But there are a bunch of very smart people there. For example Alan Guth works there. And he's a very nice guy. One of the nicest people I've ever met. If you go to MIT I suggest trying to get him as an advisor.

Pete

 

[cAm]

A friend of mine got his 'deffered' letter yesterday as well. I was really surprised, as he is ****ing brilliant; 4.0 gpa, gone through calc 3, phys c, damn near perfect act, sat, psat, ap chem, 4/5's on ap tests, internships in physics labs, all sort of crap. So, i look at it this way. Congratulations on getting deferred, rather than having been rejected straight out.

 

[pmb_phy]

A friend of mine got his 'deffered' letter yesterday as well. I was really surprised, as he is ****ing brilliant; 4.0 gpa, gone through calc 3, phys c, damn near perfect act, sat, psat, ap chem, 4/5's on ap tests, internships in physics labs, all sort of crap. So, i look at it this way. Congratulations on getting deferred, rather than having been rejected straight out.

Here's where I'm confused - What is a "deffered letter"? Who are these people getting deffered? Are they high school students? If so then when did high school start giving GPAs?

As far as straight A's go - Be cautious here. I used to tutor math and physics when I was an undergrad. I went to a private/preppy college. It's where my beer money came from. On many occasions I tutored students who got straight A's in high school. There were two kinds - some were sharp as a tack - others had no clue. From what I gather there were students who in high school were able to get A's and not have to study very much. I guess they assumed this would also be the case in college. They were sorely mistaken. I was a bit weird with respect to this - I was the opposite. I did lousy in high school and did very good in college. I think it was the beer.

Pete

 

[sal]

There are pros and cons to going to MIT. The pros are that it looks great on a resume and the profs are well known in their field. The cons are that the students are so competative that you can be certain that you'll get less help from your fellow students than in most other universities

I attended MIT back in the 70's and that certainly was not true ... except, perhaps, in classes that were very heavily attended by pre-meds, who had their eyes on competitive med school admissions. In the math classes, I found other students extremely helpful.

Note that MIT's policy, at least in the past, was to assume that anyone who gets through their admission process is able to do the work. Therefore, if you get in, you should graduate. If you get into academic trouble, well, you were admitted to start with, so the problem isn't lack of brains -- so, the problem should be identified and worked through. They do not "wash people out" of the college, and if you mess up, they don't just kick you out.

This has an impact on the way students interact: Everybody got in, and everybody's going to get through, so why would you be reluctant to help someone else? It's not musical chairs -- there are enough seats for all!

and its a well known fact that when students work together they do better. The profs have less time to spend with students than the profs at other universities.

What makes you think that? The student/faculty ratio at MIT is excellent; in general, it's lower at higher rated schools and it relates very strongly to how much time the profs have to spend with the students. I found the profs helpful there also -- they know what they're talking about and they like to talk about it, or they wouldn't be in that field.

My one complaint along those lines was that my assigned advisor didn't know diddly about the areas I was interested in, and so couldn't offer a lot of useful advice about how to approach the subject. But that problem certainly isn't unique to MIT!

The GRE's count for something don't they? Have you taken them yet?

He's applying for an undergrad position. At least in decades past, MIT looked first at the SAT scores. Grades counted a distant second -- it's a well-known fact that grades in high school don't correlate with much of anything in your later academic career, but SAT scores correlate heavily with success in college. I don't know how heavily they weighted things like extracurricular activities or time spent abroad -- certainly, less heavily than Harvard, which seemed to have diversity in the student body as a priority.

 

[sal]

Here's where I'm confused - What is a "deffered letter"?

MIT has "early decision". You can apply for an early decision, which comes months before their regular decision process grinds out its results. If you get in early, you're home free and you can relax. (Many colleges (used to) do this, but nearly all (used to) require that you commit to go there if you got in early. In the past, MIT required no such commitment -- but then, I guess they figured almost everybody they admitted would come and didn't worry about it...)

If you don't get admitted through the early decision process they notify you, but you may still be admitted during the normal decision process a couple months later.

Who are these people getting deffered? Are they high school students? If so then when did high school start giving GPAs?

They always did. The GPA in high school is no different from the GPA in a college -- 4.0 just means straight A's, and always has, except at MIT where straight A's are 5.0. (Scale is shifted up by one except for "F" grades -- makes the F's hurt worse.)

As far as straight A's go - Be cautious here. I used to tutor math and physics when I was an undergrad. I went to a private/preppy college. It's where my beer money came from. On many occasions I tutored students who got straight A's in high school. There were two kinds - some were sharp as a tack - others had no clue.

