<p>I met a young man & his mom last week at Yale’s BDDs. He was admitted to PENN, Yale, MIT, Stanford & Harvard(other HSCs were also on the list). He hated MIT. I mention this young man because I’m sure he was a strong applicant. I can’t imagine each and every school admitting him b/c he was black. His twin sister was also admitted to some amazing schools but decided on WUSTL. She received a wonderful scholarship & the family is full pay.</p>
<p>MIT has gone on record saying that it has affirmative action for both race and gender. My feeling is that it is a significant hook for race and somewhat paltry for gender.</p>
<p>
MIT’s athletic teams do have a recruitment process, but the admissions office makes it clear that athletic talent is useful in the same way any other kind of extracurricular talent is useful, not moreso. Anecdotally, we have seen that multiple times in the past on this board, when disappointed athletic recruits come to the board after being rejected in March.</p>
<p>A large percentage of the MIT student body (about 20%) plays varsity sports, so there are certainly a large number of people being “recruited” by coaches every year. But I think it’s a mistake to assume (presumably on the basis of a limited number of Naviance data points, which of course don’t give the full story for any applicant) that this represents a major tip factor for MIT admissions. </p>
<p>Absolutely! MIT is an evidence-based institution, and athletic recruitment does help. In many ways it is similar to an art/music/maker portfolio. These are sent to the relevant department for analysis. If the Music department reviews a portfolio and says “This applicant has a lot of musical talent”, then that means a lot more than the applicant simply stating in the application that they have talent. The same holds true for athletic recruitment. Each year every coach writes to the admissions office to list the students that they really, really hope that MIT will admit. That validates the student’s athletic potential. But MIT admissions always works on the accident test. If the applicant suffered a serious accident prior to starting their freshman year, and could no longer play their sport, would MIT still be the right school for them, and would the admissions office find them very strong candidates for admission. If the answer is yes, then the athletic recruitment really helps push them over the edge; if the answer is no, then they will not be admitted.</p>
<p>Every year each coach sends a list, and every year the large majority of the students on the list are not admitted. I am given to understand that the MIT development office now also sends a list of applicants whose families have a track record of donating buildings to institutions. The dev office really, really hopes that these kids will be admitted. Just like the coaches, the large majority of the students on that list are not admitted. MIT is unusual in that the admissions office has this luxury, and it is a luxury. But the same rule applies. There is no silver bullet. There is not one thing that will automatically get you in. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Development admits at MIT???</p>
<p>Why the question marks UMTYMP? The MIT office of Resource Development which I think reports into Israel Ruiz, is always looking for ways to bring in the odd 10 million or so. I am not surprised that they would see a value in letting the admissions office know about those students who they would really hope were admitted, but as being born incredibly wealthy tells MIT nothing about the student’s decisions, it really does not help in admissions. Just as being a legacy does not provide any advantage in admissions, but Dean Schmill will personally review all of the legacy applications. I suspect the development list works the same way. Dean Schmill will review all of these applicants even if only so when the development office wishes to whinge about a particular applicant, he will know who they are talking about.</p>
<p>I assumed that because MIT does not consider legacy in admissions they wouldn’t have development admits either. If “it really does not help in admissions” then MIT stands out among other schools where the development office communicates with the admissions office. If MIT has started considering parental resources in admissions it also seems to mark a departure from the past before assuming this article is accurate <a href=“WSJ.com - Many Colleges Bend Rules To Admit Rich Applicants”>http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/Polk_Rich_Applicants.htm</a>.</p>
<p>Also there seems to be a contradiction in “Just as being a legacy does not provide any advantage in admissions, but Dean Schmill will personally review all of the legacy applications.” Assuming this report still describes the current process (<a href=“http://tech.mit.edu/V119/N13/admissions.13f.html”>http://tech.mit.edu/V119/N13/admissions.13f.html</a>) where the Dean “rarely” changes the admissions decision from rejection to acceptance it is not accurate to say being a legacy provides no advantage. Maybe it provides a very small advantage but it seems clear that the set of legacy applicants who were admitted and would not have been admitted if they were not a legacy is non-empty.</p>
<p>Mikalye, MIT has historically been opposed to development admits, and a couple of years ago I thought MITChris said that they don’t have development admits. Admitting them would represent a break from the meritocracy MIT is known for.</p>
<p>There is no disagreement here. MIT is in the tiny minority of schools not to have development admits. At no point above have I said that being on the development list gives any advantage whatsoever. MIT also does not have legacy admits (<a href=“Just To Be Clear: We Don’t Do Legacy | MIT Admissions”>a | MIT Admissions). </p>
