Will a C+ in Honors US History Affect My Chances of Getting into MIT?

[Fuz]

Hello guys, I have a few Q's

So I'm a sophomore in high school and I'm seriously thinking about my future, just like I have been for the past 4 years. I really want to get into a good college to study math or physics. My problem is that I got a 'C+' in my Honors US History class. I hate to give an excuse but my teacher is basically impossible. I talked to my counselor and he told me that students complain to him about my teacher, and he says that on recommendations he writes that a C is a good grade in his class and he's the hardest teacher in the school.

I'm kinda stressed out about this because I was thinking about, perhaps, applying to MIT. I get mostly A's, play lacrosse and am on the swim team. Will MIT just throw out the App?... Just afraid the C will destroy my script and chances with getting into a good college.

Just a few more questions. I'm pretty much really wanting to be an astronaut nowadays. Does NASA look at my high school grades? What field (physics, math, engineering) and degree (bachelor's, masters, phd) would give me a good chance at becoming an astronaut. Will there even be a demand for astronauts? Is the Air Force a good option?

Please forgive me for the broadness of these questions.

Thanks everybody,
Fuz

 

[General_Sax]

Your future is pretty much ruined. Perhaps you can study business administration at a non-accredited technical college, but that's pretty much about it. I would suggest you practice reciting the phrase "would you like fries with that?"

 

[Nex Vortex]

I applied to MIT back in my high school years, and I had the same problem (I had a couple C's in French).

My interviewer assured me that grades and standardized test scores are not a big part of the selection process. They look for a lower limit, just to make sure you can handle the rigorous coursework, but he said that the biggest thing in selection is in the essay questions you must write for the application.

 

[Fuz]

Are you being serious?

 

[Fuz]

I applied to MIT back in my high school years, and I had the same problem (I had a couple C's in French).

My interviewer assured me that grades and standardized test scores are not a big part of the selection process. They look for a lower limit, just to make sure you can handle the rigorous coursework, but he said that the biggest thing in selection is in the essay questions you must write for the application.

Thanks, did you get in? So will my dumb C+ get overlooked?

 

[Norman]

Regarding the NASA Astronaut question: Astronaut selection is EXTREMELY difficult. You need to meet a bunch of criteria. You need a degree in a hard science, math or engineering field (roughly), need to be of a certain physical stature, pass an extensive physical, pass a rigorous psychological evaluation.

You can take a look at this webpage: http://nasajobs.nasa.gov/astronauts/
Specifically read this: http://nasajobs.nasa.gov/astronauts/content/Astronaut_Selection_and_Training_2007.pdf

And this is all just to get into the training program. You may still never get to space...

The question of whether there will be a manned space program in 20 years is difficult. Odds are there will be, but NASA is a governmental entity and survives on the whim of Congress, the President and the American public. Politics is not becoming any less volatile.

Does NASA look at high school grades? Doubtful.

Will you get into MIT... who knows? School admissions are kind of a crapshoot. You could have a perfect application and maybe one of the big named schools does pick you for admission for some weird, esoteric reason.

 

[Nex Vortex]

Thanks, did you get in? So will my dumb C+ get overlooked?

No, I did not get accepted. It's a very hard school to get into. However, it was not because of my scores. I got deferred in the early application pool instead of rejected, so I at least met their requirements for admission.

 

[Fuz]

No, I did not get accepted. It's a very hard school to get into. However, it was not because of my scores. I got deferred in the early application pool instead of rejected, so I at least met their requirements for admission.

Thanks. What kind of SAT score did you get and were you really high in your class or anything. I appreciate your replys.

 

[Nex Vortex]

Thanks. What kind of SAT score did you get and were you really high in your class or anything. I appreciate your replys.

I was number 3 in my class (thanks to the French classes). Also, I elected to take the ACT with Writing instead of the SAT. I lived in a small town, so the closest place the SAT's were offered was almost a 2 hour drive. A 34 was my highest ACT score. They also require you to take 2 SAT subject area tests (I took 3 though, because that was the max amount you can take in one day, and I wanted to make the drive worth it). I don't remember my exact scores but they ranged from about 680-720.

