<p>Since most CC'ers don't accurately portray the actual results for admissions at MIT, and we don't know if, say, on the Official Decisions Thread some absolutely spectacular person was rejected when normally he/she would be accepted (in other words, we don't know if this case was some oddball, or if that kinda stuff is likely), anyways I want to know what the chances of this (average), imaginary applicant of MIT w/ following stats:</p>
<p>White, male, 4.0, rank 1/400 at normal public hs, 2300, 800x2 SAT II, 5x8 APs (3 self studied), USABO semifinalist, some local awards, research/summer program at university, varsity athlete & championships/awards, decent essays/recs, AIME qualifier/AMC 110, national merit, pres of a couple small clubs, decent comm serv.</p>
<p>I know this is almost impossible to say, but I'd like to know the % chances. 15-20% sound right? It's just difficult to gather results from the admissions thread when a) you don't know how common the decision is (as I discussed above) and b) CC shows only a small portion of applicants/acceptances. Try to look at it from perspective of admissions officer.</p>
<p>Yes, the student you said has a good chance of getting in IF they are also a good match for MIT. Likewise, a student who is an excellent match for MIT with slightly lower stats has just as good of a chance.</p>
<p>Way higher chances than 15-20%. That’s a very solid application.</p>
<p>HOWEVER, admissions cannot come down to numbers. When admissions officers look at an application, they don’t evaluate the probability that the student will get in. Rather, they get a sense of the intangible aspects of an applicant - personality conveyed in essays and so on. This makes the decision simple: yes or no. 100% or 0%. There’s no middle point and it’s pointless to try and speculate in this fashion.</p>
<p>So you might think that CC isn’t actually an accurate representation of the applicant pool, but I bet it’s better than you think. Most MIT applicants are going to have stellar grades and extracurriculars (the ones who are in serious contention, anyway), and most MIT applicants are going to think that they’re pretty fantastic. Most applicants will have done something significant in their high school years and get stellar essays and recommendations.</p>
<p>So, uh, don’t think that it’s actually easier to get into MIT than it appears to be on CC. You will probably be surprised come decisions time.</p>
<p>The original post is a little ambiguous, but if I’m understanding it right, how are you distinguishing the exceptional candidate you have postulated from the standard CCer? The usual (and accurate) observation is that CC kids tend to be very highly credentialed. So is your “imaginary” applicant.</p>
<p>So what am I missing? What’s the difference and on what basis would anyone here be able to suggest why that postulated candidate has a chance that is any better or worse than a “CC” applicant? (Even putting aside entirely the fact that “chance” threads are inherently nearly useless in predicting what a top school will do with an “average” excellent candidate.)</p>
<p>This is…not entirely true. You seem to have college apps confused with job apps. MIT does not mind if you are an introvert, or shy, or undersocialized. If that counted against you, the majority of the incoming frosh every year wouldn’t be there (and by the way, an environment where most people are themselves learning normal social skills is a great safe environment to develop your own). </p>
<p>MIT wants people who have what it takes to succeed at MIT, who will contribute to the MIT community and then go on to do awesome things as a bearer of the MIT name. So, someone who has years of intense dedication to a sport, or a musical instrument, or scientific research, or whatever, is showing that they have the work ethic to succeed, both at MIT and once they graduate. They also have something to contribute to MIT’s sports, clubs, or research labs. Someone who spends hours volunteering in a soup kitchen may also want to work with MIT’s Public Service Center or service fraternity, or chapter of Engineers Without Borders, or Energy Club, or other save-the-world entities within the MIT community. And so on. What admissions is NOT, though, is a charm contest.</p>
<p>Also, if there was any confusion, these are not my stats, they’re supposed to be a slightly above average applicant (from my understanding), although they are somewhat based on mine :P. And just b/c someone has great test scores doesn’t mean they can’t be social as well, I tried to sorta convey that on the imaginary app w/ sports, community service, and clubs. @Handala, I’m not a ■■■■■, at least not on the MIT forums : |.</p>
<p>MIT has, of course, its own internal database, where I imagine it would be possible to calculate the percentages of applicants with X, Y, and Z who have been admitted over the past several years. However, I’m not sure I believe access to such a database would have predictive value.</p>
<p>If you are serious about applying to MIT don’t be overly focused on stats or lining up a bunch of ECs.</p>
<p>MIT has a pretty clear idea when an applicant is a “fit” and that may be quite different from the “fit” with other highly selective colleges. </p>
<p>MIT does not care as much as others may about leadership or athletic awards or general involvement in the community. MIT wants to see 'demonstrated interest" in science and technology, which by itself covers a very broad range of activities. In my experience, MIT is less impressed by a candidate with lots of awards, excellent stats and tons of ECs, great writing skills than a more 'lopsided" candidate with some unusual skill, passion for a scientific area backed up by some major effort, even if his resume is thin in other areas and his essay a little rough on the edges. You can actually see the essay part of the application being deemphasized in favor of shorter more specific questions.</p>
<p>You don’t have to win an Olympiad to get admitted to MIT but in general it has to be crystal clear from your application that you would thrive at MIT and contribute to its culture. Actions will always speak more than words. MIT doesn’t admit students as a reward for work well done, they admit students based on their estimate of the student’s future contribution. A student from a mediocre high school who went out of his way to stretch himself to the limit and achieved something special despite long odds will be more successful than the candidate with 10 APs, perfect SATs but no clear evidence of drive or passion for science and technology. It’s all about what you did with the resources available to you.</p>
<p>From the link molliebatmit posted, 839 out of the total of 1057 applicants who were admitted for Fall 2009 applied EA; and of those 839, 540 were offered admission early while 299 were deferred to regular decision, and then admitted. With the usual caveats about the relative strengths of the EA and RD pools, it looks as though it would probably be a good idea to apply EA, if you really want MIT.</p>
<p>This applicant is anything but average. That said, he should have a decent chance of being admitted to MIT if he is able to demonstrate some sort of passion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s rather shocking, but then again, most strong applicants will choose to apply early.</p>
<p>Oops, 1057 was the number admitted under regular decision. I neglected to add in the early admits and the students admitted from the waitlist. Just an oversight. Still, about half of the admits (and presumably more than half of the entering class) applied EA.</p>
<p>Yeah, there’s a higher probability that you are admitted given that you applied for EA. But it doesn’t mean that you will have a higher chance of being admitted because you applied for EA. Again, self-selection.</p>
<p>Regular decision looks unfavorable because of the international pool. You should also consider removing the international pool from the numbers for regular decision, and you’ll see that regular decision applicants [(1057-299-123)/(10981-3636)] and deferred students from EA, given that they are already deferred (299/3644), in fact have almost equal chance of being admitted (with RD applicants having 0.4% more chance, if that matters).</p>