This kid is awesome but this particular comment really made me sad:
"Spending 3+ hours a day on a project during junior and senior year did not help my grades. My counselor told me that I wouldn't get into the top colleges because of this reason. I believed her and didn't apply to my dream colleges."
Well, you can look at it this way, he would have never been well-served by the traditional society-determined path anyway. A project like this has the tendency to just blow away all other considerations.
If you were hiring for a physics position, would you take the guy who got straight A's on his physics coursework, or the guy who built an effing nuclear reactor in his bedroom?
The sad thing is that if you were faculty, looking for a graduate student to supervise, you'd probably pick the one with straight A's and no hobbies, because you could get them to do whatever you wanted, without risk of them getting their own ideas or leaving.
That's probably not true. I have run into very few faculty who want to have robots working for them, and I know quite a few faculty who are suspicious of perfect transcripts from potential grad students because it often means they avoided difficult courses or outside projects.
>quite a few faculty who are suspicious of perfect transcripts
In an undergrad department meeting, the topic was brought up on "why your parents should not call or arrive at the school seeking to talk to professors about their student's grades."
It's an open secret at some schools, Harvard being one of the most famous, that if you're rich or well-connected enough, you get in and coast with a B average, with relative ease--a C average at the worst.
Like I said, he never would have been served by the traditional path. With that kind of talent and drive, you don't need the academy, the academy needs you. They'll find a spot for him.
Adding to what others have say, in my department the choice would have been a no-brainer for the guy that has proved he can self-teach and do independent research. There's nothing faculty loves more than motivated people that can do a lot by themselves with just little directions from them!
Almost there, but you lost it in the end. The straight A student would win not because he is less proactive but because he is more versatile to handle any task. Someone who is deeply invested in a technology from an early age will have seen lesser challenges and diversifications than someone who takes all courses all around.
>The straight A student would win not because he is less proactive but because he is more versatile to handle any task.
The straight-A student is certainly able to put their minds to whatever they are told to, at least enough to get an A in each subject (and possibly no more).
This dichotomy isn't the actual choice, though. You'd hire the person with straight A/A-'s (read: nobody cares about perfect grades) from Stanford/Berkeley/MIT/Caltech who also worked directly with some well-known professors, publishing papers that advanced the field, albeit incrementally, either building experiments or developing theoretical results.
In other words, the person who has demonstrated solid abstract knowledge (breadth/versatility) and actual ability to do research (depth/hands-on).
There is very little about a university education that requires it to be "the traditional society-determined path." It's daily lectures and some work. There is plenty of time to be creative.
CalTech takes in 200 total freshman a year (well back in 1999 it was 200) from the entire world, so they'd just choose the kid who built his own reactor AND had straight A's.
And at least from my experience, that is wrong wrong wrong.
I was a solidly B student in high school, but I had some extracurriculars (not quite building fusion reactors) that I devoted an absurd amount of time to and excelled at. And I got into MIT.
Being in almost exactly the same boat, I would have to agree. I was a decent student in high school. There were those in my class who were certainly better off academically in terms of GPA, those who presented at ISEF, etc. When that handful of students and I applied to MIT however, only I was admitted, for reasons I attribute to my passions and interests which I simply could not have explored in a meaningful way through any "sanctioned" or school-sponsored activities.
My guidance counselor as well as extremely discouraging, however after being at MIT for two years, I'm inclined to say that admission to a university like mine hinges on both being an interesting person and possessing demonstrable intelligence - not necessarily through scholastic channels.
To add on to amluto's point, that's because your average elite college admit is cookie-cutter: great grades, great test scores, probably did a sport, did some extracurriculars with some leadership/responsibility. A cookie cutter average admit to MIT needs great grades to be competitive because they all look similar.
Standing out exceptionally in one category (such as extracurricular projects) is not something the average admit to MIT posseses.