 

[danh0000]

I got accepted. Similar situation. High standardized test scores, lots of extracurricular activities, and A's in all of my classes except that I got a D in my AP Bio class because I wouldn't attend this particular teacher's mandatory 3-6pm after school sessions and the 6-hour Saturday sessions. What was hilarious is I got a 5 on the AP Bio test on my own while the rest of the students that met her demands failed, except for one who got a 3 if I remember correctly. That kinda proved the teacher was insane.

I recommend taking the AP US History test if you think you can get a 4 or 5.

Don't focus too much on the MIT brand. Lots of good people come from other schools for many reasons. Find a school that you think suits you, inc. the people, city, etc. You can always do your bachelors somewhere else and apply to graduate school at MIT.

Can't offer advice on the astronaut part, except maybe keep your options open...

 

[atyy]

A friend of mine had a C in physics and got into MIT. He did get an A on a more advanced physics course he took later.

 

[twofish-quant]

Are you being serious?

Yes. About grades being less important than the personal essay.

One other thing that plays a major role in admissions is geography. If you come from a state in which there have been few people applying, you have a larger chance.

Also don't count on getting into MIT. Even if you have straight-A's and a perfect application, there's a lot of randomness in the admissions process.

The other thing about MIT is that it's very, very good or very, very bad. The MIT style of education is lot like being taken to the middle of the ocean with a life preserver and dropped into the ocean to see if you can swim back. The reason grades are less important than the personal essay is that it's a very good place for someone that is self-motivated and has enough self-confidence to survive the process, but it can be a horrible and lonely place for someone that isn't. You have to be something of an intellectual masochist to thrive there. You will be made to work harder and feel more stupid than you've thought possible.

It's the academic equivalent of joining the Marines. Wonderful if you fit in. Awful if you don't.

 

[Fuz]

A friend of mine had a C in physics and got into MIT. He did get an A on a more advanced physics course he took later.

cool, did he make many B's?

 

[twofish-quant]

I hate to give an excuse but my teacher is basically impossible. I talked to my counselor and he told me that students complain to him about my teacher, and he says that on recommendations he writes that a C is a good grade in his class and he's the hardest teacher in the school.

If you apply to MIT, you might consider having him write a recommendation letter.

 

[Fuz]

If you apply to MIT, you might consider having him write a recommendation letter.

Im definitely planing on asking him to do that for wherever I go

 

[twofish-quant]

Also MIT admissions is nervous about students that make straight-A's. What typically happens is that you have outstanding students come to MIT, and during freshman year for the first time in their lives, they end up struggling. It's a big shock if you are used to having all A's and then suddenly you are struggling to get a C in freshman physics and you find yourself near the bottom of the class. The MIT philosophy is to have everyone struggle, so if you are acing classes, they just push you to do more stuff.

If you have generally good grades, but a C or a B somewhere, that means that you can survive not being perfect.

The big thing that MIT admissions is terrified with new students is to make sure that they don't end up in the mental hospital at McLeans or worse.

 

[atyy]

cool, did he make many B's?

I don't know. One thing in his favour was he had to do two years of military service, so he didn't have to go to college immediately after high school, and could re-apply. He only got on the wait list the first time, but got in the second time.

 

[atyy]

It's the academic equivalent of joining the Marines. Wonderful if you fit in. Awful if you don't.

I'm willing to bet the Marines are much harder. Though MIT has ROTC, so there must be some who've done both.

 

[twofish-quant]

I'm willing to bet the Marines are much harder. Though MIT has ROTC, so there must be some who've done both.

There are different types of hardness. One thing about Marine basic training is that is 70 days, whereas MIT is four years of continuous grinding pressure and stress. Something else that is interesting is that the drop out rate is rather low. The intro physics courses feel hard, but MIT doesn't have any weed out courses which means that people are rather supportive in getting you through the classes.

