<p>I just wanted to compliment MIT Admissions on changes in the MIT Admissions site. I recently took a look at it, since the new admissions season is opening. The current version is much friendlier (which is to say, not detectably negative) toward the applicant who happens to have 2400 SAT I, 2400 SAT II, 4.0 UW GPA, and a large number of AP's. Now, obviously, this set of credentials will not suffice to get an applicant in to MIT; but on the other hand, it is no longer coming across as a liability.</p>
<p>Thanks, MIT Chris, and others who were involved in the change. I think that highlighting the student bloggers is a good move. :)</p>
<p>The older version of the MIT web site had blog posts by admissions staffers suggesting that the combination of 2400 + 2400 + 4.0 + a “gazillion” AP’s meant that the student had sacrificed more important things in pursuit of those statistics. There were quite a few other comments, too, that I think anyone with AP Language, AP Literature, or some psychological sensitivity would identify for what they were. </p>
<p>The blog posts are perhaps not gone now, but they are no longer featured. Not worth dredging up if you never saw it–that’s better, really.</p>
<p>I really do not think that anything is served by dredging up the material that is now difficult to find. However, you could look (for example) at Ben Jones’s comments headlined “Many Ways to Define ‘The Best’.” In the previous version of the Admissions site, this was one of five highlighted blog entries on the page “The Selection Process | MIT Admissions.” Ben wrote:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I do not object that MIT rejects students with “perfect scores,” “perfect grades,” and “a gazillion AP classes.” Lots of top schools take only about 40-50% of the people in that category, and some take fewer. I do not object that MIT looks for students with passion–of course, one needs that as a scientist. </p>
<p>But looking at Ben Jones’s post with sensitivity to tone and diction, it seems to me that he was mocking people that MIT rejects, despite high stats. If I had been a high school senior last year, with the combination 2400 SAT I + 2400 SAT II + 4.0 UW GPA + a large number of AP classes, having seen Ben’s blog post (and other comments on the MIT site, and comments by the former Dean of Admissions), I most likely would not have applied to MIT. </p>
<p>Part of my reaction to the blog depends on the reading of the term “grind.” Among my friends, this is a derogatory term (usually a noun) for someone who just “keeps his/her nose to the grindstone,” without any creativity in the work. It may be used more neutrally elsewhere, just to refer to slogging through work.</p>
<p>Part of my reaction depends on the reading of “what a person brings to the table.” In my part of the country, this would be synonymous with “what else the person has to offer.” In that case, I object to the comment that these people “often” brought <em>nothing</em> else to the table. Really? I have never known anyone of whom that statement could be made honestly. </p>
<p>I have posted plenty of impassioned comments here and in the Parents Forum about the tone of part of the MIT Admissions material. I really do not want to polemicize the discussion, now that the posts are harder to locate. Some of the other material that has bothered me over time came from posts on CC by people affiliated with MIT, from the Wall Street Journal, and from comments on the official blogs. </p>
<p>Based on back-and-forth comments between me and MITChris, I think that he understood my point. And I do certainly appreciate the new version of the Admissions site.</p>
<p>In their talk, the MIT Admissions office said the stats of the average Admit is lower than the average Applicant. As long as you are qualified, what you do with your talent is a lot more important than upping your stats by a few more points.</p>