Also, take a look at his writing ability. He makes a couple of long posts further down the thread where he describes how the thing works. It's really quite good writing by any standards, which tends to be quite important for (and, I suspect, highly valued by) colleges. I know my own writing ability was nowhere near that level when I was his age.
You must have gone to a pretty good school district because the school district I was in was so bad many elite schools told us not to bother even if you were valedictorian. The quality of education couldn't be trusted to indicate possible future success at their institutions.
That's interesting - never heard anything like that. Where did you go to high school? The idea of elite schools saying not to bother doesn't sit right with me - a lot of the top schools pride themselves on finding diamonds in the rough, and that would run counter to that.
Yeah, I ask because the highschool workload and expectations have frankly changed. Being a solid B student doesn't get you into MIT (at least, that's what is drilled into your head)
That was sort of my point, and I didn't finish it, although the OP just said "bunches", which could be any number.
The person you're replying to indicates that 10% is 1700, and that 10% may be more representative of the high-EC and 4.0 level.
I'm not sure a few thousand folks from around the country qualifies as 'bunches'. Thinking back to my high school days, we had only a handful of people who were both academically advanced and active in many EC - sports, music, theater, etc. Partially there's just not enough time in most people's days to get 'good' at multiple things, even if there's aptitude. Secondly, not everyone can actually afford to get involves in a lot of ECs (despite aptitude/talent).
I can't think of anyone I know from my school (class of over 600, IIRC) who was all 4.0 GPA who also did multiple EC work. We had people in both camps. And I had a pretty lousy GPA, but did much better on ACT than some of the high GPA kids.
>Being a solid B student doesn't get you into MIT (at least, that's what is drilled into your head)
I know someone who got into an MIT engineering program roughly around '03 and they claimed to have below a 500 on the old SAT verbal section (scored perfect 800 the math though).
Their claim was they purposefully did not study for the verbal section because 'excelling at rote memorization to get into the top schools in the world is idiotic at best,' something like that.
Maybe he should just take a year off? Keep working on this or other cool projects and apply next year. Might be worth it if he lands a serious scholarship from an elite school.
Speaking from experience, taking a gap year was the best decision I ever made.
Well, you need the second part of that comment to get the complete picture though:
> After submitting my college applications, I began making more connections. When I apply to other colleges as a junior, I will be getting likely 5+ recommendations from various chairs and professors at MIT, UC Berkeley, and UC Santa Cruz.
Something similar happened to me, I managed to end up somewhere close to what I wanted to be doing, but had I gone the "traditional" route it'd have been much easier with the same result.
That comment is why I submitted this. Shame on that counselor for saying that, they should have been encouraging him to go for his dream! Building a fusion reactor should get this kid an invite to somewhere like MIT (as Ahmed Mohamed did for the clock incident last year).
On the other hand he mentions that he might apply to other colleges in his junior year, with various recommendations from MIT, UC Berkley and UC Santa Cruz. So not all is lost.
In slight defense of the counselor, lots of kids have outside interests and projects that cause them to lose focus on their studies and not obtain the grades they were capable of.
Very very few of them have the skills and sheer determination to actually deliver.
Shame on the councellor for not seeing the finished project in senior year and pushing to get this kid some more opportunities (not that UCSB is a bad school by any measure).
This is pretty typical of guidance councilors at my high school as well. I went to a fairly poor public school and we were advised not to apply to extra colleges because we probably wouldn't get in and considering most of the student body lived around the poverty line the costs of applying to a bunch of colleges gets expensive fast.
Can't imagine a college that wouldn't jump at the opportunity now. Might be a solid first lesson on the real world - people that don't understand will be naysayers, and those that do will marvel at your work.
If someone reading this went to MIT and can contact admissions, they should link them to this story. Surely there are a few MIT alums on HN? Get this kid into his dream school!
"Spending 3+ hours a day on a project during junior and senior year did not help my grades. My counselor told me that I wouldn't get into the top colleges because of this reason. I believed her and didn't apply to my dream colleges."