As I mentioned above, MIT, in years past, counted SAT's far more heavily than grades for exactly this reason. Grades in HS are subjective and not very reliable indicators of how well students will do later on.

From what I gather there were students who in high school were able to get A's and not have to study very much. I guess they assumed this would also be the case in college. They were sorely mistaken. I was a bit weird with respect to this - I was the opposite. I did lousy in high school and did very good in college. I think it was the beer.

Pete

 

[sal]

There is one very nice thing that MIT has over other universities. They sort of artificially inflate the GPAs of the students.

"grade inflation" was a big topic when I was there. Sort of followed from the assumption that everybody in the class was smart... they also had a handful of profs who refused to give meaningful grades. Dunno how that finally shook out.

By this I mean that during the first year is when students tend not to do so well. MIT therefore does not include grades from freshman year in a students final GPA.

Not so fast.

When I was there freshman year was pass/fail ... except there were "hidden grades" for certain students in certain classes.

In particular, med schools want to see a full transcript from all four years, and my understanding was that if you were on the premed track you had real grades even as a freshman.

I wasn't premed and I'm not certain about this, and I have no idea how it works at MIT these days, but if you're considering med school it's something to keep in mind: Premeds may be treated a little differently, all the way along the line.

 

[pmb_phy]

I attended MIT back in the 70's and that certainly was not true ... except, perhaps, in classes that were very heavily attended by pre-meds, who had their eyes on competitive med school admissions. In the math classes, I found other students extremely helpful.

It must have changed in the last 20-30 years. I guess its for this reason that they're restructuring classes. The person who is working on the project explained it all to me, i.e. the purpose of the project and what the response was to the changes were was explained to me by one of the people at the center for learning (or whatever its called).

Note: I'm basing this observation on two points (1) what I observed when I was there (sitting in on classes) and (2) what the professors told me that the problems were.

This has an impact on the way students interact: Everybody got in, and everybody's going to get through, so why would you be reluctant to help someone else? It's not musical chairs -- there are enough seats for all!

I have no idea why people do the things they do. However grades and SATs etc. tell you what the students grades are. They don't tell you how hard it was for the students to get those grades. Some of the students may have been the type to ask a bunch of questions to be able to learn what they did and understand the topic as well as they do. That is not always possible at large universities.

What makes you think that?

Observation. I'm told that some classes (e.g. physics 101?) have hundreds of students in them. If each student needs/would benifit from 10 minutes of your time per week per class then I don't see how there is enough time for a proffessor to give that time. Where I went I had courses which were one on one. I could ask whatever I wanted to and I could talk to the teacher any time I wanted to (except, of course, when he was in class etc). In a class I sat in on at MIT I was actually asked not to ask so many questions (I asked about 3 per day as I recall). However I wasn't paying for the course so that was no biggy. The price was right! However the students didn't know whether I was paying or not and the students asked the teacher if I could ask less questions. I've never experienced that attitude in any other college or university that I went to.

Pete

 

[pmb_phy]

Not so fast.

When I was there freshman year was pass/fail ... except there were "hidden grades" for certain students in certain classes.

In particular, med schools want to see a full transcript from all four years, and my understanding was that if you were on the premed track you had real grades even as a freshman.

I wasn't premed and I'm not certain about this, and I have no idea how it works at MIT these days, but if you're considering med school it's something to keep in mind: Premeds may be treated a little differently, all the way along the line.

I was referring to science and engineering students (since the question pertains to science students) and I only knew science/engineering students.

Thanks for the first hand view sal.

Pete

 

[sal]

Observation. I'm told that some classes (e.g. physics 101?) have hundreds of students in them. If each student needs/would benifit from 10 minutes of your time per week per class then I don't see how there is enough time for a proffessor to give that time.

This is worth addressing, since it may sound a bit scary, and it shouldn't.

First, note that there is no "physics 101" at MIT. Rather there are three different versions of "physics 101". At MIT everyone takes freshman physics and freshman calculus, but not everyone has identical needs (the music majors -- yes, there are some -- don't need as intensive an approach as the physics majors). So, there's 8.01, which is regular mechanics. There's 8.012, which is the heavy-duty version intended for physics majors. And, there's 8.011, commonly called "physics for poets", which is a little lighter. Different texts, different profs, different approaches (and forgive me if I've got the course numbers wrong; it's been a long time).

Now, with ~1000 kids in the freshman class, and everyone taking freshman physics and calculus (and a chemistry class, and freshman humanities) there are, indeed, hundreds of students in some classes. But the classes are structured the way they are at many universities: There's a lecture once a week where everyone sits and listens to the prof talk, but there are also two or three "recitation sections" each week. The recitation sections typically have a dozen students in them.

