[/quote]
I am admitted to both Caltech and MIT. I am an international student from Belgium who really likes to study physics but is also interested in music and philosophy. I play tennis at a very competitive level (even the coaches of Yale and Princeton cannot wait to have me in the varsity team), but sports is not a huge priority in my undergraduate education. Which of the two institutes do you advise for me? Or should I go for Princeton, Stanford or Harvard if admitted at the end of this month?
<p>Not to point fingers at anyone or leave the original thread, but why would a college like MIT, according to a previous post, want to accept someone who is less qualified just to honor its diversity issues? I would like to know how someone, who is not up to par on minimum admission qualifications, will be able to complete work in classes at MIT, much less graduate in 4 years? Aren't colleges just setting these students up for failure?</p>
<p>"Not to point fingers at anyone or leave the original thread, but why would a college like MIT, according to a previous post, want to accept someone who is less qualified just to honor its diversity issues? I would like to know how someone, who is not up to par on minimum admission qualifications, will be able to complete work in classes at MIT, much less graduate in 4 years? Aren't colleges just setting these students up for failure?"</p>
<p>Notice that I said "less qualified", not completely unqualified. I'm betting that about 50% of MIT Applicants could handle the MIT curriculum; they just don't have spots for all of these people, so they just admit 12% instead. The admitted people from minorities are very intelligent, and they can handle the curriculum. Whenever I see a minority getting denied there, I think it's because they either didn't represent that ethnic group well or the admissions committee just didn't think they could handle the curriculum.</p>
<p>I'll give an example of a minority getting denied because he didn't fill his role as a hispanic. He took 7 APs last year, got 5s on all of them, was taking Calculus 3 and Linear Algebra his senior year, had extremely impressive ECs, and had perfect SATs and SAT IIs. However, he just didn't fit into the hispanic definition -- if you talked to him without seeing him, you'd never see that he was hispanic, and that's why I think he was rejected.</p>
<p>Frankly, it's just MIT being MIT. Their policies are crap, and they don't have anyone to answer to, so they can discriminate all they want. They have ROLES for everyone to fill, and if you don't fit into one of those roles, you're rejected. It's like you're a doll in a doll house. Why would anyone want that?</p>
<p>Ben Jones has said that something like 70% of all applicants are qualified to be at MIT. </p>
<p>I think people are trying to say that it's not that MIT admits minority applicants who aren't qualified, but rather favors them over majority applicants when their credentials are similar. For example, say we have a "MIT worthy" scale from 1-10, where 5 means your qualified to be at MIT. A minority with an 9 might still be accepted over a majority with a 10.</p>
<p>For the record, I didn't get accepted by MIT. I'm not blaming girls or blacks or whatever for taking my spot. I still respect MIT and think its a wonderful school.</p>
<p>Thanks for your reply--I guess you just never know what will strike the fancy of an admissions officer, be it CalTech, MIT or elsewhere. It is a mystery that will forever keep the discussions alive, esp. on this forum. Watch when the RD acceptances come out--there will be those who will be accepted that will make you wonder if they are truly qualified to handle the workload. But, then again, perhaps those admissions officers saw something in that application that we all do not see!!</p>
<p>I did (Caltech but not MIT)...and it's kind of wierd because I'm a girl, which should make it easier for me to get into MIT. So I was completely, 100% expecting a rejection letter from Caltech after finding out about MIT, and the big packet is just such a shock. a happy one of course!</p>
<p>Hey people, peace out with affirmative action argument man. The OP was just asking about whether and why things like someone getting into Caltech but not MIT.</p>
<p>Personally, to me, that's what happened. Got into Caltech but not MIT. Also, contrary to what Unduly thinks, I had great humanities grades and scores, probably better than my math/science ones. </p>
<p>MIT practices affirmative action, Caltech doesn't. Thus, if you're an Asian Male, it's probably safe to say that it's a lot harder to get into MIT than Caltech. If you're a white male, probably equal chance (assumption, based on the fact that affirmative action spots weigh against Asians, who are overrepresented as a group). Minorities and females most likely have an easier chance at MIT than at Caltech, since Caltech doesn't practice affirmative action.</p>
<p>Platero, admissions isn't a sure-thing, so it might have just been a fluke that MIT rejected you. Also, you are Asian, which is a tough category to be placed in.</p>
<p>In at Caltech, rejected from MIT. I agree with your argument, Kamikazewave, but I can't really support it with my example, since I never had a chance at MIT anyway since my essay was total S**T. I'm an Asian male, so I'm very glad that Caltech doesn't do AA. I'm sad that this causes less girls to be accepted, though.
Ah well, Cali should be awesome.</p>
<p>Son, white male, got letters from both MIT and Caltech yesterday. In at MIT, rejected at Caltech. Applied both EA and did all essays in two days due to schedule for the play he was in (and his laziness/procrastination).</p>
<p>Typical CC strong applicant by the numbers, but lacked research, strong service-type ECs, and work experience. (He's focused on enjoying HS and apparently has never given a thought to what colleges might want, which is good and bad.)</p>
<p>Except for the exceptional handful of the exceptional handful, admissions at this level is a crapshoot. I anticipated rejections from both schools, was hoping for CalTech, and surprised by MIT. He, however, is continuing to just roll with it, doesn't check decisions online, and appears to be preparing to be happy wherever he ends up going.</p>
<p>sorry if I seemed to be saying "MIT rejected me cuz I'm Asian" I was just stating facts that may or may not be relevent to th admission decisions from the two schools. but I was completely honest when I said I was sure I would not get in Caltech, given that I'm a girl rejected at MIT. I was thinking that way, although it may or may not be the truth.</p>
<p>I have a friend (an Asian female from the east cost) who got into both CalTech and MIT.
I do agree that CalTech and MIT look for different things during their admissions process.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Of course diversity isn't a bad thing. The question is, which is more important: diversity or equality? I pick equality.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But the thing is, this choice (between diversity OR equality) doesn't exist in MIT/Caltech admissions. Someone on this thread brought up Ben Jones' statement that 70% of MIT applicants are qualified to be at MIT. If this is true, then the admissions office won't have to choose between qualified and unqualified applicants: there are so many qualified applicants that they can afford to choose between applicants who are both diverse+qualified and those who are non-diverse+qualified.</p>
<p>Basically, what I'm saying is, with so many qualified applicants, you don't have to get diversity at the expense of quality or equality.</p>