<p>@cgarcia - </p>
<p>Bummer, man. Thanks for helping out on CC. Community college sounds good, see you again next year!</p>
<p>@IB- cool, glad we had that sorted out.
@MITChris- I looked at the description. Perhaps I should, as I guess I can’t really say I’m very knowedgeble about all this stuff.</p>
<p>I didn’t apply to MIT, but I just want to say that the bloodbath I witnessed here is absolutely horrifying. It almost makes me sad that sooooo many perfect applicants got rejected, because you guys will fill up all the spots at the lower tier schools I want to go to (Northwestern, etc.). Good luck to all with future endeavors, you’re all brilliant.</p>
<p>MITChris, when I applied to Oxford it was possible for rejected applicants to get a small “report” of their application, briefly explaining their strong and weak points and perhaps the principal reasons behind the rejection. I know that the admissions process at MIT is completely different, but is there anything similar that can be requested?</p>
<p>I just feel like I need to get something more tangibly productive out of this whole admissions process. Simply receiving a rejection does not tell me much about my application - perhaps my SAT’s weren’t strong enough, perhaps I didn’t “fit”, perhaps my extra curricular activities didn’t show enough commitment. I know that there’s no black or white in this process, but since the US applications seem so much more obscure, I feel the need for some insight into how my application fared in the whole process…</p>
<p>I wholeheartedly accept the decisions made by the admissions officers, and feel that they probably made the right decision in rejecting me. However, I wish to know more about why they rejected me. Even if it’s a single sentence, blunt answer.</p>
<p>Prepare to hear this:
“We have too many qualified applicants and not enough spaces to offer.”</p>
<p>I’m pretty sure the reason MIT and similar schools <em>don’t</em> give those types of reasons is because there isn’t a reason beyond too many qualified applicants and not enough spots. I think it’s better to not dwell on it and move on with life, but that’s me.</p>
<p>EDIT: cross-posted with christiansoldier. ;)</p>
<p>I don’t feel so bad being rejected after looking at all these amazing stats. There does not seem to be any logic to being accepted/rejected whatsoever…</p>
<p>also, sort of hijacking the thread a little, but is anyone else surprised by how big the waitlist is this year?</p>
<p>whoops. you can disregard the section on my post about the essays because I was talking about commonapp schools for those ones :P</p>
<p>@Sci-Fry - </p>
<p>christiansolider is correct - the fundamental reason is we have too many qualified applicants and not enough spaces to offer. However, a number of people have asked for that today. I will mention what Oxford does to the admissions committee and I’ll see what I can do. </p>
<p>Thank you to everyone for the feedback on how to make our process better!</p>
<p>The waitlist - at 722 people - is actually smaller than last year.</p>
<p>I can only hope that many on the waitlist either won’t ask to be on it or will go to a different college. :(</p>
<p>@Nano1991 - </p>
<p>There is a lot of logic to it. We spend months reading applications and weeks making these decisions. </p>
<p>This is a good post to read about what our process is like: </p>
<p>[MIT</a> Admissions | Blog Entry: “It’s More Than A Job”](<a href=“http://www.mitadmissions.org/topics/apply/the_selection_process_application_reading_committee_and_decisions/its_more_than_a_job.shtml]MIT”>http://www.mitadmissions.org/topics/apply/the_selection_process_application_reading_committee_and_decisions/its_more_than_a_job.shtml)</p>
<p>I would submit to you that it’s NOT that there is a lack of logic, but simply that the logic we use is different from the logic CollegeConfidential thinks we use, e.g. a de-emphasis on comparing raw scores on standardized tests, evaluation in context, etc…</p>
<p>None of the six 2400ers who posted were accepted.</p>
<p>this is the bloodiest massacre of all massacres in human history.</p>
<p>I don’t think it’s a massacre, but some people are being inordinately whiny. Show some grace, even if it is the internets.</p>
<p>Thank you cgarcia</p>
<p>@Handala: The people who wrote their essays in 5 minutes aren’t really going to care enough to bother asking. Besides, that first hypothetical person you quoted would provide a well-needed laugh for the adcoms :P</p>
<p>It’ll probably take too much time for the adcoms to assemble comments for every single person, but it would have been nice to receive a few personalized comments about your application rather than the generic “you’re wonderful but we can’t accept you…”</p>
<p>Well, I’m a junior in high school so I definitely don’t have the same experience that you guys had or are having, but I’ve been looking around the forums, talking to friends at my school who had all sorts of things happen (EA reject, EA defer-reject, RD accept, RD waitlist, etc.) and what’s come out to me as a trend is that there are two types of people who are getting in:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Nearly perfect EVERYTHING, as in grades, SATs, SAT IIs, APs…2-3 sports captainships or some music virtuosity. This is crazy hard to do, and can truly only come with immense diligence and hard work. Note, though, the case of the 2400 taboo. And even 800 SAT II taboo; it seems that mid-2300s and 770s were the clinchers here.</p></li>
<li><p>Relatively low academic record, but something that really shines out. Yeah, this is the case of the nuclear reactor and some engineering or robotics award that just works better than another ‘NHS vice president’.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>I think I’m leaning more towards the second part, and am seriously consideringas a friend put itjettisoning off anything that I’m really not gaining much out of holistically and focusing much more on something that can help me blast through the rest of the applicant pool.</p>
<p>Anybody else notice something like that? Are there some other spectating juniors here who agree?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I sure hope not. (Update: none of the seven 2400ers were accepted.)</p>
<p>^^You really shouldn’t make changes based off of this (or any) incredibly small sample size that is self-selected and thus heavily influenced by selection bias. Such a group gives you no reliable data.</p>