Amherst College and Princeton: What's it like?

[Mépris]

Hi,

I am interested in applying to Amherst and Princeton, especially because of the substantial amount of aid they offer to internationals. While I do have an idea of what my application will look like in the coming months, I wanted to get some "inside information", if possible. How is the admissions system like? Is it very, very random or is there a somewhat more rigid approach as to what kind of candidates they're looking at? I ask because if it turns out that they look for people who are *not* like me at all, I won't waste ~(2x60) bucks to pay for their application fee.

How are things like there? Did you work/teach/study there? What did you major in? How was the department like? Did you get a good chance to get some research under your belt?

I am specifically interested in physics, mathematics (applied stuff) and economics.

Thank you for reading and for information provided.

Apathy.

 

[n1person]

I don't have any specific inside information about Princeton and Amherst, however I will just address the first question of how admissions general work.

Amherst and Princeton are both extremely selective schools, which effectively means that there is nothing one can do to guarantee admissions. I got into Amherst, but I saw people who were arguably more "qualified" than I get rejected. If you look at admissions statistics, this is shown (Princeton is less than 10%) and at that level there is a huge element of chance. Usually having good test scores and grades is just a way to get your foot in the door, and things like extra-circulars, awards, essays, etc. are then looked at so they can sculpt their "perfect class."

Oh, and just to say a few things about math and physics at both. Princeton is very very well known in mathematics and physics, particularly at the graduate level. They have many many famous professors, huge course offerings, and tons of very talented/motivated students. Amherst is somewhat different in that the physics department, and math department particularly, are pretty small. There aren't that many math majors at Amherst, and the course offerings are fairly limited (I got an email from the math department about how some of the more advanced students take courses at UMass Amherst, a state college nearby) and it is my general perception that most math majors at Amherst are double majors that aren't overly interested in academic mathematics (a very large generalization, I know). However, at either of these schools you could definitely get an excellent education that would be more than satisfactory to go into whatever you want after graduation.

What you might want to look at more is social aspects as these two schools are very very different. Princeton is a large research university, while Amherst is a small liberal arts college.

Also, you should take a look at other schools too! Just to plug my personal favorite, Yale offers international students very nice financial aid :), although so does Harvard :(... :P

 

[Mépris]

I don't have any specific inside information about Princeton and Amherst, however I will just address the first question of how admissions general work.

Amherst and Princeton are both extremely selective schools, which effectively means that there is nothing one can do to guarantee admissions. I got into Amherst, but I saw people who were arguably more "qualified" than I get rejected. If you look at admissions statistics, this is shown (Princeton is less than 10%) and at that level there is a huge element of chance. Usually having good test scores and grades is just a way to get your foot in the door, and things like extra-circulars, awards, essays, etc. are then looked at so they can sculpt their "perfect class."

Oh, and just to say a few things about math and physics at both. Princeton is very very well known in mathematics and physics, particularly at the graduate level. They have many many famous professors, huge course offerings, and tons of very talented/motivated students. Amherst is somewhat different in that the physics department, and math department particularly, are pretty small. There aren't that many math majors at Amherst, and the course offerings are fairly limited (I got an email from the math department about how some of the more advanced students take courses at UMass Amherst, a state college nearby) and it is my general perception that most math majors at Amherst are double majors that aren't overly interested in academic mathematics (a very large generalization, I know). However, at either of these schools you could definitely get an excellent education that would be more than satisfactory to go into whatever you want after graduation.

What you might want to look at more is social aspects as these two schools are very very different. Princeton is a large research university, while Amherst is a small liberal arts college.

Also, you should take a look at other schools too! Just to plug my personal favorite, Yale offers international students very nice financial aid :), although so does Harvard :(... :P

Yeah, Yale, Harvard and Dartmouth as well do and it's only after posting the thread that I realized I should've asked about them all. I initially made the thread about asking for Amherst alone, then I added Princeton and then I posted and then it was too late to change anything. :P

Do you go to Yale? Why it is your personal favourite? Are you an international student?

The thing with Harvard though, is that every piece of new information I find it about it gets me progressively disgusted about them. I don't know how far this holds true but apparently Harvard (for undergrad) have applications put into different piles. One for internationals, one for regular applicants and one very much smaller pile with people who's parents went there/people who *know people*/powerful/wealthy people. I wouldn't like to live in that kind of place at all. Then again, I would be living with the students (in the crazy event that I apply and get in...) and being taught by the teachers, not whoever is on the admissions committee or whoever it is who thought of that process. I hope.

As for Amherst, what was your profile like? Where else did you get in?

I think I can score 2000+ on the SAT but my profile is a little unusual in that I don't have a gazillion activities and besides improvising speeches (debates, public speaking), music and writing (lots of it), I don't have anything to add to my name. What I'll be doing is sort of selling myself. In my books, I don't need to build a well in Africa to give a bunch of people an insight to what kind of person I am. If the admissions committee thinks I should, then maybe I shouldn't be applying to their school...