Also the admissions standards also changes the social dynamics. Undergraduate opinions are taken much more seriously at MIT than in most universities. For example, if you have a typical physics class in a state university, and the students complain about the class, it's hard to figure out whether this is to be taken seriously because it could be that the students are either unmotivated or unprepared. For MIT, if you are unmotivated or unprepared, you shouldn't have gotten an admission, which means that if you get in and you are complaining, those complaints are taken quite a bit more seriously. So you have students in all of the faculty and curriculum committees, and I think I learned more being part of academic politics at MIT than I did in the classroom.

 

[Fuz]

Yes. About grades being less important than the personal essay.

One other thing that plays a major role in admissions is geography. If you come from a state in which there have been few people applying, you have a larger chance.

Also don't count on getting into MIT. Even if you have straight-A's and a perfect application, there's a lot of randomness in the admissions process.

The other thing about MIT is that it's very, very good or very, very bad. The MIT style of education is lot like being taken to the middle of the ocean with a life preserver and dropped into the ocean to see if you can swim back. The reason grades are less important than the personal essay is that it's a very good place for someone that is self-motivated and has enough self-confidence to survive the process, but it can be a horrible and lonely place for someone that isn't. You have to be something of an intellectual masochist to thrive there. You will be made to work harder and feel more stupid than you've thought possible.

It's the academic equivalent of joining the Marines. Wonderful if you fit in. Awful if you don't.

I REALLY appreciate your replys, along with everyone elses. I live in the pan-handle of Idaho so that should increase my chances a little bit, like you said. This is a little bit off topic but what is kinda the average time it takes to get a masters degree in physics or math?

 

[Norman]

I REALLY appreciate your replys, along with everyone elses. I live in the pan-handle of Idaho so that should increase my chances a little bit, like you said. This is a little bit off topic but what is kinda the average time it takes to get a masters degree in physics or math?

Typically masters programs are 2 years. Some schools carry BS+MS 5 year programs. A lot of variables go into it, but the typical is 2 years after a BS.

 

[shravas]

Yes. About grades being less important than the personal essay.

This is absolutely false. If you look at the Common Data Set for MIT (http://web.mit.edu/ir/cds/2010/c.html) they say explicitly that grades are more important than essays. I wouldn't worry about a C your sophomore year though, especially if it's not in a math or science class. There are definitely people here with C's on their high school transcript, sometimes even in math and science courses.

One other thing that plays a major role in admissions is geography. If you come from a state in which there have been few people applying, you have a larger chance.

Okay, I don't think this works the way you think it does. I'm pretty sure the idea is that people from underrepresented states on average have less opportunities, so you can't expect their applications to be as colorful as someone from overrepresented states. But it doesn't always work this way. I'm sure that if you have two applicants with similar applications, but one went to the Mississippi School of Math and Science but the other went to high school in Compton, the latter would have a better chance of getting in even though Mississippi is an extremely underrepresented state while there are more people at MIT from California than any other state.

 

[twofish-quant]

This is absolutely false. If you look at the Common Data Set for MIT (http://web.mit.edu/ir/cds/2010/c.html) they say explicitly that grades are more important than essays.

They may say that on the form, but I don't believe it. If you have someone from the Office of Admissions make that statement then I'll change my mind, but since the form came out of a part of the Institute that has nothing to do with admissions, there's no reason to think that the person filling it out has better information than I do.

The basis for the information that I have is talking with other alumni that have been involved in admissions. There have been severally really, really bad traumatic events at MIT, and the number one concern of people looking at admissions is to make sure that you will not react badly to the MIT environment. Grades are one part of this, but essays give a better sense of whether someone will react badly.

I'm sure that if you have two applicants with similar applications, but one went to the Mississippi School of Math and Science but the other went to high school in Compton, the latter would have a better chance of getting in even though Mississippi is an extremely underrepresented state while there are more people at MIT from California than any other state.

Again this is something that I likely have better information than you do. Geography is quite important, and so someone from Mississippi would have a much better chance of getting admitted than someone from California because MIT tries to make sure that there is regional balance. Diversity is something that MIT takes very seriously, but people assume ethnicity is the only aspect of diversity when in fact regional diversity is also something that is very strongly considered. You don't want everyone from California or Mississippi.

