<p>If at all?</p>
<p>I want to know too... bump!</p>
<p>Hopefully it won't change the humane admissions policies at MIT.</p>
<p>Probably more objective.</p>
<p>It's hard to say. Everyone is so qualified as it is....</p>
<p>"Hooks" will probably remain very important.</p>
<p>I think they should change the process to be gender and race blind (like the UC's). Just to show they have integrity, y'know?</p>
<p>You would like that...but I doubt it will happen anytime soon.</p>
<p>Agree with CADreams. The admissions process should become like caltech's. Only scores, gpa, and math/science ecs should count. I'd understand if they gave a break to the disadvantaged but no touchy feel bs.</p>
<p>I am sure the interim dean of admissions will see to it that there is a general degree of continuity to the admissions process. You won't be seeing drastic changes by the next application season.</p>
<p>It will however likely effect the longterm goals and strategies of MIT admissions. Probably less emphasis on the qualities she emphasized and a gradual shift back to more 'objective' process.</p>
<p>I agree with race blind, gender blind. Just scores, gpa, and ec's in the context of available resources.</p>
<p>No touchy-feely bs but maybe a new, special section where applicants can list fantasy schools, awards, and other accomplishments that they WISH they had, like degrees from RPI, Albany Medical, Union . . . Give this section the most weight, of course.</p>
<p>Yea I know most people agree with that. But, will MIT change in that direction? And if so, how quickly?</p>
<p>MIT is primarily a tech school after all, so do you people think performing arts , service, and sports ECs should be disregarded, or be given secondary status? Or should they be considered equal to academic ECs, especially those in math and science?</p>
<p>You do realize that there are literally thousands of applicants with basically the same GPA and scores, right? Often separated by a trivial factor.</p>
<p>Those policies are used to differentiate among the thousands of well-qualified applicants.</p>
<p>
Would the male students still be happy if MIT was more like RPI, with a 3:1 male/female ratio? ;)</p>
<p>Caltech does consider URM status, by the way.</p>
<p>He** no... l0l. I like the ratio the way it is now.</p>
<p>:P</p>
<p>Contextual admissions, which involves looking at the student's HS to see what opportunities he/she had to put in perspective his/her application, is a good policy and should be continued.</p>
<p>The emotional, gut-feeling idea of "the match" is unscientific and not befitting a school of MIT's caliber. Hopefully, it will fade into the background now that Marilee Jones will no longer be around to push it.</p>
<p>Of course, given the general trend of college admissions to become more and more random as more students apply to more schools, there will probably not be a noticeable change.</p>
<p>Christ, MIT isn't taking a public poll on how they should run their admissions from now on. Someone else has been appointed in the interim and when a new dean is finally put in place I doubt he/she will erase all the progress Marilee has made.</p>
<p>"Caltech does consider URM status, by the way."</p>
<p>I don't think so. They have something like a .3% African American enrollment and a 7 to 3 male to female ratio. That rfects what I would expect of a tech school applicant pool.</p>
<p>
Why? College is a major expense for both institutions and students, and finding good matches seems perfectly reasonable. Chicago exemplifies this approach, considering good fits more important that SAT scores or GPA. After all, that's why admissions is run by people rather than computers. ;)</p>
<p>
Yes, and Caltech is known for having no black freshmen in some past years. Nonetheless, the minority status box is checked as "considered" on the Common Data Set.</p>
<p>"With colleges demanding kids who play sports, run student government and take the heaviest course load they can, Jones shouted back the opposite: daydream, stay healthy, and don't worry so much about building a resume just to impress an elite college."</p>
<p>Of course she shouts that; she was probably a slacker who didn't take the heaviest course loads or extracurriculars. She tells others to "daydream" and that credentials are not that important because she doesn't have any. Someone like her having a say on who is admitted to MIT or not contaminates the whole admissions process because she has no idea what a scholar is. Her flawed leadership probably influenced the rejection of many qualified applicants for unqualified ones. I hope she gets sued for fraud and has to go to prison or is fined heavily.</p>