<p>just wondering.
Because my friends and I (4 of us) have been admitted by Caltech but rejected by MIT. </p>
<p>I wonder if this is because Caltech and MIT uses different standards to judge their applicants? or we are rejected simply because we are not good enough for MIT, but pretty competitive for Caltech? </p>
<p>This is really weird. </p>
<p>Long live Caltech! :)</p>
<p>I don’t know…
But a lot of people are now telling me that I SHOULD have applied to MIT. [Caltech mercilessly rejected me]
But that’s probably more out of friendly sentiment than anything :)</p>
<p>Apparently, MIT does accept a lot of applicants that are rejected from Caltech. So I should think that they have different standards of judging applicants…</p>
<p>I got into Caltech but rejected from MIT :)</p>
<p>I got waitlisted at Caltech and rejected from MIT :)</p>
<p>does that count? I was told you’ve got to be pretty qualified for getting waitlisted at Caltech…</p>
<p>i probably would have gotten rejected from caltech, but got waitlisted at MIT</p>
<p>why you may ask? low SAT score (slightly above 2100) but good grades/essays…i know caltech accepts mostly high scorers</p>
<p>Well, I got into both with a 2200, which is pretty close to high 2100s. I dont think scores are all that matter.</p>
<p>Good Q. I know some accepted by CalTech but rejected by MIT. There is a thing called AA for URM and it has more weight in MIT decision-- read the other threads on RD2014. With a small student body CT care much more about academics even for URMs. For same calibers, MIT favors overcoming obstacles/struggles, rightly or wrongly, to achieve a “diverse” class.</p>
<p>accepted to caltech, rejected by mit here</p>
<p>RawMcatBB, if you’re wondering how i got on the waitlist with a 2100ish, i had decent essays, tho im not a urm, in fact im the overrepresented kind XD</p>
<p>Accepted<em>by</em>Caltech<em>but</em>rejected<em>by</em>MIT++;</p>
<p>They are definitely looking into different sorts of things.</p>
<p>@dawncoming: So you have three friends going to Caltech together? That’s so cool.</p>
<p>Wow, didn’t know it was that common.</p>
<p>Accepted by Caltech waitlisted by MIT.</p>
<p>Rejected by Caltech but accepted to MIT. Strangely enough, I expected it to be the other way around (that is, if I got into only one), since I submitted 2 research papers for Caltech… Maybe they were so bad that they had to reject me.</p>
<p>Accepted Caltech, waitlisted by MIT also… this is weird</p>
<p>I can’t say I think that there is causation. As in, I don’t think they’re looking for completely different things. I’m sure it’s possible to be accepted to both. That being said, I might see things differently because I got into both schools.</p>
<p>Accepted Caltech, rejected MIT (not even waitlisted… hahahaha)
Makes sense though; I think I came off as more genuine/not-boring on my Caltech essays than on my MIT essays.
And I wasn’t thinking so much causation as it’s just plain easier to get into Caltech than MIT. Although I know someone waitlisted at Caltech who I bet would’ve gotten into MIT… still can’t figure out why he wasn’t accepted to Caltech.</p>
<p>I think Affirmative Action does have something to do with it, but there are a lot of other factors, too. Each schools has different priorities and obviously does look for different things when evaluating an application. You probably can’t make a blanket statement about how getting into Caltech but getting rejected from MIT is worse than getting into MIT but rejected from Caltech or vice versa, each school looks for a different type of individual. You can see this in the essays they write–Caltech stresses its prank culture and its strong personal pursuit of science (Feynman essay) in their app while MIT asks about a personal challenge you’ve overcome. Of course, there are occasions people have both types of character traits and are fortunate enough to get into both schools.</p>
<p>got into Caltech rejected from MIT… I guess they are looking for different things. Either way I am happy Caltech was my first choice so I am thrilled!</p>
<p>MIT really amped up their AA this year, thats probably why</p>
<p>I think Caltech has admitted more Asians than usual while MIT massacred more Asians than usual.
I am always wondering why many got into Caltech but rejected/waitlisted by MIT. Does that mean Caltech is worse than MIT?( I don’t think so) or this is because Caltech doesn’t use AA? </p>
<p>many of you talk about different standards or something. hmm. may I ask you guys, what do you think are the differences between Caltech and MIT? For me I don’t see differences, except one’s in CA, the other’s in MA. and one doesn’t use AA, the other uses.</p>
<p>Here is another case of being wait listed at CalTech and not given admission at MIT. </p>
<p>One big difference I see is that MIT conducts interviews and CalTech doesn’t.</p>