When I was there, the prof for the class typically led one recitation section, and grad students led some of them, and other professors led some of them. My recitation section for calculus, for instance, was led by Sigurdur Helgason, a prof whose actual area of interest was something in differential geometry. The lecturer for calculus that term was Gene Kleinberg, who was one of the clearest speakers I've ever met. (Of course, there was another section of the calculus class which was lectured by George Thomas, of whom I'm sure a number of people reading this have heard.)

Now, when you hear "grad students led some of them" I can imagine you're groaning. But seriously, these are freshman classes we're talking about. The grad students who led the sections in my physics classes were eminently capable of explaining the material -- at that level, they're perfectly qualified, and they may even still remember what it was like to go through it themselves.

So, the chimera of limited access to the prof in the freshman classes really isn't something to worry about. And in later classes, after you've gotten past the neck of the funnel, the class size shrinks dramatically and those same profs who seem so distant (well, 50 feet or more away!) turn out to be approachable and helpful. Gene Kleinberg, who did the lectures in my calculus class also taught a seminar I took on hyperreal calculus that same year. The seminar had about 10 students in it, and he was very happy to spend time trying to explain the absurdly advanced concepts it used to a confused freshman.

 

[pmb_phy]

Question for Tom - May I inquire as to why you chose MIT rather than, say, CalTech, Harvard, Princeton etc?

Have you considered also checking those universities out? Especially Ivy Leauge schools. There may/i] be benefits to an Ivy Leauge school that you won't get at places like MIT. I've seen many job ads from places who won't even consider resumes from people who haven't gone to an Ivy Leauge school. This may be something you may want to consider and investigate too.

There is also a major point that you probably overlooked. You might have chosen MIT because, let's face it, it's MIT!

But what you don't hear too often and what is certainly true is that students who only go to MIT for undergrad and grad school would actually have a more difficult time getting a job as a physicist at MIT. They prefer to hire from outside so as not to have a sort of "inbreading" of knowledge. At least this is what I'm told by people who are at MIT.

Just something you may want to ponder and look into.

Pete

 

[ZapperZ]

Have you considered also checking those universities out? Especially Ivy Leauge schools. There may/i] be benefits to an Ivy Leauge school that you won't get at places like MIT. I've seen many job ads from places who won't even consider resumes from people who haven't gone to an Ivy Leauge school.

Can you please show me exactly where these job ads are? They are certainly NOT from the two most popular sources for physics job postings that I have listed. I want to know what companies or institutions are limiting themselves ONLY to Ivy League schools, because if this really happens, I want to advice people NOT to go work for such places. Insitutions that have such narrow views of where qualified applicants come from should die off very quickly due to in-breeding.

Zz.

 

[sal]

May I inquire as to why you chose MIT rather than, say, CalTech, Harvard, Princeton etc?
...
I've seen many job ads from places who won't even consider resumes from people who haven't gone to an Ivy Leauge school.

I don't believe this. Prove it, Pete.

Do you actually know what an "Ivy League" school is? It's one of the eight colleges that formed the "Ivy" football league because they didn't want their teams smashed to jelly by the schools that didn't have such tough academic requirements. The actual I.L. schools are Harvard, UofP, Yale, Princeton, Cornell, Columbia, Dartmouth, and Brown. (I just looked it up and corrected the list...) Caltech, which you mentioned, is not an Ivy League school. (MIT had no football team when the IL was formed so there was no way it could have been part of the Ivy League.)

Now, you are claiming that there are companies that will hire someone who went to Penn, but won't hire someone who went to CMU, MIT, CalTech, or Stanford, just because Penn happened to be in a particular football league. Again, I don't believe this -- can you prove it?

Just to be clear here, any company that exclusive must be demanding an advanced degree -- companies that don't want at least a masters are just not sufficiently concerned about the degree to restrict candidates to a shortlist of schools. So, we're really talking about graduate schools here.

Now, I am aware that there are some extremely insular companies that give strong preference to graduates of one particular school -- typically the school the founder went to. And that can be pretty much any college; it depends on the prejudices of the company founder. But aside from that, I've never heard of a company that would restrict applicants to just a few schools, and would automatically reject someone with a PhD from, say, Stanford, Berkeley, CMU, Rensselaer, or Georgia Tech, just because they weren't one of the eight Ivy League schools. And I certainly do not believe you've seen "many job ads" from companies with such restrictions.

So prove it. If you've seen "many" such ads, you must have seen at least a half dozen (otherwise it wouldn't have been "many"). How about you point us to five of them?