<p>Whereas being an athletic recruit represents a small but potentially significant advantage, being on the development list gives no advantage whatsoever. What I said earlier, that people seem to be making into a much bigger thing than it is, is that a few years ago, the development office started sending the admissions office a list. Being on that list generates no advantage (much to the frustration of the MIT development office.).</p>
<p>I’m confused. You first say that you are first generation then say that your father attended MIT…</p>
<p>^ I think he’s saying that he is the first in his family to be born in the US, not the first in his family to attend college.</p>
<p>Yes, my dad (and my mom) wasn’t born in America but came here to attend college at MIT.</p>
<p>To clear some things up, I have been playing varsity ball for a very competitive school since the end of my sophomore year. I don’t think I’m that good, but I’m 6’3" and do believe I will be good enough to play D3.</p>
<p>I ended up getting an 800 on the Math II SAT and a 700 
on the Chemistry SAT. AP-wise, at this point, I’m expecting a 5 on Calc AB, a 4/5 on Chemistry, and a 4 on US History.</p>
<p>Some people seemed a bit offended by my question, which I guess was kind of worded as though I was wondering whether simply being black could get anyone into a great college.</p>
<p>I am starting to believe I am becoming more qualified to attend a prestigious school, but am still wondering whether race could bring someone from a pretty weak applicant to at least an average one when applying to an ivy-level school.</p>
<p>Thanks to all who have responded. </p>
<p>Your parents are 1st generation immigrants. U are 2nd generation. </p>
<p>I’m aware that MIT says it does not consider legacy in admissions but it also seems that legacy applicants get a second review which sometimes changes admissions decisions (the 1999 Tech article in my previous post). The exact quote by Jones is “There is a bit of professional courtesy involved in the cases of the [children or grandchildren] of MIT alumni. If the Admissions Committee turns one of these students down because the student is not one of the top candidates, I will personally review the case to ensure that the decision is a sound one. Rarely, though, do I actually change the decision made by the Committee. It’s just one more look.” which to me implies a small amount of preference for legacies. Does this still describe current practice?</p>
<p>Back when Marilee Jones was the director, she wanted to personally review every legacy who was rejected simply to answer the question: “Did we make a mistake?”</p>
<p>I would expect the same thinking still applies.</p>
<p>But why review only the applications of legacies who were going to be rejected for mistakes? That procedure seems to have the unambiguous effect of admitting some legacies who would not be admitted if they were not legacies. These students may be excellent candidates but surely you would find many similar cases if you reviewed the applications of every other student who was about to be rejected.</p>
<p>It’s not quite like that. I have never known or heard of Dean Schmill ever changing a decision in that final read (I cannot speak for Dean Jones). As I understand it, it is not about being able to validate anything, but rather to reflect the reality that when the child of an alum is denied admission, particularly the child of an alum who has donated a significant sum of money to MIT, then the alum is much more likely than any other random parent to call up the dean’s office and complain, and indeed to get through to the dean. That complaint does not ever change any decisions. But in such cases, it really does help if the dean can say that he has personally read the relevant application file. That makes for an easier conversation, but it does not reflect any benefit for the applicant. </p>
<p>I do get a little bit frustrated by a whole bunch of posters, who seem to believe that MIT Admissions is lying in some way with regards to some or all of its policies. MIT states quite clearly that being a legacy does not provide an advantage. Why is there a huge effort to believe that MIT must be concealing some secret truth. I understand the hunt for the secret sauce, the silver bullet that would automatically get an applicant into MIT. That does not exist. There is nothing that will automatically get you in or keep you out of MIT.</p>
<p>It’s not so much that I think MIT admissions is trying to be dishonest but I think at different times slightly different answers have been provided. If the Dean of admissions really just looks at legacy applicants to explain the decision later that is fine but that was not the impression I got from the previously mentioned Tech article. Maybe Jones misspoke or policy has changed in the past 15 years so I think it was reasonable to ask for clarification. It is also the case that MIT used to indicate it considered legacy on common data sets although they later said it was an error (<a href=“MIT Office of the Provost, Institutional Research”>http://web.archive.org/web/20100330143209/http:/web.mit.edu/ir/cds/2009/c.html</a>).</p>
<p>Also to be clear I’m currently a student at MIT and am not looking for any secret sauce. I think MIT admissions is more transparent and meritocratic than most peer schools but there is still room for improvement on both fronts.</p>
<p>To refocus on the OP, I don’t understand why OP feels he is a “pretty weak” applicant for top colleges. His SAT IIs are great, his SAT I is not too low, and as far as I know, AP scores do not matter in admissions. Given that he has AP scores, it sounds like his HS transcript will show he’s taking a challenging curriculum.
I think the less “quanty” measures are the ones he needs to focus on - essays, HS curriculum, recs, interview, in that approximate order.</p>