Analyzing the EA results

Colleges and Universities A-Z Massachusetts Institute of Technology
1

<p>Let me first say I have no personal experience with MIT, never applied there, and have done no rigorous analysis. I post this off the top of my head.</p>

<p>I really am enjoying reading these EA results. We know that MIT has placed an arbitrary cap of 30% on the number of people it will admit EA (according to the post by Ben Jones). So let's think about how that constrains them.</p>

<p>First of all, they have diversity goals they need to meet. EA is a great way to accomplish this. For instance, they need to not only admit women, but get them to attend MIT. Let's say they have an extremely qualified female candidate. If they admit her EA, it increases substantially the chance she will attend MIT. There are fewer extremely qualified women in the applicant pool than men, so they have to really roll out the red carpet for them.</p>

<p>For men, on the other hand, they can safely defer an extremely qualified candidate, and admit him later. He'll probably still go to MIT, if he doesn't there are plenty of extremely qualified men on the waitlist eager for his spot. </p>

<p>Beyond the diversity goals, there are a certain number of superstars, those need to be admitted EA, of course.</p>

<p>A lot of the CC deferred people seem to be extremely qualified, male, non-super-stars. I bet MIT has some of you in a pile of people to be admitted RD, but since they arbitrarily cap EA at 30%, there just isn't enough room to admit you yet. I think it's a little mean, but they don't want to seem unfair to less sophisticated applicants by admitting 60% of the class EA.</p>

<p>For youngin's reading this, it's very obvious you need to play a sport if at all possible. Eagle scout is a huge plus. If you are extremely qualified but fall short of being a superstar, don't meet any diversity goals and can't show you are "balanced", you're in big trouble.</p>

2

<p>If this is true, it makes me feel better :-)</p>

3

<p>
[quote]
There are fewer extremely qualified women in the applicant pool than men, so they have to really roll out the red carpet for them.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I find this exceptionally untrue and frankly rude. This has been discussed in multiple threads over the years, and the overwhelming consensus by people who are either involved in the process or have seen a lot of kids go through it is that the female pool is exceptionally talented (more-so than the male, some may argue) and very self-selected. It takes guts for a girl to compete with the boys in math and science, so the type of girls who take the chance to get involved in these activities run with the challenge and really, really shine. There are a lot of flat, I-like-math guys that apply, and if that's all they have they don't tend to get in- check the old results threads if you want some samples. Girls who have that initial drive towards math and science, though, tend to have something more that drives them to excellence elsewhere in their lives, and that really makes them stand out.</p>

<p>Much of this is just based on personal experience, so I'd be interested as to what more experienced people around here have to say.</p>

4

<p>i agree with ducktape. the post is completely filled with uninformed speculation.
and i assume you meant that they admitted me--chinese male with strength in math--out of diversity reasons.</p>

5

<p>You did go through katrina which brings in a rare experience.</p>

6

<p>
[quote]
For youngin's reading this, it's very obvious you need to play a sport if at all possible.

[/quote]

There are many things with which I disagree here, but this is easy to point out. There's absolutely no requirement to play a sport to be admitted to MIT, and there is no evidence that athletes (ie those who play sports, taking the issue of "recruitment" off the table) are admitted at a higher rate than non-athletes. Even if they are admitted at a higher rate, there's no evidence that athletics alone was the factor that "got them in".</p>

<p>The CC thread is a small sample of the people who composed the MIT EA pool, and it's almost certain to be a biased sample. You are not likely to be able to conclude that applicants ought to do athletics or scouting based merely on the CC EA thread.</p>

<p>Many athletes and Eagle Scouts were probably admitted to MIT EA. However, many athletes and Eagle Scouts were deferred, and many were rejected. Without more information, it's just sloppy to make blanket recommendations to future applicants.</p>

7

<p>I'm a black belt in karate, with numerous awards and two state championships, and I got deferred. The rest of my application was strong. Athletics is no guarantee of admittance...</p>

8

<p>"There are fewer extremely qualified women in the applicant pool than men"</p>

<p>There are certainly more men inclined to engineering, but this statement is exaggerated. Women tend to be much more diligent and studious. The gender gap is not nearly as large as you might think. They certainly do not have to "roll out the red carpet."</p>

9

<p>I agree with ducktape as well. </p>

<p>And I'm a girl, extremely qualified, non-super-star. Can I be added to that RD admit pile? ;)</p>

