<p>Hmm that could be it, although I doubt interviews were my problem… especially since I thought my MIT interview went pretty well. Plus everyone keeps telling me that interviews don’t count for anything.
But if they were a problem, I’m really nervous for the rest of my colleges hahah.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Misleading, wrong, and naive</p>
<p>Please explain, Djokovic
I didn’t state it as fact (merely a guess on my part, I’m sorry if it came off otherwise), but given the people I know who got into MIT vs. the people I know who got into Caltech, it seems as though Caltech was nicer. Plus Caltech’s acceptance rate is slightly higher (although the pool might be self-selecting, I’m thinking that it’s no more self-selecting than MIT’s)</p>
<p>@CanaryK: I have the same question.</p>
<p>Perhaps Caltech admits students who WILL achieve great stuffs,
while MIT admits students who HAVE achieved exceptional stuffs?</p>
<p>^I like the way you think! Those who HAVE achieved and WILL achieve great stuffs got admission at both places.</p>
<p>Well, I feel better about myself now. Same story here - MIT didn’t want me, Caltech did. I don’t really care, since Caltech was my top choice all along. I wish I knew why, though. I hope it wasn’t my interview - that one didn’t matter much, but I’ve had others since that might.</p>
<p>I also, was rejected by MIT and accepted to Caltech.</p>
<p>accepted at both EA, still not quite sure how…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have read the threads of both schools, and as an outsider, the impression I got was the opposite of this actually. At MIT, they have a certain mission about students who will positively impact the world, and at times they will correlate non-maths/science perseverance/achievement and other things with an ability to succeed with their philosophy. However, they also accept students whose achievements have been concentrated in these fields. I have gotten the impression Caltech looks very much *only * for people who want an intense, trusting environment where they study tough maths/science/engineering together. My impression has also been that MIT’s goals are less in line with getting rid of students with lower results in terms of basic grades and scores.</p>
<p>I agree with Mathboy.</p>
<p>Caltech will always remain a science and tech focused school. The people it wants to recruit are science and tech people. It’ll be like that for the foreseeable, since most alums and students will be against trying to make Tech into something different.</p>
<p>MIT, in my opinion, is already well on its way to transforming itself from a tech school to something more in line with what schools like Harvard and Princeton are like. It’s more like a prestigious university with tech characterstics. </p>
<p>I know that MIT still recruits plenty of science and tech kids, but they’ve also branched out a lot into other fields. Likewise, this’ll change the type of person they admit.</p>
<p>I got into Caltech but was waitlisted in MIT…</p>
<p>Congratulations on getting into Caltech, which is an amazing school. </p>
<p>Don’t waste a lot of time trying to second-guess what happened with MIT. Does it really matter? Really?</p>
<p>Enjoy your admission to Caltech. The drop-dead georgeous campus has much better weather. And if you make it to campus for a visit, check out the sushi chef in the cafeteria.
:-)</p>
<p>It does seem like a lot of people get into caltech but not MIT.
Caltech used the common app- which, I’m guessing, most of us spend more time on, since we send it to other schools too. MIT’s application was unique, so we might not have polished the essays as much, in comparison. At least, this was definitely my experience.</p>
<p>i’m the same as zinja… that makes a lot of sense</p>
<p>@ zinja: Not my case. I spent well over 3 months on the MIT essays and only one month on the Caltech ones (sorry, Caltech), one week on the Common App one. But still, Caltech accepted me, and MIT rejected me.</p>
<p>Perhaps Kamikazewave’s explanation applies better.</p>
<p>You also have to think of it this way. </p>
<p>Why would you go back to a forum of a school you didn’t get into? Specifically, why would you post there telling everyone you didn’t get in there in a thread asking for the opposite?</p>
<p>Caltech probably does admit MIT denys than MIT does Caltech’s denies, simply because MIT is such a larger school.</p>
<p>Accepted at Caltech but rejected at MIT. I really didn’t think it was this common either; I kind of thought it would be the other way around for me to be honest.</p>
<p>I do prefer Caltech to MIT, and would have attended Caltech if I had gotten in to both. I was still a little upset that I didn’t get into MIT…but it’s not THAT big of a deal.</p>
<p>As far as which college is more selective, I think that the Caltech students are more self-selecting, so that the applicant pool is stronger as a whole. The acceptance rate is still higher, because not that many people apply to Caltech <em>just because</em></p>
<p>Does anyone know the matriculation rate at MIT and Caltech? Just curious.</p>
<p>Caltech students have average SAT ranges that are way higher than any other school. I think getting in to Caltech is not by any means easier than other schools, simply because you are competing against geniuses.</p>
<p>KamikazeWave’s explanation is fantastic, I don’t really know if I believe if but it does make a lot of sense…</p>
<p>A league of geniuses here :D</p>