<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think admissions is as rational, or at least systematic, as you think it is. Also, there may be other priorities at work. I think the rash of undergrad suicides at MIT in the 90’s, combined with Marilee Jones’ personal philosophies, may have precipitated a change in the admissions criteria. I think the personal background of admissions committee people also affects their judgement. MIT still doesn’t recruit like the ivies, but I think that the weight of athletic achievement has increased in the past 10 years, something which may be related to the fact it is run by the former rowing coach. I think MIT is recruiting better athletes these days (every time I read the Tech it seems some record is being broken,) and while I think part of the better recruiting has to do with an improved marketing campaign (it’s not marketed as much as intellectual bootcamp these days,) I think the bar may have been lowered somewhat for athletes compared to yesteryear. I already mentioned Marilee Jones, but she had a lot of unconventional ideas. Some of these ideas I agreed with, like selecting for creativity, but I disagreed with how they measured them.
She also mentioned once that 15% of the students admitted wouldn’t have been admitted under previous policies, but that the committee took a chance on them based on something they saw in them. </p>
<p>It’s not an exact science, it’s a human-driven process that evolves over time. Sometimes the changes made are instituted due to the fervor of their proponent rather than superior logic.</p>