 

[n1person]

i go to Yale, I really like it overall, and I find the Math and Physics communities are small and friendly, with plenty of awesome people, cool professors, and generally good course offerings. There are also plenty of research opportunities (just email a few people and one will probably accept you on board :P), and lots of funding to do research over the summer and during the school year. Also, they are really flexible as to what you can count towards your major, often letting you bend requirements if you find the need and not caring about prerequisites. Also if your interested in economics, we've got awesome lectures in that too!

I think that description of Harvard's admittance procedures is a little dramatized :P

My particular statistics aren't overly useful, as comparing yourself to me really isn't of any real use. Everyone is different, and usually admissions knows this. The commonalities amongst admitted students is pretty much: good grades (particularly junior year), good test scores, and passion about something. Don't worry about specifically doing community service or something like that, just do things you enjoy and are rewarding to you!

 

[Mépris]

Yeah, you're most probably right about that. (last paragraph) Out of the ~25k students who applied, only ~2k got offers and about ~1k accepted, for the 2010-11 freshman class. :O
Interestingly, I know of one person who got into Yale from my country and he might very well be the only one. I know three went to MIT (one back in the 90s I think, two are undergrads now). And another two went to Princeton (the second having just graduated). While we do come from a fairly small island, it's not small enough that everyone knows everyone. I know lots of people and 1-2 of them have *heard* of these guys! At any rate, I'll apply and we'll see what happens. Nerve racking process though! Wish me luck!
Good to know research opportunities are easy to come by.


Did you have an interview for any of the universities you applied to? What about Yale? More importantly, how is the food? (serious question!)

Hmm, it is probably dramatised and maybe the article I wrote was written by someone who does not like Harvard very much but I still find this pretty unfair, if not alarming. Know anything about them?

About Amherst, I checked and it seems that there's usually less than 10 students per class doing Maths/Physics. I can imagine how their course offerings can be limited.

 

[twofish-quant]

The thing with Harvard though, is that every piece of new information I find it about it gets me progressively disgusted about them. I don't know how far this holds true but apparently Harvard (for undergrad) have applications put into different piles. One for internationals, one for regular applicants and one very much smaller pile with people who's parents went there/people who *know people*/powerful/wealthy people. I wouldn't like to live in that kind of place at all.

The trouble is that every other big name university in the United States does the same exactly the thing. Also it makes sense. Part of the point of going to a big name university is for middle class people to have their kids meet up with kids in the upper class.

Also, the way that big name universities make a lot of their money is through alumni donations and setting things up so that alumni kids get into a priority queue is a way that they balance a number of different priorities.

If you really want to understand the history of the process, get Jerome Karabel's "The Chosen: The Hidden History of Admission and Exclusion at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton" The big name schools all started as exclusive finishing schools for the New England upper classes.

Then again, I would be living with the students (in the crazy event that I apply and get in...) and being taught by the teachers, not whoever is on the admissions committee or whoever it is who thought of that process. I hope.

If you go to Harvard and/or another big name school, you will gradually learn to believe that what they are doing is right.

In my books, I don't need to build a well in Africa to give a bunch of people an insight to what kind of person I am. If the admissions committee thinks I should, then maybe I shouldn't be applying to their school...

Nothing hurts in applying, and if the admission committee reads your application and thinks that you just won't fit in at that school, they'll reject you, in which case you are both better off. :-) :-) :-) :-)

 

[twofish-quant]

Hmm, it is probably dramatised and maybe the article I wrote was written by someone who does not like Harvard very much but I still find this pretty unfair, if not alarming. Know anything about them?

It makes sense if you think of Harvard's goal as keeping power...

If Harvard admitted 100% of students via legacies, then what will happen is that you'll end up with smart people outside the system and people will not care about Harvard. If it admitted 100% of the students via non-legacies, then Harvard alumni would not be able to hold on to their power.

So what they do is to have this balance in which being alumni gives you preference, but other people have a shot at getting in. Also there is no reason to pick on Harvard. Princeton, MIT, Stanford, and Amherst will also give priority to alumni.

If this seriously bothers you, then you should consider applying to a school that isn't a big name elite school. All of the big name private schools are "elitist". They are elitist in different ways, but they are elitist. The big public universities are much less elitist.

 

[Mépris]

If you really want to understand the history of the process, get Jerome Karabel's "The Chosen: The Hidden History of Admission and Exclusion at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton" The big name schools all started as exclusive finishing schools for the New England upper classes.

Ok. I'll see if I can get my hands on this.

If you go to Harvard and/or another big name school, you will gradually learn to believe that what they are doing is right.

Are you implying that there is a very subtle brainwashing that takes place? Or that it's very likely that once one knows how the system works, they will see how it can be advantageous or a good thing?

 

[Mépris]

It makes sense if you think of Harvard's goal as keeping power...