 

[so-crates]

But what you don't hear too often and what is certainly true is that students who only go to MIT for undergrad and grad school would actually have a more difficult time getting a job as a physicist at MIT. They prefer to hire from outside so as not to have a sort of "inbreading" of knowledge. At least this is what I'm told by people who are at MIT.

Just something you may want to ponder and look into.

Pete

I can attest to this as second hand. A close relative of mine went to MIT and they definitely discourage people from applying to grad school there, at least for a PhD. This also applies to faculty hiring. Alot of the top tier universities have this policy.

 

[pmb_phy]

Can you please show me exactly where these job ads are?

Sure. Go to the Monster Board and search on Ivy Leauge


Here is an sample when I searched on that and "physics"

C++ developer with multithreading on real time systems required US-NY-Chicago


A large, multinational hedge fund is looking for an exceptionally talented and experienced C++ developer to build robust, fault-tolerant, efficient matching engines. You will have an outstanding academic background, educated to graduate level in a numerate discipline at an Ivy league or redbrick university - Computer Science, Engineering, Physics or Mathematics. Ideally you will have experience building Order Management Systems and Routing Engines at a financial institution, as you will be part of a team of 4 to develop high frequency, automated trading systems - this is an excellent opportunity to work with an extremely talented team of technologists on developing fastest to market trading systems.
The technical infrastructure for developing this system is C+ on Unix servers - you will have at least 2 years experience in developing large distributed systems in C++. You will have good multithreading skills, and low level TCP/IP stacks programming. Excellent remuneration.
If you are interested in this position please send your cv to Pasha Hussain

They are certainly NOT from the two most popular sources for physics job postings that I have listed.

This was the purpose of my question - to inquire into Tom's goals etc. He may want to do what ensures him the most employability etc. I don't know, therefore the present questions.

I want to know what companies or institutions are limiting themselves ONLY to Ivy League schools, because if this really happens, I want to advice people NOT to go work for such places.

I know. I agree. That's a pretty snooty attitude in my opinion. Tell people to avoid Huxley Associates. I think they're a recruiter.

Insitutions that have such narrow views of where qualified applicants come from should die off very quickly due to in-breeding.

Institutions don't always do the advertising.They may go to head hunters and the head hunters might be extra lazy and think that if look only at Ivy League applicants then they'll look better. Disgusting in my opinion.

This is merely an example mind you. But I simply typed in "Ivy Leauge" in Monster Board and got 250 hits. I don't think that this Huxley Associates people are the ones I read in the past though. I've been searching using Monster for years and have come across many of these listings.

sal - by "many" I do not mean "most" or "significant fraction".

Pete

 

[sal]

WRONG. Read what the ad says, Pete, not what you THINK it says. Here, I'll trim it down so you can see the actual phrase, and add some emphasis to make it really clear:

You will have an outstanding academic background, educated to graduate level in a numerate discipline at an Ivy league or redbrick university

Overlooked that phrase "or redbrick", didn't you?

Care to tell us what they mean by that? I'll tell you one thing they don't mean: They don't mean you must have gone to Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Cornell, Brown, Dartmouth or Penn to apply.

And that was what you claimed you had seen.

So, Pete, we're still waiting. Have you ever seen an example of an ad looking for someone with a technical degree that would only accept a recruit who had attended one of the Ivy League schools?

Incidentally, I looked up "redbrick university" and it's a British phrase. Looks like this ad was placed by a foreign headhunter (who may not even be sure what the phrase "ivy league" actually means -- any more than you knew what "redbrick university" meant...).

 

[pmb_phy]

Overlooked that phrase "or redbrick", didn't you?

No. I didn't. It means that you must have gone to an Ivy League university or a "redbrick". However that was one example that I picked out. It just so happened that it also included "redbrick" too. The term "redbrick" is a term that seems (see Webster's dictionary) to be used to refer to what one might call a "British Ivy League" such as Oxford. But you get the idea, right?

Others say things like

You need a bachelors degree in computer Science or numerate discipline from an Ivy League university.

But I was referring to what I've seen there over the past 5 years. Not just what is there today.

So, Pete, we're still waiting. Have you ever seen an example of an ad looking for someone with a technical degree that would only accept a recruit who had attended one of the Ivy League schools?

Why are you waiting sal? I already said that several posts ago. Why would you expect me to recall the exact employer when its something I've seen every so often over the last 5 years of job searching there?? They also say things like "preferably" which means that you're out if they find someone with the same qualifications but from an Ivy league school.