The problem is that if you just look at the transcript you run the risk that everyone that gets admitted goes to a special math/science which leaves out people that couldn't get in because there *wasn't* a math/science school for them to go into. This may hurt you if you went to Bronx High School of Science or Stuyvasent, but if you graduate from Bronx High School of Science and you don't go to MIT, there is a pretty good chance that you'll end up doing something technological anyway, whereas if you graduate from a public high school in Mississippi, getting into MIT is likely to make a much bigger difference.

 

[twofish-quant]

Part of the reason that I'm interested in talking about MIT is that the biggest problem that I see with MIT is that it does not scale. It admits 1000 people, and there just are too many good candidates for the places available. One thing that I'm trying to do is to set things up so that you can get an MIT education even if you happen to lose the admissions lottery. One thing that you do have to understand is that it is a lottery and that despite everyone's best efforts, it's unfair, because a lot of the people that deserve to get in, just don't. If I had to apply again today, I'm not sure I'd get in.

At the end of the day, you have far more qualified people than spots, and so there is a lot of luck and randomness. Now what I'm trying to do to fix this is to give people enough information about what MIT is all about and how the system works so that people can build their own MIT if they happen to lose the lottery.

Something that is true is that MIT is not strong in classroom instruction. MIT primarily is a research institution and the Institute (IMHO) places classroom teaching skill below research ability. There are some excellent teachers, but there are teachers that are just terrible (and just because you have a Nobel prize doesn't mean that you can teach). The strong point of MIT is not the classroom instruction, but the culture and ideology that you end up absorbing.

Just to give you an example of how this works. Suppose someone tells you that you are stupid. You will have an outside reaction, but deep down you will also have an internal emotional reaction, and ultimately what you *feel* when someone tells you this is what you will do. What that emotion reaction is is not something that you teach in the classroom, but something you absorb by from the people around you. MIT teaches you to react emotionally in certain ways, and that's the important part (at least in my opinion) about how the Institute works.

One of the more important things that you learn at MIT is to hate MIT. MIT teaches you some very deep ideas about how the world *should* work (i.e. elitism is bogus), and after a while it becomes quickly apparent that MIT just doesn't meet its own standards of excellence. That's a good thing. If it did, you wouldn't be trying to improve it.

 

[gb7nash]

Like others have said, don't put all of your eggs in one basket (MIT). You can be just as successful in your career applying to other decent schools, and there are a lot of them.

As far as what major to be an astronaut, I'm not really sure. With the number of space missions the US has had recently, I would put astronaut on the backburner and make yourself marketable in some other area.

However, if you would still like to work for NASA, Boenig, anything that has to aircrafts, look into aerospace engineering. There's a lot of need for efficient and safe aircrafts. You wouldn't believe how many flights are made in a single day! Safety is paramount if airline companies want people to travel with them.

 

[atyy]

One of the more important things that you learn at MIT is to hate MIT. MIT teaches you some very deep ideas about how the world *should* work (i.e. elitism is bogus), and after a while it becomes quickly apparent that MIT just doesn't meet its own standards of excellence. That's a good thing. If it did, you wouldn't be trying to improve it.

Wow, you really toe the line.

IHTFP.

 

[turbo]

I was accepted to quite a few universities that I had never applied to, including MIT. I just got fat envelopes in the mail. The problem is that even with scholarship offers, it was more productive for me to attend a land-grant college in my home state and take an engineering course. Later, I gravitated toward astronomy and wished that I had accepted University of Arizona's scholarship. They have so many students, grads, and post-docs working on astronomy projects, that it's ridiculous. I'd love to be living in Tucson, designing and building instruments to be included in future space-probes, and perhaps designing or building instruments for the LBT. Oh, well.

Air-fare was so expensive in the 60's that I would have had to practically say good-bye to my entire family to attend Arizona. I just couldn't give that up at that time. Now I wish I had.

 

[Fizex]

I'm kinda stressed out about this because I was thinking about, perhaps, applying to MIT. I get mostly A's, play lacrosse and am on the swim team. Will MIT just throw out the App?... Just afraid the C will destroy my script and chances with getting into a good college.