If Harvard admitted 100% of students via legacies, then what will happen is that you'll end up with smart people outside the system and people will not care about Harvard. If it admitted 100% of the students via non-legacies, then Harvard alumni would not be able to hold on to their power.

Have you heard of S.H.I.E.L.D? You make Harvard and the Ivy League schools sound like that...

Also there is no reason to pick on Harvard. Princeton, MIT, Stanford, and Amherst will also give priority to alumni.

Didn't know that. I didn't go digging for dirt on Harvard. I was looking for information about these specific schools (6 in total) and came across something. And I didn't like it very much.

If this seriously bothers you, then you should consider applying to a school that isn't a big name elite school. All of the big name private schools are "elitist". They are elitist in different ways, but they are elitist. The big public universities are much less elitist.

As you say, different forms of elitism. Honestly, while I don't like elitism in general, even I am elitist, depending on where you're looking at things. Even then, that's one thing against Harvard. And not applying because of this one thing alone is *potentially* losing out on other things which I wouldn't want to *not have*. (like finding a good social crowd) Too high an opportunity cost.

 

[twofish-quant]

Are you implying that there is a very subtle brainwashing that takes place?

It's not very subtle. But basically if you are with a group of people for a long period of time, then you start picking up their beliefs and values. And there there is an element of natural selection. If you go to Harvard and utterly detest everything about the place, the odds of you graduating aren't that high, even in the unlikely chance that they let you in.

One thing that Harvard teaches you is that just by going to Harvard, you are better than everyone else. Once that gets repeated often enough, you start believing it at a deep and emotional level. Also they already have a head start. If you don't really think that Harvard is better then why did you apply and if they accepted you why did you accept them over random no-name university?

BTW, MIT tends to teach the opposite, i.e. you *aren't* better than anyone else just because you went to MIT. This is why things like Open Courseware and the Khan Academy came out of MIT alum, and not Harvard.

Or that it's very likely that once one knows how the system works, they will see how it can be advantageous or a good thing?

It's definitely advantageous and personally a good thing to you to have friends that are rich and powerful. Once something becomes obviously beneficial to you personally, your view of the world changes to try to justify that.

 

[Mépris]

It's not very subtle. But basically if you are with a group of people for a long period of time, then you start picking up their beliefs and values. And there there is an element of natural selection. If you go to Harvard and utterly detest everything about the place, the odds of you graduating aren't that high, even in the unlikely chance that they let you in.

If this happens, then the odds are that one won't be miserable...

BTW, MIT tends to teach the opposite, i.e. you *aren't* better than anyone else just because you went to MIT. This is why things like Open Courseware and the Khan Academy came out of MIT alum, and not Harvard.

How is MIT elitist? Is it in their way of going "all out" with the work and going big? (if that makes sense)

If you don't really think that Harvard is better then why did you apply and if they accepted you why did you accept them over random no-name university?

I can think of a number of reasons as to why I'd want to apply there, most of them, however, not directly related to to Harvard being Harvard.

It's definitely advantageous and personally a good thing to you to have friends that are rich and powerful. Once something becomes obviously beneficial to you personally, your view of the world changes to try to justify that.

if that happens to me, i rpobably won't think of it as a bad thing, as time passes. however, at this point in time, i would hate to be that kind of person.

Conversely, once something doesn't work out for you, you tend to associate other forms of failure with the original one. Or, you find out why it didn't work out for you and you do something can work...

 

[twofish-quant]

How is MIT elitist? Is it in their way of going "all out" with the work and going big? (if that makes sense)

One thing that I got the sense of at MIT was that I was being trained for and expected to do "big things." I mean, if you go to a community college to learn to repair air conditioners, no one expects you to revolutionize the world, but if you go to MIT you are surrounded by Nobel prizes winners and entrepreneurs, and there is this message that you are capable of things like this, and if you just lead an "ordinary life" then in some ways your education has been wasted.

And yes there is a deep conflict between the elitism of MIT and rather anti-elitist idea that education should be made available to everyone. One reason why MIT "works" is that there are some very powerful and conflicting ideas that collide with each other.

I can think of a number of reasons as to why I'd want to apply there, most of them, however, not directly related to to Harvard being Harvard.

Not obviously related. One thing that you'll find is that people that are in positions of power get to define what is "good."

 

[flyingpig]

One thing that Harvard teaches you is that just by going to Harvard, you are better than everyone else. Once that gets repeated often enough, you start believing it at a deep and emotional level. Also they already have a head start. If you don't really think that Harvard is better then why did you apply and if they accepted you why did you accept them over random no-name university?

I think that's true for all the Ivys?

BTW, MIT tends to teach the opposite, i.e. you *aren't* better than anyone else just because you went to MIT. This is why things like Open Courseware and the Khan Academy came out of MIT alum, and not Harvard.

