How much emphasis is placed on grade?

Colleges & Universities A-Z Massachusetts Institute of Technology
21

<p>Oops. I guess I stated it wrong. What I meant to say was, compare the % of URM valedictorians who get into top schools to the % of non-URM valedictorians who get into top schools. I think you would find a picture similar to this: 50% of URM valedictorians get into Harvard, compared to 25% of non-URM valedictorians.</p>

<p>You're right, after a certain point stats do not mean anything and it's up to the person to distinguish themselves through their essays, extracirriculars, etc. However the people I knew who were rejected from Harvard, Princeton, Columbia, etc, were amazing people in their own right. They were much more than good stats, but they did have them. However at the competitive level at these top schools, their personal characteristics and achievements (Even RSI, Siemens, Intel, top leadership positions, sports) were simply not enough to distinguish them.</p>

<p>So how did the URM students at my school, whom were also qualified though not at the same level, distinguish themselves? Did they simply have better essays? Overcome greater hardships (At least a few came from a upper middle class families)? Show greater maturity?</p>

<p>I can't judge these things on a numeric scale, so I can't say with 100% certainty. All I can give is my opinion, and based on my experiences and knowing these students, I have to say no. The only conclusion I can come up with is the race factor.</p>

<p>In my own case, I was rejected from MIT (though somewhat predictably), and I've come to realize that this is how the system works. I wonder, if I had been URM instead of Asian, if MIT would have accepted me (I honestly think they would have). You say it's not significant, but the difference between acceptance and rejection IS significant.</p>

<p>I'm not really bitter about it (going to Caltech), but feel that there are certain flaws in the system that should be addressed. Of course, my "whining" about it on CC won't accomplish anything.</p>

22

<p>well how about if i got like 6,7 B's in math/science courses but then was able to get an A in the other session
+ good SAT I/SAT II scores (700's up)
+ pretty OK EC's</p>

<ul>
<li>PASSION...MIT Is my dream school</li>
</ul>

23

<p>I'm asian, but I see no point of not checking off asian because my name is "Sagar Indurkhya"... unless well... actually Indurkhya is not a common last name at all... oO</p>

24

<p>Durran, your right in there being a big different between accept and reject, but the thing the line that separates the two is really thin. I would be a fool to not agree with URM's having better chances, but I would be a fool to agree that being a URM with mediocre stats means acceptance to any college since there are mean URM's with stats that equal or exceed their white/asian counterparts and are rejected.</p>

<p>My friend really wanted to go to princeton, and she had everything needed and much more to get in (amazing SAT I, SAT II, val, absurd courseload, awards, insane amounts of EC's, etc) but was rejected, which isn't too surprising. My other friend got in with good stats, but if I were to put it on a number scale what his stats were to hers, then it would be about 80%. He is a URM, but I think what kept her out was the fact that she did many of her EC's, or it seemed that way, just to get into college; the URM, however, did what was important to him and did not place too much emphasis on getting into a good college. He focused on bettering himself, and that, I feel, is a significant difference that was obvious in his app.</p>

<p>I could be wrong, but I honestly think that the reason many amazing applicants get rejected (I have several friends) is because they do most everything to get into a good college, whereas those "lesser" applicants did only what they cared about and wanted to go to a good college. An applicant needs to explain the importance behind his EC's, courseload, etc to show that it wasn't done solely for admittance--there must be passion and good reason.</p>

25

<p>lol, i don't think i ever said you need perfect grades in the most challenging courses with insane ec's. you're allowed a little slip in each. don't let me scare you off from applying. APPLY and see what happens. if we take you, it means you are capable of doing well at caltech.</p>