Just a few more questions. I'm pretty much really wanting to be an astronaut nowadays. Does NASA look at my high school grades? What field (physics, math, engineering) and degree (bachelor's, masters, phd) would give me a good chance at becoming an astronaut. Will there even be a demand for astronauts? Is the Air Force a good option?

Good luck with becoming an astronaut; the shuttle program was terminated. Besides why would you want to go to MIT and not the U.S. Air Force Academy? A lot more astronauts came from the latter and being an astronaut might not be as fun as you think. Why, I'd say flying a fighter jet would be more fun than being an astronaut.

 

[raam86]

The MIT style of education is lot like being taken to the middle of the ocean with a life preserver and dropped into the ocean to see if you can swim back.

Love this insight! I believe this applies to all high class tech schools. I was trying to figure out what made students in these institutes hate their lives more so then their peers in similar degrees in different universities. I do believe it's just that. Israeli Technion is a perfect example.

 

[atyy]

But is there any evidence that they do hate their schools? Maybe they just say that to maintain the mysique.

 

[jhae2.718]

One thing worth mentioning if you decide to go an engineering route with NASA, is to try to get an internship/coop. That will increase your chances of getting a NASA job exponentially, according to a couple presentations by NASA engineers I've attended.

 

[Fuz]

Wait, I'm confused. Why is the shuttle program ending? Does that mean... No more astronauts.

 

[raam86]

But is there any evidence that they do hate their schools? Maybe they just say that to maintain the mysique.

No concrete data or research. Simply personal friends with personal thoughts. I hardly believe they will say it for the mystique it just doesn't have this sort of aura where I come from.
It might be because everyone served in the army and whatever hardship anyplace throws at you anywhere else is just laughable compared to the physical and mental abuse you get in the military.

Of course studying may be much harder then serving your time in the army in several aspects but since you chose to study it's more of a challenge then abuse.

 

[twofish-quant]

As far as what major to be an astronaut, I'm not really sure. With the number of space missions the US has had recently, I would put astronaut on the backburner and make yourself marketable in some other area.

I suggest for the OP's undergraduate degree that he study a lot of politics, economics, and history.

Also this is a good example of the culture that MIT teaches. Someone from another school that thinks "I want to be an astronaut" is likely to be told to just give up, and if you have enough people telling you that you should give up, then you will, because you will believe that its the right thing to do.

Someone from MIT, is more likely to look reality in the face and think "so what keeps me from being an astronaut, and how do I fix things so that I can do it." If you have to become a Congressman, start your own astronaut company (like SpaceX), become an air force general, then you learn that you can do that. After all, you get to meet people that are Congressmen, who have started their own companies, and air force generals, and after seeing them, you think to yourself "well I can do that... After all I survived MIT."

MIT people don't make themselves marketable. They create new markets. Learning this sort of culture is probably the most important part of the Institute, the classroom stuff is useful but not outstanding.

My belief is that the US manned space program is a total mess and is going to go nowhere without a good firm kick in the rear end. One thing on my list of TODO's, is to convince whoever is in charge of China to give a speech saying that China is going have an astronaut plant a Chinese flag on Mars, and if anyone else wants to get there first, they are welcome to try.

 

[Fuz]

I suggest for the OP's undergraduate degree that he study a lot of politics, economics, and history.

Also this is a good example of the culture that MIT teaches. Someone from another school that thinks "I want to be an astronaut" is likely to be told to just give up, and if you have enough people telling you that you should give up, then you will, because you will believe that its the right thing to do.

Someone from MIT, is more likely to look reality in the face and think "so what keeps me from being an astronaut, and how do I fix things so that I can do it." If you have to become a Congressman, start your own astronaut company (like SpaceX), become an air force general, then you learn that you can do that. After all, you get to meet people that are Congressmen, who have started their own companies, and air force generals, and after seeing them, you think to yourself "well I can do that... After all I survived MIT."

MIT people don't make themselves marketable. They create new markets. Learning this sort of culture is probably the most important part of the Institute, the classroom stuff is useful but not outstanding.