Well Khan went to Harvard grad for his MBA if that counts. I've been using both sources and I actually get that feeling too, which is good because I didn't pay 40k+ to learn somehting valuable lol

 

[Mépris]

One thing that I got the sense of at MIT was that I was being trained for and expected to do "big things." I mean, if you go to a community college to learn to repair air conditioners, no one expects you to revolutionize the world, but if you go to MIT you are surrounded by Nobel prizes winners and entrepreneurs, and there is this message that you are capable of things like this, and if you just lead an "ordinary life" then in some ways your education has been wasted.

I have similar sentiments about this except that I would feel I'd be throwing my life away if I didn't do anything substantial (by *MY* standards) with it. Also, I don't think one has to go to MIT for that. My uncle and brother didn't go to MIT. The former got a diploma (2-year degree) in medical science and my brother a degree in English (from an Indian college) and both are very successful. My brother was employed for less than a year. He's had his own business since he graduated. Both started pretty much from scratch. My uncle's dad was a truck driver. Whenever I can, I talk to these guys. I don't get to meet them often, my brother even less but when I do, it's awesome. So yeah, you don't need MIT for that. I do realize that not everybody knows the same kind of people I do, though...

If I don't get into college, I am seriously considering getting a part time diploma in biotechnology (or something) and starting up my own food crop business. That way, I set my own limits and I keep on going forward as long as I'm alive...*cool face* The odds aren't in my favour but this just a "thought" that I will get back to in May next year. I definitely want to do that and do a degree in applied math/physics though, doesn't matter what comes first.

And yes there is a deep conflict between the elitism of MIT and rather anti-elitist idea that education should be made available to everyone. One reason why MIT "works" is that there are some very powerful and conflicting ideas that collide with each other.

Not obviously related. One thing that you'll find is that people that are in positions of power get to define what is "good."

I don't get the last sentence of the first paragraph. :)

I've had first-hand experience with things like that. Power is a relative thing and the people I had this experience with, were relative *much more* powerful than I was/am.

I was reading one of the last issues of Ultimate Comics. It's called Fallout. (spoiler alert)
In it, we find that after the death of Tony Stark's brother, a friend of the late man approaches Tony. They get to talking and fly to Zurich. It turns out, that these guys, have formed an underground club, called the Kratos Club, which includes a select few members, all of which made a fortune on their own. That is, they are, I quote, first generation successes and not relying on "old wealth". Curiously, what they want to achieve is, a committee which will take the decisions that will affect how the world works. Money isn't a concern (it's banal to them) because, well, all of them are too rich to even be tempted by anything more. Apparently, their aim is to make the world a better place. Interestingly, this sounds a lot like what you were describing in another thread about MIT and world domination...Another funny thing is that apparently Tony Stark went to MIT and did Physics and Engineering there. (in the story anyway)

Well Khan went to Harvard grad for his MBA if that counts. I've been using both sources and I actually get that feeling too, which is good because I didn't pay 40k+ to learn somehting valuable lol

Yeah, I was going to point out Khan and his MBA as well. He did EECS, right?

Well, if anything, as far as Khan Academy is concerned, you're being taught by someone who went to MIT. Don't get me wrong, I like his videos and I think he's funny but I doubt I'd pay him for private classes if I had to. I've had better teachers. Then again, it might be that his "lectures" are the way they are because they are fairly spontaneous in nature. In any case, clever individual.

Also, any argument against going to one of the big colleges (the likes of CalTech, Stanford and the Ivy Leagues, among others) that is concerned with money leaves me baffled. There are six colleges that are willing to offer up to 100% financial aid for those who cannot afford an education there. If you're American, there's dozens more, including the other Ivy League colleges.

On another note, how does the guy make a living?

 

[n1person]

I think much of what twofish-quant is a tad bit dramatic as well :P I don't think there is really that much of a fundamental difference between the Ivy League schools and "lower-ranked" private schools, meaning 20-60ish schools (BC, NYU, etc). I think on average the Yale/Harvard student will be more motivated, which does transition to a slightly different culture, but I very much disagree with tfq's accusation of indoctrination type of attitude, or the message that "people at Harvard/Yale are better than everyone else." There are of course commencement type speeches that say something to the extent of "you've been given a wonderful opportunity, use it for benefit of mankind" but I think that sort of general message is everywhere at pretty much all universities.

I think as far as "elitism," I would say there isn't elitism in the sense that people don't say anything to the extent of "person X goes to a public school, they must not be as good at Y." I think another important aspect is in the sciences I think most undergraduates (here at least) know that publics universities often have extremely excellent facilities and give an equivalent academic education, and also that plenty of famous/successful scientists went to public schools. Perhaps that non-elitist attitude is more unique to Yale since Yale isn't quite as famous as Harvard/Princeton/Stanford/MIT/Caltech for math/science.

If you really want to understand the history of the process, get Jerome Karabel's "The Chosen: The Hidden History of Admission and Exclusion at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton" The big name schools all started as exclusive finishing schools for the New England upper classes.

