Coach's support?

Colleges and Universities A-Z Massachusetts Institute of Technology
21

<p>

</p>

<p>Yes, and I was quite surprised about it.</p>

<p>Fine, let’s just look at statistics: ~100 people were admitted with a Math SAT I score of under 700. 25% of the admitted class has a SAT II Science score of under 720. Not to be all meritocratic and all, but if MIT is truly looking for the top students in math, science, and engineering, the SAT subject tests would be a good indicator. Yes, the test can be poorly written and may sometimes not be a good indication of what you know, but I can surely tell you that a person with 800’s across the board for math/science will be better at science/engineering than a 700/720. And do you really believe that MIT ran out of people with 800’s, so they have to start choosing people with less-than stellar scores? Or that most people with 800’s are not well-rounded and have no other EC’s? No - the threshold is lowered for cases such as when stellar athletes aren’t able to spend as much time studying.</p>

<p>If I did a varsity sport and did well enough in it to be recruited on a college level, I would have to spend a significant amount of time outside of class to do that sport. So I completely understand that their test scores will not be as high as people who have the ability to spend several hours a day studying. But you guys can’t dismiss the fact that because we’re at MIT, everyone is at the same intellectual level.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>A quarter of the admitted class has a SAT score of under roughly 2110 (even lower for enrolling students, since some top students probably leaked to HYPS). How did they get in? I know many people who has 2300+ but were not admitted. Is it because they lack “passion” in math and science? No, because they are USAMO’ers, Intel semi’s, FIRST robotic team captains. And people who make USAXO, Intel, Siemens, etc are usually good test-takers as well. So MIT could’ve filled their entire class with 2300+'ers. The fact of the matter is, MIT also wants a diverse class, just less so than the Ivies. But the same aspects are still there when it comes to admissions.</p>

<p>BTW, in the area I’m from, a 2250 SAT and 730 SAT II will NOT get you in (simply because so many people have them). So regional diversity is another factor in admissions, I guess.</p>

<p>Lastly, I just want to say that I am not advocating for anything, just pointing out some facts and expressing what I noticed so far. I’m just not comfortable with MIT saying that they don’t consider recruitment/legacy at all in admissions, because they do play a role, albeit less so than any other private college out there.</p>

22

<p>^The thing is, you don’t know if the people with sub 2100/2400 scores are the athletes (unless, again, you have encountered this personally.) </p>

<p>You are assuming that they are attempting to take people who are the best in school, unless they have some other clear talent (e.g., sports.) Otherwise, why would you reject someone with stellar stats for someone not as good, right? </p>

<p>It is my observation that this not necessarily true, even though it seems rational.</p>

23

<p>

</p>

<p>As far as I know, the ~700 cutoff is there because Admissions hasn’t seen a significant consistent difference in performance past about that mark - especially given that there are many other factors in play that Admissions can find out about. Say Kid A had every opportunity to excel with not much else going on in his/her life and got a 780, and Kid B had to take care of his/her family throughout high school or had to work a job and scored a 700… Kid B is more likely to have the grit it takes to get through MIT, knows how to deal with harder stuff, and still did pretty dang well considering his/her surroundings. You’re reducing this to a number without taking in any other factors. Why turn in the rest of the application at all?</p>

<p>Also, you’re acting as though only athletes put a lot of time into their extracurricular activities in high school and thus should get an extra boost, which is just bogus.</p>

24

<p>

</p>

<p>True, and someone who crushes honors chemistry but only gets 720 on a subject test exam because they couldn’t take the AP class may be better than a 800 person who took the AP class. However, I don’t think most of the situations in which the straight 800 is passed over for the person with 700’s is because of this. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I think music and art, activities which engage your mind, are more synergistic with academic achievement than athletics–especially if you are training hard enough to be recruited. </p>

<p>Some of what iceau is saying may be true, but I think he is projecting his own logic onto what he assumes MIT is doing. For one, if you take what MIT says at face value, 300 out of the 900 stars in art, music, or athletics were admitted. I would expect the number of athletes in that group to be less than 130 or so, considering that artistic ability is somewhat rare and that musical ability tends to be associated with top-end academic achievement. Right there you have slightly more than 10%. At least some of these recruited athletes don’t need any help. One guy I knew who was recruited for U. of Virginia’s football team went to MIT, got a 5.0 in chem E, and then won a Marshall’s Scholarship. I’m not saying this is typical, but some not insignificant fraction of the recruited athletes have the stats you would expect. Also, some of the people in the bottom quartile are likely to be URM admits–not saying it is everybody, but it’s fair to assume that a stated policy for lowering the bar somewhat for admission (in terms of test scores) results in some fraction of them having lower than average test scores. Thirdly, some people are taken because their essays resonate with the admissions staff. No one said this out loud, but I have to believe that the rash of suicides in the late 90’s changed the ideal candidate they were looking for. (They have spoken about looking for “resiliency.”) I think someone who looks like they have an effervescent personality, who is outgoing, and who looks like they wouldn’t be hard on themselves if they mess up in class has an advantage over someone with similar stats who doesn’t project this; these characteristics do not correlate with top-end achievement (at least in the short-term.)</p>

25

<p>A close friendof mine, whose S has been in contact with one of MIT’s coaches, says that he gets about 5 out of his top 10 athletes accepted each year. A 50% acceptance rate does not sound like possible athletic recruits are just another extra-curricular to me, assuming this coach of this particular sport is accurate.</p>

26

<p>

</p>

<p>What academic standards would you need to be considered by the coach? I assume the coach would not even try to get an athlete in unless they had good stats. Even the ivies, which have a slot system where recruits are part of a separate admission system, have an academic bar you have to reach to be considered.</p>

27

<p>

According to information given by Chris on this board, the overall acceptance rate for recruited athletes is nowhere near 50%, indicating either that the coach is exaggerating or significantly rounding up, or else that athletes for that sport are much more likely than average to be otherwise outstanding applicants. </p>

<p>This is an email I got from Matt McGann on the subject of athletic recruitment a few years ago:

</p>

28

<p>Athletics do not count “the same as any other extracurricular activity”, because for most extracurricular activities, MIT needs to take the student’s claims at face value. Rather, an athlete that an MIT coach is actively supporting has independent validation from someone on the MIT campus as to the strength of the students potential. In this fashion, it is extremely similar to a student that submits a highly-regarded art or music portfolio, which is also evaluated by a specialist in the MIT community, and which therefore also has external validation of potential. So being a recruited athlete is clearly a good thing. But it is not enough of a good thing to get a student admitted who otherwise would not have been admitted.</p>

29

<p>

</p>

<p>True, but you do have to realize that the majority of MIT’s students are middle to upper class, so that’s enough to account for the huge number of students who don’t reach 700 on their SAT’s.</p>

<p>The point is, MIT admissions is similar to Ivy League admissions in many ways. While MIT does not have “slots” for athletes, they do actively recruit. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I highly doubt that. Only in rare cases does a student still stand out even after you take his/her most impressive extracurricular away. This applies to athletes as well.</p>