My belief is that the US manned space program is a total mess and is going to go nowhere without a good firm kick in the rear end. One thing on my list of TODO's, is to convince whoever is in charge of China to give a speech saying that China is going have an astronaut plant a Chinese flag on Mars, and if anyone else wants to get there first, they are welcome to try.

Maybe I emphasized MIT a little in the first post. I do want to become an astronaut, but if NASA won't exist or have space missions by the time i qualify, then what's the point in trying? Will NASA still have space missions in 15 years? I thought MIT would be a good choice for college to raise my chances of becoming an astronaut, but whatever gets me there is fine.

 

[twofish-quant]

But is there any evidence that they do hate their schools? Maybe they just say that to maintain the mysique.

I hate MIT with fiery, intense burning passion. But its a weird sort of hatred. Hate isn't a necessarily a bad thing. If I didn't hate MIT as much as I did, I wouldn't be as motivated to try to improve it if it's possible, or try to invent something better than MIT if it's not.

One reason I hate MIT is that its so damn elitist. One thing that you learn at MIT is to hate elitist that isn't based on technical competency and earned attributes. This creates some paradoxes because MIT sits in the center of the power elite.

 

[twofish-quant]

Wait, I'm confused. Why is the shuttle program ending?

First shuttle was launched in 1981. That's old. We need to do something else, and one of the major lessons of the shuttle program is that winged spacecraft don't make sense.

Does that mean... No more astronauts.

No more US astronauts launched from US spacecraft for a few years. The Russians are still sending people into space and will be a taxi for US astronauts, and China is going forward.

The US manned space program is this unbelievable mess, talking about why is long and depressing, but you should read up on its history so that you can figure out what to do with it.

 

[atyy]

http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-243-544--13448-1-1X2-2,00.html

I'm a Runner: Dorothy Metcalf-Lindenburger
"Before she was an astronaut, Metcalf-Lindenburger taught high school science. Her first mission launches March 18, 2010."

 

[twofish-quant]

Maybe I emphasized MIT a little in the first post. I do want to become an astronaut, but if NASA won't exist or have space missions by the time i qualify, then what's the point in trying?

Because what else are you going to do? Also how the space program works is something that people decide, and so you can learn to change the future.

Will NASA still have space missions in 15 years?

No idea. Future is unwritten. You'll have some role in writing it.

 

[atyy]

How about http://www.virgingalactic.com/ ?

 

[Fuz]

First shuttle was launched in 1981. That's old. We need to do something else, and one of the major lessons of the shuttle program is that winged spacecraft don't make sense.

Haha, I understand. What do you mean we need to do something else? I mean, what else?

 

[atyy]

My belief is that the US manned space program is a total mess and is going to go nowhere without a good firm kick in the rear end. One thing on my list of TODO's, is to convince whoever is in charge of China to give a speech saying that China is going have an astronaut plant a Chinese flag on Mars, and if anyone else wants to get there first, they are welcome to try.

You are one of the few physicists I've met who hold such a view. Most seem to oppose manned space flight - too expensive for too little return - much better spent on whatever's after the LHC. Perhaps this is just a cultural thing (ie. restricted to particle physicists), since I've heard that it was something about space that did the SSC in. Steven Weinberg said that Clinton didn't have the political capital to support two major programmes in Texas, it was between the SSC and some NASA thing, and Ann Richards chose the NASA project. In the same talk he told the amusing anecdote (well, probably not amusing to someone who actually worked on the SSC) that someone had told him that before the site of the SSC is chosen, congressmen from 50 states would support it, but after it's chosen, 49 states would be against!

 

[twofish-quant]

You are one of the few physicists I've met who hold such a view.

Yup. The issue is that physicists see this as a zero sum game in which more funding for astronauts means less funding for unmanned probes.

Steven Weinberg said that Clinton didn't have the political capital to support two major programmes in Texas, it was between the SSC and some NASA thing, and Ann Richards chose the NASA project.

The problem here is that after the USSR fell, there was no interest group in support of the SSC, whereas you have several very powerful lobbies (aerospace companies and the military) that were in support of the space station.