Actually Harvard and Yale were started as places to go to become ministers and preachers :P

One thing that Harvard teaches you is that just by going to Harvard, you are better than everyone else. Once that gets repeated often enough, you start believing it at a deep and emotional level. Also they already have a head start. If you don't really think that Harvard is better then why did you apply and if they accepted you why did you accept them over random no-name university?

I think you are confusing the difference between the school and the people. I think that when one is applying you have a sense that "okay, Harvard is the 'best' college, I want to go there" but that doesn't necessarily translate to a feeling that Harvard students are the best people. I think there is a high degree of cognitive dissonance in that people can still feel that a university is the best without thinking that the main constituents of that university, the students, are the best. Also just the vacuousness of the word "best" can cause some confusion.

I would say the vast majority of Yale students wouldn't judge someone poorly just because they went to a "worse" (in there mind) university. I think particularly with modern college admissions to competitive schools being so probabilistic, people understand that college admissions aren't really a measure of personal "worth".

Did you have an interview for any of the universities you applied to? What about Yale? More importantly, how is the food? (serious question!)

I did have an interview (a lot of universities have them), but a) interviews aren't really important, my general impression is that it is more a thing for alumni to feel connected with undergraduates and to get to answer questions about their alma matter than something that plays a real role in admissions, and b) I don't think interviews are required/offered for international students generally.

I generally like the food! They have nice salad bars and sandwich tables. Sometimes I feel that the dinning staff (/whoever decides on the food) put too much time trying to serve new/international dishes that don't necessarily turn out that awesome, instead of perhaps offering a wide variety of "traditional dishes" (pasta, pizza, burgers and fries, etc), but you can usually get pasta and pizza at Commons (the large dinning hall), as opposed to the residential college dinning halls (smaller).

 

[Vanadium 50]

Also there is no reason to pick on Harvard. Princeton, MIT, Stanford, and Amherst will also give priority to alumni.

MIT says they do not. What evidence do you have otherwise?

 

[bcrowell]

MIT says they do not. What evidence do you have otherwise?

As far as I can tell, they do, but they try to claim that it's not as bad as other Ivies' practices.

http://chronicle.com/article/10-Myths-About-Legacy/124561/

http://chronicle.com/article/article-content/125321/

Apparently they give an "extra review" to the ancestrally fortunate, "very rarely changing the outcome of the process." This is like a pro baseball player pleading that he took less steroids than Mark McGwire, "very rarely changing the outcome of the game."

I went to Berkeley undergrad, Yale for grad school. (My parents went to Berkeley, but I believe that UC does not give legacy preferences.) Speaking purely subjectively, I would agree with pretty much everything twofish has said, except that if anything, I think s/he understates the negatives. Legacy preferences are completely unethical -- as unethical as segregation at Ole Miss. At a school like MIT that receives substantial government largess, they ought to be illegal. Undergraduate education at the Ivies is mostly a playground for extremely privileged kids. There's an atmosphere of entitlement and economic privilege so thick that you could cut it with a knife.

The trouble is that every other big name university in the United States does the same exactly the thing.

This is the only thing I think is factually incorrect about what twofish has posted. CalTech, Berkeley, and UCLA are certainly "big names," and they do not practice legacy preferences.

[edit] The MIT admissions application guide http://web.mit.edu/timblack/Public/admissions/application_guide/mit_admissions_application_guide.pdf claims that:

While many schools give an admissions preference for “legacies,” or children of alumni, MIT offers no such advantage to legacy candidates. Everyone at MIT, including students who have a family member who went to MIT, or who gave money to MIT, was admitted because of their own talent, not because of their family relations.

I would tend to believe the information in the second chronicle.com link; it's the most detailed, and both of the other sources can be read as people trying to put their own spin on those details.

 

[Vanadium 50]

The first article is by Richard Kahlenberg, who is hyping his book Affirmative Action for the Rich: Legacy Preferences in College Admissions. He has provided no evidence in that article, and indeed, MIT's claims are contrary to what he writes (and several commenters point it out). The second article is critical of the first, and it also makes a claim counter to what MIT itself says.

When Marilee Jones was Dean of Admissions, she did use to reread rejected legacy applications - but this was to prepare herself to discuss the situation with the parents if it came to that. What a legacy "buys" you is not a leg up in admissions, but only a more detailed explanation if your child doesn't get in.

Before you accuse MIT of doing something "that should be illegal", can you provide some evidence that they have actually done it?

 

[bcrowell]

Before you accuse MIT of doing something "that should be illegal", can you provide some evidence that they have actually done it?

Both of the two sources that I initially located said that they actually do it. I posted links to the sources in the same post in which I criticized MIT for unethical practices and said they should be illegal. When I became aware of a third source to the contrary, I posted about that as well. You may be unhappy with my choice of sources of evidence or my interpretation of them, but it doesn't make sense to complain that I didn't provide evidence -- I did.