<p>(same goes for MIT. rah rah rah!)</p>

26

<p>Go to read this <a href="http://ben.mitblogs.com/archives/2006/03/its_more_than_a.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://ben.mitblogs.com/archives/2006/03/its_more_than_a.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>"First you apply. Your application is read by a senior staff member who will look for deal-breakers (like a bunch of D's, for example). Assuming you're competitive, your application is then read by a primary reader who will summarize it at length for the committee. Then a second reader (and sometimes a third) will read and write their own summaries. Then it will go to selection committee, where multiple groups of different admissions staff and faculty members will weigh in on it. Assuming you've made it that far, the senior staff will then review it again, and then finally Marilee will spend some time with it before it gets put definitively into the admit pile. Approximately 12 people (give or take) will significantly discuss and debate your application before you're admitted. This is all very intentional; committee decisions ensure that every decision is correct in the context of the overall applicant pool, and that no one individual's bias or preferences or familiarity with a given case has any chance of swaying a decision unfairly."</p>

<p>"Your grades and scores are clearly competitive or your application wouldn't be on my pile in the first place."</p>

<p>As long as you are making no C's, no D's, and a few B's (or not B's), I think you are fine.</p>

27

<p>
[quote]
I could be wrong, but I honestly think that the reason many amazing applicants get rejected (I have several friends) is because they do most everything to get into a good college, whereas those "lesser" applicants did only what they cared about and wanted to go to a good college. An applicant needs to explain the importance behind his EC's, courseload, etc to show that it wasn't done solely for admittance--there must be passion and good reason.

[/quote]
This is taking a complete tangent from our orignal discussion, but I personally do not see why the difference in motives should have any effect on admissions. If I ever need surgery, I want the very best doctor out there. Give me the knowledgeable doctor who focused their attention soley on getting into medical school for financial reasons, over the "lesser" doctor who simply had a passion for saving lives.</p>

28

<p>How about regonizing what is wrong with you instead of blaming AA?</p>

29

<p>There's nothing wrong with me. I'm perfect.</p>

<p>So there. :)</p>

30

<p>I think I might go for the one for the passion to save lives over the one with the best GPA.</p>

31

<p>Hmm, even if the one with a higher GPA has passion for saving lives too, but because he wants a loaded bank account. ie: the "wrong" reasons?</p>

32

<p>I would totally go for the one with the most passion.</p>

<p>I've gotten very jaded about medical school admissions since I began to take upper-division biology classes with medical students (many course 9 classes are joint with HST, the Harvard/MIT MD/PhD program in Health Sciences and Technology). </p>

<p>Medical students, even ones at an elite medical school like HMS, ask D-U-M-B questions at an alarming frequency. (And yes, there are stupid questions.) And I guess that's just how it goes -- the medical school admissions process selects very well for people who are good at acing standardized tests and grade-grubbing. Some of the people who get great standardized test scores and grades are actually brilliant. Many of them are just memorize-and-spit-backers.</p>

<p>To be honest, it makes me a little nervous to go to the doctor when I hear some of the things that come out of these ultra-elite medical students' mouths.</p>

33

<p>awww... lil davids trying to argue!</p>

<p>"How about regonizing what is wrong with you instead of blaming AA?"</p>

<ul>
<li>That's a pretty harsh statement. How about you don't make personal attacks and keep the discussion straight? If I wanted an engineer, I would take the very best engineer coming out of MIT. In a business world, nobody cares about "passion and I really really want to do this..." they care about results, and if I'm getting surgery, I'd take a doctor w/ a lot of surgeries under his belt over some new recruit whose excited about the job.</li>
</ul>

34

<p>
[quote]
awww... lil davids trying to argue!

[/quote]

Sagar: Shut up junior. <em>pulls rank</em> :)</p>

35

<p>Like I care what you think, im going to MIT so there. : )</p>

36

<p>sagar_indurkhya: you are an idiot</p>

37

<p>
[quote]
Like I care what you think, im going to MIT so there. : )

[/quote]
It's ok, I understand: not everyone can go to Caltech.</p>

<p>
[quote]
sagar_indurkhya: you are an idiot

[/quote]
Classy</p>

38

<p>Passion is much more important than grades. It's been said many times, but it's worth repeating. And it's not about 'passion for going to MIT', it's about 'passion for doing what you love to do' - presumably something science-related. So don't freak out about a B+. Grades are like SATs - grades will not be what get you in to MIT. You can have perfect grades all through high school and still get rejected.</p>