That someone had told him that before the site of the SSC is chosen, congressmen from 50 states would support it, but after it's chosen, 49 states would be against!

Yup, and I have some interesting stories to tell. I once saw a DOE staffer talking to a staff member for a senator. The conversation was:

DOE staff: Will the senator support the SSC if it is not in state X?
Senate staff: Yes. The senator thinks that it's an important project which he will support if not in his state.

That conversation took 20 minutes. One hard part was that the DOE staffer couldn't explicitly say that the SSC would not be in state X, so they had to talk in hypotheticals and code words. Fascinating to watch.

One problem with the SSC is that there isn't a supply chain. The thing about the space station is that the pork gets spread around. For the SSC there is just one place.

 

[G01]

I hate MIT with fiery, intense burning passion. But its a weird sort of hatred. Hate isn't a necessarily a bad thing. If I didn't hate MIT as much as I did, I wouldn't be as motivated to try to improve it if it's possible, or try to invent something better than MIT if it's not.

One reason I hate MIT is that its so damn elitist. One thing that you learn at MIT is to hate elitist that isn't based on technical competency and earned attributes. This creates some paradoxes because MIT sits in the center of the power elite.

Just in case people think TF-Q is putting on an act here:

I'm a grad student (not at MIT, but in the Boston area), and both of my roommates graduated from MIT and one is a current grad student there. Both of them would immediately, without any hesitation, agree with everything in the above quote by twofish...

To the OP:

I wish you the best luck with your MIT application. Boston is a great place to go to school and spend your 20's-30's. However, please don't limit yourself to only MIT. I'm worried you are filling your head with this romantic view of MIT that isn't really true, and then taking an "MIT or bust" attitude.

Just remember MIT, the Ivy League, and other prestigious big-name schools do not have a monopoly on great education.

 

[Fizex]

Why are you guys still discussing MIT when that isn't the main goal? The kid wants to be an astronaut; not specifically an MIT graduate. His goal wasn't to become the smartest person either so your discussion of academic rigor isn't relevant. The best chance you can have of being thrown into space is to go the the Air Force Academy or the U.S. Navel Academy (both of which have graduated more astronauts than MIT). Then even if NASA doesn't want to send you into space, at least you get to fly other cool things. You can do this or become incredibly wealthy and buy a ticket on a private space company like SpaceX to send you out there.

NASA might have some other other human space missions but none have been approved. Obama doesn't want NASA to ferry humans anymore but the good thing about the U.S. is that he doesn't stay in power for long. Take a look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle#Retirement_and_legacy

 

[mathwonk]

Have you considered the possibility that your honors history prof is rather like the profs at MIT? Has he ever given anyone an A or B? Maybe this man is your best chance to actually prepare for MIT coursework. You might ask him for guidance, or an outside project, that will help you enhance your writing ability nearer the level he is looking for in an honors student. I.e. try improving yourself rather than worrying about your grade. the more highly qualified you are the better your chances the rest of your life. This is more important than getting into a prestigious school you may not be ready for.

 

[gb7nash]

Also this is a good example of the culture that MIT teaches. Someone from another school that thinks "I want to be an astronaut" is likely to be told to just give up, and if you have enough people telling you that you should give up, then you will, because you will believe that its the right thing to do.

It's simple supply and demand. Looking at the past, the US space mission hasn't really been doing much. If a lot of people are deadset on becoming an astronaut, only a few will be successful, if that. If the OP has other marketable alternatives he can fall back on, I would tell him to strongly consider him focusing on that first. However, if he's deadset on becoming an astronaut, then go for it.

Someone from MIT, is more likely to look reality in the face and think "so what keeps me from being an astronaut, and how do I fix things so that I can do it." If you have to become a Congressman, start your own astronaut company (like SpaceX), become an air force general, then you learn that you can do that. After all, you get to meet people that are Congressmen, who have started their own companies, and air force generals, and after seeing them, you think to yourself "well I can do that... After all I survived MIT."