Your personal experience is interesting and relevant. However, it is not conclusive, since it only documents practices at a certain time in the past. The UC system has a policy under which all identifying information is removed from the application before the process of making an admissions decision begins. If MIT would adopt a similar policy, and put it in writing, that would be decisive evidence that they really don't have legacy admissions.

 

[bcrowell]

I found the email addresses of Chad Coffman, who wrote the chapter of the book making the claim about MIT, and Stuart Schmill, dean of admissions at MIT. I sent them the following email:


Dear Mr. Coffman and Mr. Schmill,

This article http://chronicle.com/article/10-Myths-About-Legacy/124561/
by Richard D. Kahlenberg in the Chronicle of Higher Education claims that
MIT practices legacy preferences. Apparently the claim is found in Mr.
Coffman's chapter of the book Affirmative Action for the Rich. This
has led to some vigorous debate in our web forum:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=519111 . We have various
sources of evidence claiming that MIT does practice legacy
preferences; that it gives "one extra review for rejected
applications, very rarely changing the outcome of the process;" or
that it uses legacy information only in order to prepare for
difficult conversations with parents after their legacies have been
rejected.

Could you help us to clear up the controversy? Going into this
debate, I hadn't realized there were so many shades of gray involved.
Does MIT remove identifying information from applications until after
making an admissions decision, as I believe UC does? Are policies
like "one extra review" or only using legacy information after a
decision part of a written MIT policy, or are they a matter of
informal custom? What happens when an applicant's essay mentions
that his/her parents went to MIT? Mr. Coffman, do you see significant
differences between MIT's policies and the best practices of state
universities?

Thanks in advance for any clarification that either of you can provide.

Regards,

Ben Crowell

 

[n1person]

Undergraduate education at the Ivies is mostly a playground for extremely privileged kids. There's an atmosphere of entitlement and economic privilege so thick that you could cut it with a knife.

I am very curious how you come to this conclusion. I really don't see any more of "entitlement" here (at Yale, where I assume you drew your conclusion) than any other university, public or private.

EDIT: Also the relation of this to Legacy admissions (at Yale at least) is completely unfounded. Yale admits only 20% of its applicants that are legacies, compared to about 10% average. Although this might seem unbalanced, intelligence is very much hereditary and students of Yale/Ivy-League educated students are statistically speaking more intelligent and better prepared for college than the average person applying. As far as actually being here, there is no sense that "stupid people" (relatively speaking) are legacies. Less than 10% of students are children of alumni, and legacies scored 20 points higher on the SAT on average than the rest of the class as a whole.

 

[bcrowell]

I am very curious how you come to this conclusion. I really don't see any more of "entitlement" here (at Yale, where I assume you drew your conclusion) than any other university, public or private.

It's completely subjective, of course. It's based on my impressions of undergrads at Berkeley versus undergrads at Yale. One memory that will always stick in my mind is of a Yale undergrad casually mentioning to another student, during a lab I was TA-ing, that his dad was going to talk to the secretary of defense about getting him a summer job. But of course that's purely anecdotal.

One thing that's really changed over the years is the cost differential between public and private schools. When my parents went to Berkeley, there was no tuition, only fees, which were very low (<$100/semester, IIRC). When I went there, it was more like 1/2 of private-school tuition. Nowadays UC is only slightly cheaper than many private schools.

One thing that was wildly different about Yale, compared to anything I'd experienced before, was the extreme town-gown antagonism, and the nearly complete isolation of undergrads from the city outside the walls of their Disneyland-gothic colleges.

 

[atyy]

One thing that I got the sense of at MIT was that I was being trained for and expected to do "big things." I mean, if you go to a community college to learn to repair air conditioners, no one expects you to revolutionize the world, but if you go to MIT you are surrounded by Nobel prizes winners and entrepreneurs, and there is this message that you are capable of things like this, and if you just lead an "ordinary life" then in some ways your education has been wasted.

And yes there is a deep conflict between the elitism of MIT and rather anti-elitist idea that education should be made available to everyone. One reason why MIT "works" is that there are some very powerful and conflicting ideas that collide with each other.

Are they in fact conflicting ideas? In science, is there really such a thing as an "ordinary fact"? Surely, all facts are extraordinary, by virtue of being true. So there can't be an ordinary life either (as you probably intended by the inverted commas)?

Anyway, seeing that you used to live in Austin - air conditioning has to be the greatest invention, no?

 

[n1person]

I will just say to any potential applicant that, if possible, you should visit and see how you like it before taking anyone else's judgements about it. I generally disagree with bcrowell's impressions. If the OP has any questions, I will be happy to answer them :)

 

[bcrowell]

One thing that I got the sense of at MIT was that I was being trained for and expected to do "big things." I mean, if you go to a community college to learn to repair air conditioners, no one expects you to revolutionize the world, but if you go to MIT[...]

