NOTES for MIT and Harvard admission

[ngoc_diem_131]

I have just read an article about the MIT and Harvard insider's expectation for each candidate's application. I find it very helpful, and want to share for all ESE members.

http://unicq.net/blog-desc.php?id=71&param=1335188392

-----
This past Saturday, 21 April 2012, I went to a presentation hosted by the British educational group, BE Education (www.behk.org). The two speakers were professors from MIT and Harvard, and each is also on his respective school’s admissions committee. Together they provided a good insider’s perspective on what each school is looking for in its applicants. As I trace out my thoughts here, I may not be writing in the exact order in which the information was presented.

Near the beginning of the presentation, the professor from MIT emphatically stated that MIT, Harvard and other such schools are “not looking for great students.” Beyond simple shock value, the explanation for this seeming presumptuous statement makes sense. As the speaker pointed out, 97 percent of the applications MIT (and Harvard, presumably) receive are from “great students.” The other 3 percent are “crazy.”

By “great students,” they mean students who have stellar GPAs, perfect or near perfect test scores, many extra-curricular and/or community activities, and glowing teacher recommendations. These schools are looking for something, or someone, different.

First, a bit of a digression. Each application is read by professors. In the first round of readings or screenings, each application is read for about 3 minutes. During this phase, 75 percent of the applications are eliminated. In the second round, each application is read for about 5-7 minutes. During this phase 50 percent of the remaining applications are eliminated. This takes place over several weeks.

Each application is scored using the letters A, B and C. If an application scores a double A, this is considered a near automatic admission. A score of 2 Cs is a definite do-not admit. A score of an A and a B keeps an application alive, but in suspense. A combination of B and C is considered 2 Cs.

Interestingly, the applications are read not so much to see what a student has done, but rather what a student will do, and not necessarily during 4 years of university, but years down the road. In order to do this, the readers of the applications are looking for 3 characteristics in each applicant. More specifically, they are looking for all of these characteristics in each applicant, not one or two. These characteristics are as follows:

1. Reliability, consistency and an unwavering ability to follow through with respect to challenges, commitments and ideas.

2. Creativity: the ability to see and make “non-obvious connections” in order to think about and produce new solutions to problems. (An interesting language observation, the word for “connections” here was translated as guanxi.) These non-obvious connections include thinking across disciplines. For instance, what do physics and literary theory have to offer each other?

3. Intellectual capacity: the ability to understand and synthesize information accurately and quickly.

The speakers emphasized also that their schools look not for students merely with ideas, but for students who have demonstrated the desire and ability to execute their ideas, that is, to take ideas and make them a reality.

The speaker from MIT was clear that it is in the areas of innovation and creativity that Chinese students languish.

In a student’s application, all three characteristics must be presented “clearly and believably” (read “honestly”). It is the student’s responsibility, therefore, to “develop, demonstrate and document” these characteristics.

Almost as an aside, the professor from MIT mentioned that a student who is relied on by other students already demonstrates a blend of these characteristics, though he didn’t go into great detail what he meant by this.

In brief, a successful candidate’s application will make a professor think, “I want to work with this student. I want this student on my research team.” It is not enough for a student to be really smart, not enough perhaps even to be brilliant, and personable.

It was recommended to the largely Chinese audience that students form an intentional 3-year plan to develop these 3 characteristics. This sort of plan cannot be left to happenstance, nor can it be handed to the student. The student him- or herself has to be the one at the center of formulating it. If possible, students should use summers fruitfully in order to help move this sort of plan along, to bring it into focus. (This segued into talk of summer programs at MIT and Harvard.)

At this point this short, 45-minute presentation came to a close.

What I took away from this is that for those students here in China interested in this level of post-secondary education, of course must give some attention to TOEFL and SAT scores, and the even more important GPA. However, students must give much more attention to developing themselves as persons capable of vanquishing intellectual dragons, and societal and even global problems swiftly, imaginatively, confidently, humbly, and even whimsically.

If this all sounds a bit daunting, consider this: In developing these three characteristics, not merely for the purpose of getting into a “name” school, but rather for the purpose of developing one’s self as an individual and scholar, how much more interesting and fruitful school may well become each step along the way!

http://unicq.net/blog-desc.php?id=71&param=1335188392


Similar Threads:

• Harvard University Announcement: No tuition and no student loans

Other Threads:

• Vocabulary from news and academic articles
• Inspirational stories with Ga Chip
• NOTES for MIT and Harvard admission
• Reading Comprehension with ngoc_diem_131
• Famous Sayings by Thomas Edison

[buiminhese]

Thank you, ngocdiem, this post is really interesting. I love it.

[newuser]

The speaker from MIT was clear that it is in the areas of innovation and creativity that Chinese students languish.

So the speaker implies Chinese lacks creativity and innovation? Do you agree?