If you need a specific example then consider computer science grads. An example from Monster would then be

Ivy league computer science graduates for roles in investment banks
..A major investment bank is in need of Ivy League computer science graduates to become front office developers.

or

Front Office C++ developer for wall street institution ... You need a bachelors degree in computer Science or numerate discipline from an Ivy League university.

There seem to be about 80 of them on there today. That's what I mean by "many". Again, it does not mean "majority" or anything like that.

Sorry I can't recall the place which demanded Ivy League for the positions in physics.

I think you're missing my main point anyway - That's that some employers as snooty who "Ooooo!" and "Ahhhh!" over Ivy League creds. Its silly for them to do that so don't ask me to justify their snobbiness.

Pmb

 

[ZapperZ]

Sure. Go to the Monster Board and search on Ivy Leauge

Luckily, phyiscs jobs are not normally on Monster. So we are safe. I hate to think physics related job employers are THAT stupid.

I know. I agree. That's a pretty snooty attitude in my opinion. Tell people to avoid Huxley Associates. I think they're a recruiter.
Institutions don't always do the advertising.They may go to head hunters and the head hunters might be extra lazy and think that if look only at Ivy League applicants then they'll look better. Disgusting in my opinion.

It's not snotty. It's pure ignorance. However, please note that what is implied by "redbricks" institution here is some respectable universities, not simply city colleges or non-phd granting institutions. I can point many schools that are significantly better than most of those "Ivy League" schools in many areas of studies.

Honestly, this whole thread disappoints me a bit. I honestly think some of you are missing out a lot of very excellent schools because of your irrational desire to go to an "Ivy League" or brand-name schools. Most of you have no idea why you want to go to so-and-so schools other than its name. I sincerely hope you are making the right decision.

Zz.

 

[sal]

Honestly, this whole thread disappoints me a bit. I honestly think some of you are missing out a lot of very excellent schools because of your irrational desire to go to an "Ivy League" or brand-name schools. Most of you have no idea why you want to go to so-and-so schools other than its name. I sincerely hope you are making the right decision.

Unfortunately one must make a decision about college a decade or two before one is likely to have enough information to make it in an "informed" fashion. So one looks at names one has heard of, and one looks at average SAT scores, and other coarse measures, and one hopes for the best. This isn't irrational and it isn't stupid -- it's doing the best one can with necessarily very limited information.

My reasons for picking MIT were certainly at least as bad as any expressed on this thread. I went to MIT in large part because I got in on early-decision before I'd filled out any other applications, and before I'd taken the Math level II achievement test. Caltech required Level II and I hated taking those tests, so ... I never applied to CalTech. In fact, with an acceptance in hand I just didn't have the discipline to fill out more forms at all. So I never applied anywhere else, and that settled it. In addition to CalTech (which was out because I couldn't deal with taking another achievement test), I was really interested in Yale, but they required a "long" essay on why I wanted to go there (a page or so, I think) and I kept putting it off and missed the application deadline.

Money was tight and I considered joining ROTC but when I got the forms, the packet was about a quarter inch thick (or so it appeared) and I decided any organization that required that much paperwork to get in was not for me. Good decision, I think, but the reason was indefensible!

So, I have a lot of sympathy and very little criticism to direct at anyone who's struggling with the applications/admission process.

 

[ZapperZ]

Unfortunately one must make a decision about college a decade or two before one is likely to have enough information to make it in an "informed" fashion. So one looks at names one has heard of, and one looks at average SAT scores, and other coarse measures, and one hopes for the best. This isn't irrational and it isn't stupid -- it's doing the best one can with necessarily very limited information.

My reasons for picking MIT were certainly at least as bad as any expressed on this thread. I went to MIT in large part because I got in on early-decision before I'd filled out any other applications, and before I'd taken the Math level II achievement test. Caltech required Level II and I hated taking those tests, so ... I never applied to CalTech. In fact, with an acceptance in hand I just didn't have the discipline to fill out more forms at all. So I never applied anywhere else, and that settled it. In addition to CalTech (which was out because I couldn't deal with taking another achievement test), I was really interested in Yale, but they required a "long" essay on why I wanted to go there (a page or so, I think) and I kept putting it off and missed the application deadline.

Money was tight and I considered joining ROTC but when I got the forms, the packet was about a quarter inch thick (or so it appeared) and I decided any organization that required that much paperwork to get in was not for me. Good decision, I think, but the reason was indefensible!

So, I have a lot of sympathy and very little criticism to direct at anyone who's struggling with the applications/admission process.