This is a pretty warped comparison. You know, not everyone who goes to a community college is in a vocational program -- and not everyone who is in a vocational program is a Coors-swilling moron, either. Learning a practical trade doesn't automatically cause mental retardation. Abraham Lincoln split logs. Hubble was a mule driver. I teach at a community college, and some of my students transfer to elite schools.

A more appropriate comparison would be a physics major at MIT versus a physics major at a community college who intends to transfer to a UC.

And yes there is a deep conflict between the elitism of MIT and rather anti-elitist idea that education should be made available to everyone.

I don't see any conflict there at all. Intellectual elitism is not logically connected to elitism based on economic status.

 

[twofish-quant]

You know, not everyone who goes to a community college is in a vocational program -- and not everyone who is in a vocational program is a Coors-swilling moron, either. Learning a practical trade doesn't automatically cause mental retardation.

No idea what made you think that I thought otherwise.

What does happen is that expectations are different. If you go to a typical community college, and you say that you want to be President, then a lot of people will think you are crazy, and if you really want to be President, then you have to fight that. If you do that, then more power to you.

Also, I have a lot of respect for community college teachers since my father happen to be one. I'll give you three guesses what he taught :-) :-) :-)

Abraham Lincoln split logs. Hubble was a mule driver. I teach at a community college, and some of my students transfer to elite schools.

Good for them, and they were really lucky to have you as a teacher so that you could set high expectations. Lots of people aren't so lucky.

I don't see any conflict there at all. Intellectual elitism is not logically connected to elitism based on economic status.

It actually is. If you have more money you can buy more and better education. If you have more education, you end up with more money. If you aren't careful you can end up with a closed circle of power, and I think we are headed in that direction.

One thing that I believe (which is why I think we really to focus on community colleges) is that you won't get very far if you limit opportunity and try to make things more equal. As long as the size of the pie stays fixed, then people with power will figure out clever ways of getting more of the pie.

 

[twofish-quant]

There is one question that would help determine whether MIT practices legacies.

* Do they ask on the application form?

My memory of MIT applications was that they did specifically ask if you had relatives that went to MIT, but I haven't seen a recent application, and it's behind the MyMIT site.

If MIT has no way of knowing if you have alumni relatives then we can pretty much assume that it's not a factor in admissions. If they still ask then you have to wonder why they ask if it doesn't matter.

Also there is one big difference between MIT and Harvard/Yale, which is that if they exist, MIT graduates would tend to feel that it's a bad thing rather than trying to justify it.

 

[atyy]

I don't see any conflict there at all. Intellectual elitism is not logically connected to elitism based on economic status.

I'm not sure this is what twofish meant, but one could take it that the only true elitism is economic. There is no such thing as intellectual elitism (unless you are Isaac Newton;) - what one fool can do, another can. Splitting logs is much harder.

 

[Mépris]

I will just say to any potential applicant that, if possible, you should visit and see how you like it before taking anyone else's judgements about it. I generally disagree with bcrowell's impressions. If the OP has any questions, I will be happy to answer them :)

Even if Ben is right, who's to say I *will* get in? I'll worry about that if I have to, when the time comes. In any case, with a freshman class of about 2000 kids, I will probably find at least *one* that I can mix with. ;)

It's completely subjective, of course. It's based on my impressions of undergrads at Berkeley versus undergrads at Yale. One memory that will always stick in my mind is of a Yale undergrad casually mentioning to another student, during a lab I was TA-ing, that his dad was going to talk to the secretary of defense about getting him a summer job. But of course that's purely anecdotal.

That *isn't just a Yale* problem though. My mother teaches at a private school and I've had the chance to meet a lot of her pupils over the years. Some of which, I met again when they grew older and were in high school. (I actually went to their school for a few months and decided it wasn't worth the money)

Anyway, what I found was that this is stereotypical behaviour of the stereotypical rich kid. Some of these people have always been cool, some were cool and grew into arrogant tossers ('cause they're rich), some were tossers but grew up to be pretty laid back and so forth.

I couldn't find a specific trend, especially since I didn't take down any numbers and measure their scale of cockiness (haha) and because the student body at that school was so small. Only ~250 students in SEVEN classes. I can deal with these persons and if they aren't involved with me, then it's not really a problem. A lot of the richer kids though, displayed that kind of "yeah, but daddy will buy me it" attitude. One girl I know (barely 18) got *gifted* a flippin' catamaran. Even if I can afford to do that at some point, there's no way in hell I'd be giving my kid a boat...unless it somehow became a normal thing and boats are a must to travel around. :|

 

[Mépris]

I'm not sure this is what twofish meant, but one could take it that the only true elitism is economic. There is no such thing as intellectual elitism (unless you are Isaac Newton;) - what one fool can do, another can. Splitting logs is much harder.

There is.

On the other side of the spectrum, you have kid with above average intellect and kid with below average intellect...

