Day 5 of camp was truly incredible. MIT campus tour in the morning, Broad Institute visit in the afternoon, and an evening dialogue with local American families. Every part left an impression.

In the morning, an MIT student named Austin gave us a campus tour entirely in Mandarin — he was trilingual, which blew my mind. He walked us through the academic philosophy of MIT (“mind and hand”), the admissions process, student life, and how to articulate your personal statement. I especially liked what he said about why you want to study abroad and why you chose the US: you need to have a clear answer, not a vague one. That made me realize I actually need to think seriously about my own answer. At the end of the tour he asked us to write down one question we had, and we all submitted ours for him to answer — I asked about what makes a personal statement stand out.

In the afternoon, George, a Broad Institute researcher, took us to labs and offices that are normally closed to the public. We saw different types of pipettes, microscopes, and various specialized machines. It felt like science fiction made real. George explained that the Broad focuses on genomics and disease biology, and gave us a clear picture of what research life actually looks like. What moved me most was how much he clearly loved what he was doing — he didn’t talk about his work like a job, he talked about it like something he couldn’t stop thinking about. That kind of thing is contagious.

In the evening, we gathered with American families and teachers for a discussion about Chinese and American education. We talked about: who controls the learning (teacher-driven versus student-driven), the different approaches to college planning, extracurriculars (or the lack of them in China), and the philosophical differences behind these choices. Listening to the American families’ perspective — especially why they value student autonomy so much — genuinely shifted something for me.

Today gave me a lot to think about. Not just about college, but about who I want to be and what kind of learning actually makes me grow.

Today I visited MIT and the Broad Institute — one of the most memorable days so far.

The MIT campus tour was led by Austin, a trilingual MIT student in Material Science. He was incredibly patient and clear. He explained what MIT looks for in applicants: strong academics plus meaningful research experience, strong recommendations, and personal essays that honestly reflect who you are. He also walked us through life at MIT — the student communities, the team projects, the culture of “mind and hand.” One thing he said stuck: “When you write your essay, don’t perform. Just be specific.”

At the Broad Institute, George showed us the actual labs — real equipment, real people at work. He explained what genomics is and where his research sits within it. He answered questions seriously and with real thought. The visit made “research” feel concrete rather than abstract.

In the evening, the dinner dialogue with local families opened up a comparison I hadn’t sat with before: in China, you study hard and follow the track; in America, you’re expected to figure out your own track and then work hard on it. Both are hard in different ways. The conversation made me think about what kind of student — what kind of person — I actually want to become.

Today was rich. I’m still processing it.

Today was a full day.

At MIT in the morning, I was immediately struck by the open architecture — buildings connected by an indoor corridor that runs the whole length of campus. Austin explained that the “Infinite Corridor” was designed so students from different disciplines bump into each other constantly. The idea is that unexpected conversations between people from different fields are where a lot of the best ideas come from.

Austin told us a lot about the admissions process and what MIT is genuinely looking for. But the part that stayed with me was simpler. He said: “MIT doesn’t just want people who are good at things. It wants people who are driven by something.” I’ve been thinking about that all day.

At the Broad Institute in the afternoon, George walked us through the labs with obvious pleasure. He showed us equipment I had no names for. He explained that the Broad focuses on the genomic underpinnings of disease — not just what disease looks like, but why it starts. Watching him explain his work, I kept thinking: he looks like he can’t imagine doing anything else.

The evening was a dinner dialogue with American families — comparing Chinese and US approaches to education. Both sides talked honestly. What came through was that neither system has it figured out, and that the students who do best are the ones who can take what’s useful from both.

Good day. Long day. Still thinking.

Today was Day 5 and we went to MIT and then the Broad Institute.

In the morning, our MIT guide Austin started by asking us to write down questions for him — which immediately made the tour feel more like a real conversation. He talked about Material Science (his major), what makes MIT’s approach to education distinctive, and what the admissions process actually looks for. He was honest about the hard parts, too — the workload, the pressure, the adjustment. He said: “Figure out your Why before you get here, because once you’re here, no one is going to do that for you.”

Austin also talked about the Boston ecosystem — the access to internships, research, and career paths that MIT’s location gives you. It made me think about how much the surrounding environment shapes what’s possible.

At the Broad Institute in the afternoon, George gave a thorough and enthusiastic explanation of what the institute does and what his day-to-day research looks like. Seeing an actual lab in operation — not just a picture of one — made everything more real. He talked about the path from basic science to clinical applications and how long that journey usually takes. It gave me a much more grounded sense of what a research career actually involves.

The evening dinner dialogue with local families was the kind of conversation that is hard to summarize in a few lines. Both sides talked about what they valued and what they worried about. What I took from it: the best education probably looks different for every kid, and the goal is to build the kind of person who can figure out what they need and go get it.

Today was Day 5. In the morning we visited MIT with Austin as our guide; in the afternoon, the Broad Institute with George.

At MIT, Austin walked us through all aspects of the school — its history, its culture, what it means to be a student there. He explained the admissions process clearly and gave concrete advice on essays and recommendations. He talked about the Boston area as an ecosystem for ambitious students — the internship networks, the proximity to hundreds of companies and research labs. He also talked about the pressures — MIT is demanding, and you need to know why you want to be there or you won’t make the most of it.

At the Broad Institute, George gave a detailed explanation of the institute’s mission and walked us through the labs. He showed us equipment and explained what it does. He talked about what drives his research questions and what “a day in the life” looks like. It was one of those rare moments where an institution that seemed abstract from the outside became suddenly concrete and human.

The campers came away from both visits with more questions than answers — which is, I think, exactly the right outcome. You want to leave MIT and the Broad not with a plan, but with a direction.