But we ALL went through that. However, considering that I went for my undergraduate degree before the widespread use of the internet, there's no longer any such excuse for not having "enough" information. Even ignoring the rest of the 'net, just looking at PF alone, there are TONS of resourses, both in the form of already-posted information, and people who have gone through the same process. I sometime feel as if I'm talking to a brick wall when I try to tell some students to not just limit their search to these brand-name schools. I've seen way too many students going to these places who eventually have to drop out for one reason or another.

To not even consider places such as U. of Minnesota, U. of Wisconsin, Indiana University, SUNY Stony Brook, John Hopkins, U. of Florida, Michigan State Univerisity, U. of N. Carolina, Georgia Tech, USC, U. of Arizona, U. of Washington, U. of Oregon, Iowa State University, UC-Davis, etc.. etc... just because one is caught up with "Ivy League" schools is shameful. Do people know that U. of Illinois, for example, as the #1 ranked Condensed Matter program in the country? What about Indiana U and U. of Maryland having two of the most prestiguous programs in the WORLD in accelerator physics?

I can go on and on and I can talk about this till I'm blue, but I still don't think I will ever get this point through. This is the saddest point about the whole thing.

Zz.

 

[pmb_phy]

Luckily, phyiscs jobs are not normally on Monster. So we are safe. I hate to think physics related job employers are THAT stupid.

At the moment there are 1,000 jobs which came up with the key word "physics" used as a search parameter.

I wish I could recall exactly where I've seen what I spoke of. I believe most were on Monster Board but can't be 100% certain. I've looked in many places for physics jobs. Due to recent events in my life I've decided to do whatever I can to become a physicist at a hospital. So I look at those kinds of places too.

However, please note that what is implied by "redbricks" institution here is some respectable universities, not simply city colleges or non-phd granting institutions.

I never heard that term "redbrick" used in the context they used if before so I looked it up in the dictionary. Webster defines

redbrick - [from the common use of red brick in constructing the buildings of recently founded universities] : of, relating to, or being the British Universities founded in the 19th or early 20th century.

I took that, and the context it was used in, to refer to what might be called "British Ivy League" schools. Without a clear definition otherwise its hard to say what they mean. But that was one of a few examples and is not the point I was making. There are many which require Ivy League school grads only.

I can point many schools that are significantly better than most of those "Ivy League" schools in many areas of studies.

I wouldn't find that surpising myself.

I honestly think some of you are missing out a lot of very excellent schools because of your irrational desire to go to an "Ivy League" or brand-name schools.

Its not my personal opinion that those schools are better than other decent universities just because they're big name schools. The topic of this thread is Tom's app to MIT. I was wondering why Tom choose MIT myself. I know why a lot of people choose MIT but I don't know what Tom's exact reasons are. I'm not sure I'll find out either.

Most of you have no idea why you want to go to so-and-so schools other than its name. I sincerely hope you are making the right decision.

Personally I went to a private school because the class was small and I'd have more 1-on-1 attention with the profs. I'm still very good friends with some of my old professors. The school was local too and has a very good reputation. For grad school I went to Northeastern University in Boston, which is an excellent school with a very good reputation.

As I said, I don't know why Tom chooses as he does. I can only guess its because of the name. But the fact remains the same - big name schools look good on a resume and it impresses prospective employers. Whether it should or not is another story.

Pete

 

[pmb_phy]

But we ALL went through that. However, considering that I went for my undergraduate degree before the widespread use of the internet, there's no longer any such excuse for not having "enough" information.

We're talking about teenagers Zz. Consider the fact that everytime a movie uses a scientist who's supposed to be a hotshot in almost all cases they went to MIT. That has to leave a large impression on the psyche of a teenager. There's little information available anywhere which will allow a teenager who has never gone to college before to determine if MIT is a better place for them to go to than, say, Northeastern University, Boston University, etc. etc. etc.

And its not too unreasonable either. My old bosses used to ooo! and ahhh! over MIT grads simly because of the name and the rep of that school. Why would anyone dismiss that fact?

Pmb

 

[sal]

I sometime feel as if I'm talking to a brick wall when I try to tell some students to not just limit their search to these brand-name schools. I've seen way too many students going to these places who eventually have to drop out for one reason or another.

In general I would tend to agree -- there are a lot of good schools and a lot of people seem to think you need to go to one of the Top Ten or you might as well just apply early for welfare.

But I have one issue with your list of schools, which is that many colleges, particularly those that call themselves "universities", have a sharp split between the grad school and undergrad school. In at least some cases the famous names and major work being done at the school are in the grad school. In some cases the grad school may be excellent, and exclusive, while the undergrad school may be quite different. You said:

To not even consider places such as U. of Minnesota, U. of Wisconsin, Indiana University, SUNY Stony Brook, John Hopkins, U. of Florida, Michigan State Univerisity, U. of N. Carolina, Georgia Tech, USC, U. of Arizona, U. of Washington, U. of Oregon, Iowa State University, UC-Davis, etc.. etc... just because one is caught up with "Ivy League" schools is shameful.