Having said that, I like to believe that people have some distinct characteristics and have different things that make them "tick". It's only a question of finding out what. Then they'd be able to do anything. Then again, I might be wrong and I'll never be able to play soccer very well nor will that girl I know be able to solve a simultaneous equation in less than 10 minutes.

 

[atyy]

There is.

On the other side of the spectrum, you have kid with above average intellect and kid with below average intellect...

Having said that, I like to believe that people have some distinct characteristics and have different things that make them "tick". It's only a question of finding out what. Then they'd be able to do anything. Then again, I might be wrong and I'll never be able to play soccer very well nor will that girl I know be able to solve a simultaneous equation in less than 10 minutes.

Sure, but we're talking about undergraduate education here. I believe anyone can pass MIT (but maybe not Amherst or Princeton), although not everyone can play soccer.

 

[twofish-quant]

Also I should point out that in my experience (Harvard with some second hand information about Princeton) undergraduate and graduate are completely different worlds. There is a lot of "sense of entitlement" among undergrads, but none that I've been able to detect in the graduate schools, which was really surprising to me.

 

[spamiam]

Hi Thy Apathy,

I am a recent graduate and math major from Amherst College. I was actually admitted to both Princeton and Amherst but ended up choosing the latter over the former. I was pretty put off by the eating clubs at Princeton, since these seemed to be nothing more than institutionalized cliques. More than anything, though, I simply like the atmosphere at Amherst better when I visited, so I will echo others in encouraging you to visit schools to which you are admitted.

Things I liked about Amherst:

Small faculty
There is a very tight-knit math community at Amherst. Professors are almost always in their offices and welcome unscheduled drop-ins. What's more, the faculty is top knotch. Dan Velleman's How To Prove It is one of the most-used introductions to proofs and David Cox has a very good book on Galois Theory. And then there's the ageless Norton Starr, who gave the best Calc II lectures I've ever seen and offered chocolate to anyone who could catch him making a mistake at the board. As a math major, you are both invited to and expected to attend the regular talks hosted in the afternoons and the weekly math table was always a fun, nerdy lunch.

The Five College Consortium
As a student at Amherst, Hampshire, Mt. Holyoke, UMass, and Smith, you can take classes at any of the aforementioned schools. As n1person pointed out, the small size of Amherst's faculty reduces the number and breadth of courses offered, but with the addition of any and all math courses at the other 4 schools, I think it's safe to say the selection is even broader than the average university. Two other math majors from my year took grad level classes at UMass in algebraic topology and differential manifolds. There are even students who have completed honors theses with advisors from other schools. There are also many collaborations between 5 College professors and joint conferences as well (e.g., http://www.math.umass.edu/~siman/seminar.html).

n1person mentioned there are many students at Amherst who have math as a secondary major, but I hardly counted them as a part of the math community. If I'm not mistaken, the completion of high level math courses is a requirement for admission to grad school in economics and physics and I imagine you might find a similar percentage of math-______ double majors at other schools.

I have no idea what the admission process is like, and I don't think anyone does who hasn't actually worked in the admissions office. There was an enormous variety of different types of people at Amherst, and I sincerely doubt that there is some "formula" for how to become the perfect applicant. I had very good SAT scores and grades and took several AP classes, but I came from a tiny high school in the sticks.

Frankly, if you're looking for more information on any department in any school, I think you should simply email one of the professors with your questions.

 

[Mépris]

Hi Thy Apathy,

I am a recent graduate and math major from Amherst College. I was actually admitted to both Princeton and Amherst but ended up choosing the latter over the former. I was pretty put off by the eating clubs at Princeton, since these seemed to be nothing more than institutionalized cliques. More than anything, though, I simply like the atmosphere at Amherst better when I visited, so I will echo others in encouraging you to visit schools to which you are admitted.

International student. Visiting...yeah, not so easily done! :P

Are the five colleges quite close? Is it "easy" to mix with people who go to different schools? Student bars or something? How's living there, in general, like?

Nerdy lunch sounds like fun. I like what you've described. Thanks. ;)

 

[spamiam]

International student. Visiting...yeah, not so easily done! :P

What I meant is that you should apply to schools without visiting, but, once you've received your admission decisions in the spring, make one trip and visit schools to which you've been accepted to see what they are like before enrolling.

Are the five colleges quite close? Is it "easy" to mix with people who go to different schools? Student bars or something? How's living there, in general, like?

Yes, it's very easy to get around. There is a bus system (http://www.pvta.com/schedules.php) that runs very frequently and is free for students of the consortium. There are many area events (e.g. concerts) that attract students from many of the different universities, students often participate in extracurricular activities at one of the other schools, and of course students often attend parties held at the other schools--it doesn't hurt that two of the five are all-girls schools ;). All of this in addition to students that you meet in your classes. Anyway, I will conclude my plug by saying that I had a great time at Amherst and learned a lot.