Before They Were Successful, These People Were Rejected
online.wsj.com
online.wsj.com
What's that say about Matt Damon and Bill Gates who essentially rejected Harvard? You must respect someone who, at such an early age, is wise enough to know that even Harvard isn't going to make them better off.
Looking back, 18 is so young. Just babies. It'd be really hard at that age to predict who among them will succeed.
Before the SAT changes in 1994 that made them worthless, they found that class ranking was strangely enough one of the best predictors of future success (MIT does longitudinal study of the admissions and resulting success of failure, the number one imperative is to accept no one who they don't think can do the work (which is a pretty high bar for MIT, with it's core math and science requirements)).
And, yeah, having an almost published paper probably helped me (I sent the original draft with a note that half the results were unusable due to a contaminated culture that was only discovered after the work). Plus a well designed (structured programming) program (this was back in 1979).
My SAT (very high verbal, OK but not so much for MIT math) and class standing weren't too great, but they correctly said yes. My friend said that being from deep in flyover country certainly made a difference in terms of a desire for geographic diversity.
Anyway, a bottom line today for MIT is that if you can do the work, you have a raw 1/3 chance of acceptance (self-selection of applications is fierce).
The very most important thing you can do is to demonstrate to them that you're a "go-getter", the sort of person who naturally does projects and the like. Mens and manus (mind and hand) as the school motto goes.
I've heard this a couple times, but there is not much reasoning to back this up. Having taken the SAT after 1994 and receiving a high score, I think it is a bit disingenuous to claim that the SAT after 1994 are useless.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAT#1994_changes
The mean SAT score remained virtually unchanged, while the removal of antonym questions and non-multiple choice questions seems to be an improvement. There were many times where the analogy questions were quite ambiguous, I could think of a dozen reasons to support each answer.
When Stanford rejected me for undergrad years ago, they essentially said not to feel so bad because thousands of those who were rejected were valedictorians, had perfect or near perfect SAT scores, etc..
Even at University of Michigan, a state school, a 1360 on the SAT is worth the same as a 1600: http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:mZNMh_wonTIJ:www.umich.e...
Your summary is simply wrong. There are obviously limits to how much you can learn about a person’s life from school records, test scores, application essays, recommendations, and lists of achievements, but these schools care a lot about getting the most ambitious and accomplished students they can, and spend extraordinary effort reviewing applicants.
Let me tell you this, you may find yourself more motivated to do excellent work and learn amazing things if you are a big fish in a small pond.
I have seen cases where, given a choice between candidates, an Ivy-leaguer picked another Ivy-leaguer solely on that basis. You could argue that such a manager would be an idiot (and you'd be right) but the brand-name-school phenomenon affects even smart employers like Google and Microsoft. Someone with MIT, Stanford, or Waterloo credentials rises to the top of the resume pile more often.
A top degree can make a big difference for the right kind of person, in certain fields. But doing something awesome usually makes a bigger difference, even there.
Admittedly, I don't think they really knew what to make of my application being one of presumable very applicants with those qualifications. In my case, it probably was close to random.
For technology or business?
If the former, RMIT or ANU?
eg http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/hybrid.asp?typeCode=14...
I think RMIT is more of a niche uni. Doesn't come in high on overall rankings. Australia has quite a few pretty average Unis with pockets in specific fields where they are the best. Makes you wonder how bad they are at everything else to bring down the overalls
"luck comes in many forms -- and often looks bad at first. I always look back on the deals that we didn't do and the things that didn't work out, and realize what seemed like a bummer at the time was really lucky [...] if you have some plan and it doesn't go that way, roll with it. There's no way to know if it's good or bad until later, if ever."
For every Gates, Bezos, Zuckerberg, Page, or even Patzer, there are many who went to a top school who never did much or even really blew it. Part of me wants to see a post-mortem on their careers, much the way we review failed startups for "lessons learned"
I hear such things a lot ('whatever happens is for better', etc.), and in fact - agree. but it's really hard to accept a failure/rejection as a lesson or a bad-tasting-medicine at the time it happens to you...
but I guess knowing this at the very least gives motivation and helps one to remain more 'determined' http://www.paulgraham.com/determination.html (especially in the long run where your chances of giving up are pretty high)
I've heard it said that comp sci students who get a 2b in honours, do better in their career than those who get a 1st. Makes sense for business (with prominent exceptions like Sergey and Larry.)
As long as you keep trying and learn from your failures, chances are you will succeed in the long run.