In particular, the list includes U. Wisconsin, Indiana U, and U of Florida. Those all have top graduate schools at least in some areas, but I would be very nervous about having a child of mine attend any of them as an undergraduate. They are indeed famous schools, but not for all the right reasons:

The Princeton Review's "party school" category is based on the amount of alcohol and drug consumption, the amount of time students spend studying, and the popularity of fraternities and sororities.

Other colleges listed in the Top Ten included the University of Wisconsin-Madison; Indiana University, Bloomington; University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign; Washington and Lee University, Lexington, VA; University of Texas-Austin; The University of the South, Sewanee, TN; DePauw University, Greencastle, IN; Saint Bonaventure University, Olean, NY; and the University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.

For the same reason I would be very hesitant to recommend the University of Rhode Island, or a few other schools which have similar reputations.

 

[ZapperZ]

In general I would tend to agree -- there are a lot of good schools and a lot of people seem to think you need to go to one of the Top Ten or you might as well just apply early for welfare.

But I have one issue with your list of schools, which is that many colleges, particularly those that call themselves "universities", have a sharp split between the grad school and undergrad school. In at least some cases the famous names and major work being done at the school are in the grad school. In some cases the grad school may be excellent, and exclusive, while the undergrad school may be quite different. In particular, you mentioned U. Wisconsin, Indiana U, and U of Florida. Those all have top graduate schools at least in some areas, but I would be very nervous about having a child of mine attend any of them as an undergraduate. They are indeed famous schools, but not for all the right reasons:

If you have read my response in another thread titled " CalTech, My choice of school, but I need your help", you would have noticed that I made a clear point that most undergraduate would never see any of the so-called prestigious research that a university typically touts. So I have already mentioned this as the point. So then, what criteria did these students use to pick MIT, for example? Name recognition alone?

I went to the U. of Wis-Madison. Is it a party school? It certainly was back in the 80's. But that's as bad as labelling U. of Collorado as purely a party school IN SPITE of the fact that the physics department has an excellent program in condensed matter (Eric Cornell is a faculty member there). It still does not diminish the fact that you CAN get an excellent undergraduate education there, including plenty of research opportunities simply because it does have a lot of research fundings and endowment (UW is part of the consortium that runs Fermilab, and it also runs a very busy synchrotron center for the DOE). The party students drop out very quickly.

Zz.

 

[DE7]

This is worth addressing, since it may sound a bit scary, and it shouldn't.

First, note that there is no "physics 101" at MIT. Rather there are three different versions of "physics 101". At MIT everyone takes freshman physics and freshman calculus, but not everyone has identical needs (the music majors -- yes, there are some -- don't need as intensive an approach as the physics majors). So, there's 8.01, which is regular mechanics. There's 8.012, which is the heavy-duty version intended for physics majors. And, there's 8.011, commonly called "physics for poets", which is a little lighter. Different texts, different profs, different approaches (and forgive me if I've got the course numbers wrong; it's been a long time).

Yup, things have changed a little bit. We now have 8.01, which is standard mechanics in a lecture format, 8.01T, which is mechanics in a computer teaching laboratory environment, 8.01X, which is the aforementioned physics for poets/business majors, and 8.012, which was heavy duty indeed. Supposedly 8.01T is a little dumbed down to boost the grades in that class and make the computer teaching laboratory environment program (called TEAL) look better. I took 8.012, and even though I had no real physics in high school, 8.01 also seems a bit simplistic to me when I help freshman with their problems, so I'm not sure if 8.01 is really that much harder than physics 101 anywhere else. Definitely take 8.012 if you do come here, and 8.022 after that - good luck!

 

[Tom McCurdy]

Sure. Go to the Monster Board and search on Ivy Leauge


Here is an sample when I searched on that and "physics"



This was the purpose of my question - to inquire into Tom's goals etc. He may want to do what ensures him the most employability etc. I don't know, therefore the present questions.

I know. I agree. That's a pretty snooty attitude in my opinion. Tell people to avoid Huxley Associates. I think they're a recruiter.
Institutions don't always do the advertising.They may go to head hunters and the head hunters might be extra lazy and think that if look only at Ivy League applicants then they'll look better. Disgusting in my opinion.