It all depends on your background. For someone that's young and fresh out of college, it's great to try new things(trying to become an astronaut) and some risks pay off. Unfortunately, it's not as easy as saying, "I can change the world, let me start my own company". Many people have families, are older, have mortgages to pay off and one mistake could cripple them. Also, a lot of people come from different backgrounds and are struggling to make endsmeat with today's economy. It's much safer to know you're getting a degree that can be put to good use. So it really depends on a lot of different factors.

 

[twofish-quant]

It's simple supply and demand. Looking at the past, the US space mission hasn't really been doing much. If a lot of people are deadset on becoming an astronaut, only a few will be successful, if that

If a lot of people want to be an astronaut, then there is money to be made by shooting people into space. The US manned space program is a total mess, but rather than accept that fact, the OP could be in a position to change it.

If the OP has other marketable alternatives he can fall back on, I would tell him to strongly consider him focusing on that first.

I strongly advise people not to take the idea of "marketable" serious. You become marketable by creating a market on your own terms.

For someone that's young and fresh out of college, it's great to try new things(trying to become an astronaut) and some risks pay off. Unfortunately, it's not as easy as saying, "I can change the world, let me start my own company".

It's not easy. Starting your own company is one of the most difficult things that you can do. The hard part is that you need to be extremely well capitalized and have a large amount of knowledge about the area that you are starting a business in.

But one thing about MIT is that you meet people that have started or are trying to start their own companies. While I was there, all of the professors that I knew had some project going on in their garage, and some of them hit home runs (Bose speakers or RSA cryptography). Talking to people that have done this, gets you knowledge on how to do it, and more importantly you think to yourself "if X can do it, so can I."

Many people have families, are older, have mortgages to pay off and one mistake could cripple them.

I have a wife and kids. Also getting a mortgage is often a *huge* mistake. Mortgages are one way that banks and the power elite keep people under control. If you set up a system so that most people are in a financial situation such that one mistake could cripple them, they this is a way that the "people that run the world" end up keeping people under control. It's not a bad system once you realize what is going on, but most people don't.

One thing that I'm finding is that the older I get, the more risks I can take. I know a lot more about business and physics than I did twenty years ago. I've kept my debt under control, so that each year my bank account grows. At some point, I'll get bored with finance and decide to do something different. Maybe investing in space tourism. Who knows?

Also, a lot of people come from different backgrounds and are struggling to make ends meat with today's economy.

And they are missing the point that they aren't making the big decisions that determine what happens.

It's much safer to know you're getting a degree that can be put to good use.

Unfortunately, that's a total lie. It's false safety.

The lie that people tell students is that if you get degree X, be a good corporate cog, and don't rock the boat, then we'll give you prizes like a good job. Just do what you are told, don't think, don't complain, and we will take care of you. Unfortunately, it's a lie, and if you stop thinking, you won't realize its a lie. The system is very good at lying to people. They are so good that they can lie, and you can't find anyone that can take responsibility for lying to you.

While you are being a good little corporate cog, they are talking about moving your job to Pakistan. They'll fire you, and then they'll blame you for not working hard enough, and meanwhile they collect the money, and you are on the street, and they've brainwashed you enough so that you think it's your fault.

The power elite has a problem. On the one hand, its a lot easier to run the world, if most people are brainwashed into being couch potatoes that consume what the commercials say that they should consume, and take mortgages and credit card debt that they can't afford so that they are forever slaves to the bank.

On the other hand, if you train *everyone* to be that way, there is no one to take over once you die. One of the purposes of MIT is to train people to run the world, and to keep the United States in control of the world. So they power elite has to encourage some people to think and to ask questions and not be a couch potato.

If you want to be an astronaut, it's really important that you understand who making the decisions about how many astronauts there will be and how those decisions are made, and it's really important that, and to be able to *change* the decision if you don't like it.

It's important because the people and processes that decide how many astronauts there are are also the same people and processes that decide how many computer scientists there are, how many plumbers there are, and whether to move your job from the US to Pakistan. If you just close your eyes and trust the system, then you are going to be totally out of luck, when the system decides that your job should be done in Pakistan.