10

<p>Again, you may be a black belt in karate but I simply question to what extent that will help MIT. For being DIV III, MIT is ridiculously competitive in academics (fielding 38? intercollegiate teams). I also remember reading that a little over 20% play intercollegiate athletics and another about 70% of the remaining students playing IM sports. This certainly does not mean that MIT recruits athletes. Have you even taken a look at the recruiting form? it is 3/4 academics and 1/4 athletics. Furthermore, I feel that many sports like pistol, fencing, etc. really appeal to the MIT type who may not be physically gifted in a sport like football or basketball, yet still has the competitive drive that got them to MIT. I can assure you that MIT gives no slack on academics for athletics. Also, sports are so popular because MIT really drives their students into the ground and the students really need a diversion to take their mind off their work (like only physical activity can do).</p>

<p>Eagle Scout is a huge plus? It is certainly impressive and shows devotion but I don't understand why you singled it out.</p>

<p>Can't show that you are balanced? Why would MIT admit an extremely balanced student body that is not extraordinary at anything. To stand out in such a competitive applicant pool you must define yourself. MIT creates such a well rounded class as a whole by admitting specialists in a variety of areas, often times obscure.</p>

<p>Your analysis is extremely flawed and offensive to the ADCOMs who do such a great job to make MIT what it is today. It is mean that they only admit 30% of their class? Considering that about 10% of the EA applicants are accepted RD, it obviously is not cruel but rather a method to create the best class possible.</p>

11

<p>I'm a dude and I agree with ducktape's statement about "flat, i-like-math guys." I went to a school where kids do take the AMC/AIME, and I thought that my not taking it would screw me over, but they want something different-I did research a lot, and took debate to a high-level, and that set me apart I think. As far as AA in general, it should not happen-I am a survivor of the process, but I still think it is wrong. I wholeheartedly support a higher percentage of female applicants being accepted IF they are indeed more qualified. I think that when you have two applicants, and they are similiar (i realize that no two applicants are identical, an often-used and illogicaly oversimplified scenario) gender should not decide it. Unfortunately, I don't think MIT works this way. Ducktape and other CC girls, based on the stats in the decision thread, deserved it, perhaps even more than myself. However, i know of enough girls from my own school and from elsewhere that probably wouldn't have gotten into MIT if they were guys. I don't really care though-i would have if i got rejected, but at this point AA=more girls, me like girls, so it's all good.</p>

12

<p>I also find the OP's comments offensive. First off, MIT is not the only school that limits the EA/ED pool. </p>

<p>DS was accepted without playing a sport (except Ultimate), without music, art, drama, and with a reasonable (but not remarkable) amount of community service. He has also had his tail kicked often enough by some fabulous young women in science and math competitions over the years to know that those who get into MIT ROCK. </p>

<p>Basing sweeping generalizations on what data is reported here on these threads is poor judgment. We haven't seen essays or recs, and I know of many people who do not want to give info that may be the "tipping factor" because they don't want to be googled/outed by jerks.</p>

13

<p>athletics? Eagle scout? I think that's just untrue....</p>

14

<p>I personally know a handful of very high-achiving, qualified girls who were deferred.</p>

<p>I'm with ducktape...I find the OP's comments about women very rude and unsubstantiated.</p>

15

<p>Well, apparently I'm "offensive" and "rude". There are just as many women as men with extremely high test scores in math and science, not to mention interest in attending a university focused on those subjects. MIT doesn't strongly prefer "balanced" students. The EA system is beautiful, perfect, and the best thing for students. </p>

<p>And, let me repeat the first sentence of my post:
"Let me first say I have no personal experience with MIT, never applied there, and have done no rigorous analysis. I post this off the top of my head."</p>

16

<p>and thus like i said: uninformed speculation.
maybe we should try to learn to keep some thoughts to oneself.</p>

17

<p>
[quote]
And, let me repeat the first sentence of my post:
"Let me first say I have no personal experience with MIT, never applied there, and have done no rigorous analysis. I post this off the top of my head."

[/quote]

Well, if you're not going to do a rigorous analysis, which is difficult or impossible given the dearth of data, we can at least ask you to think rigorously. Occupational hazard.</p>

18

<p>Personally, I must applaud kenf1234 for being open enough to say something that everyone was thinking, even though it's not quite politically correct. To everyone else, consider the data on this page MIT</a> Office of the Provost, Institutional Research.
Somehow, women make up 28.3% of applicants and 47.5% of accepted applicants. That's 9.7% of men and 22.4% of women applicants accepted. Good luck pretending gender doesn't influence admissions, unless you think the 80th percentile female is as good as the 90th percentile male.</p>

19

<p>i believe we've already had this argument several times in this forum... you can't just look at acceptance rates alone, you have to look at the quality of the applicants..</p>

20

<p>basically, the female applicant pool is very self selective in that the females who apply are VERY competitive and therefore get admitted at higher rates. so to the topic creator... it has been stated MANY times that there is no " do XYZ to get into MIT" there is no formula so any sort of "analysis" of accepted students wouldn't really accomplish anything</p>