This is merely an example mind you. But I simply typed in "Ivy Leauge" in Monster Board and got 250 hits. I don't think that this Huxley Associates people are the ones I read in the past though. I've been searching using Monster for years and have come across many of these listings.

sal - by "many" I do not mean "most" or "significant fraction".

Pete

My goals for the future are to start my own business that has something to do with inventing new technology. I guess similar things today would be something like Sharper Image. I figured MIT does have a strong reputation, and it has been a dream of mine since I was little. Propaganda is hard to remove from one's mind. The fact is you are kind of judged by what school you get into, its almost a measure of worth. I can look at that statement and say that it's bull****, but it's hard not to let that affect you in some ways. I mean I got into U of M... the number 7 school for engineering in the U.S. (number 4 the year before) so I mean i know its a good program at least. I also got into rose hulman-- number 1 ranked under-grad university in the U.S. But others get into these universites as well. Kids who didn't work hard who aren't as smart get into U of M especially in other fields and its kind of depressing to know that you will be going to school with kids like that. MIT is a legend, I have been there and I love it. I met students, played with kids on the soccer team, and walked around on campus. The kids remind me of the math and science center I attend, which would be amazing if I could duplicate the enviorment I am in now. I just really fell hard for MIT

 

[pmb_phy]

My goals for the future are to start my own business that has something to do with inventing new technology.

Then I'd say that the best advice you could get would be to find people who have done that and speak to them about it.

I guess similar things today would be something like Sharper Image. I figured MIT does have a strong reputation, and it has been a dream of mine since I was little. Propaganda is hard to remove from one's mind.

I agree 100%.

The fact is you are kind of judged by what school you get into, its almost a measure of worth.

That is a very correct assumption and I don't care what anybody tells you otherwise.

I can look at that statement and say that it's bull****, but it's hard not to let that affect you in some ways.

Nah. Its not bull****. Its a fact of life. The only disagreement could be that it shouldn't be a fact of life. We can all dream!

However I'd like to point out one thing - You say that your judged by your school. In what sense are you concerned about that? You say that your goal is to start your own buisness. In that case you'll be working for yourself and I'm sure you'll like the boss. In what sense does being judged have to do with your goal of opening your own buisness. I can only see that it would matter to customers, fellow employees and the off chance that life doesn't go the way you like and you have to work for someone else at times.

I mean I got into U of M... the number 7 school for engineering in the U.S. (number 4 the year before) so I mean i know its a good program at least. I also got into rose hulman-- number 1 ranked under-grad university in the U.S. But others get into these universites as well. Kids who didn't work hard who aren't as smart get into U of M especially in other fields and its kind of depressing to know that you will be going to school with kids like that.

The most I've seen schools count when it comes to things like this is not in the school itself, but in your GPA. Companies look strongly at your GPA.

MIT is a legend, I have been there and I love it. I met students, played with kids on the soccer team, and walked around on campus. The kids remind me of the math and science center I attend, which would be amazing if I could duplicate the enviorment I am in now. I just really fell hard for MIT

But you have to take the long term look, don't you? Do you want people to see "PhD from MIT" on your resume or do you want them to see "BS from MIT" and "PhD from ??" You might not be able to have both.

If you want to get a PhD then ask the people at MIT what the likelyhood is if you do exceptionally well at MIT of getting into grad school at MIT.

Pete

 

[heman]

Hats off Mc.
I too am applying for MIT.but we foreigners don't have the early admission option.:(

Hey Poolwin u are also appearing for IIT too i suppose...out of MIT and IIT which will u prefer??

 

[Tom McCurdy]

Update:
U of M: Accepted
Case Western: Accepted
Rose Hulman: Accepted
Purdue: Accepted
MIT: Still defered

Those are the only schools I applied to so not to bad too far.

 

[juvenal]

Update:
U of M: Accepted
Case Western: Accepted
Rose Hulman: Accepted
Purdue: Accepted
MIT: Still defered

Those are the only schools I applied to so not to bad too far.

Don't want to get your hopes down, but your chances of getting in when deferred are pretty slim. Don't know a single person who's ever been admitted after being deferred. You'd have to really make a substantial improvement in your application. Something that stands out - not just grades.

 

[Andromeda321]

I know one person who got in after getting deferral but *shrug* does it really matter? Not like you haven't gotten accepted to great schools; you're going to have a tough choice between them.
Though I am still biased in favor of Case Western because everyone knows we're just awesome like that... where else do you know kids willing to walk through subzero temperatures and a foot of snow to hear a physics colloquium on dark matter?

 

[daveed]

that's all right. I'm a junior, so I'm waiting to be rejected next year. hehe