<p>The following is part of an email sent to the MIT Educational Council this morning:</p>
<p>"-- The 13,396 applications is the largest we have ever had, representing an 8% increase over last year. Our admit rate of 11.6% is our lowest admit rate ever. Of particular note is our double digit increases in applications from women (12%), under-represented minorities (13%), and international students (12%). The increased depth in our applicant pool led to a particularly strong admitted class.</p>
<p>-- We put just over 700 students on the wait list, a slightly larger number than last year, to cover for the unpredictability of the yield this year.</p>
<p>-- Our alumni interviewers (Educational Counselors) interviewed over 9,000 applicants.</p>
<p>-- We had applications from 138 foreign countries, admitting students from 66 foreign countries, including from Gaza, Malawi, and Swaziland.</p>
<p>-- The academic quality of the students is quite strong. Relative to last year, we saw level SAT means, with the math median ticking up 10 points to 780 this year. There was a 30% increase in the number of academic stars. This was due to both improved identification of these students, as well as recruiting more into our applicant pool (22% increase in academic star applicants).</p>
<p>-- We increased the number of admitted non-academic stars (athletes, musicians, and artists) by 35%, for the same reasons as noted above for academic stars (62% increase in non-academic star applicants).</p>
<p>^^ I'm not entirely sure, but I think they're people who have won serious competitions and the like. Think of them as analogous to the star varsity athletes at a D1 powerhouse. The academic stars, as I've heard, are sometimes recruited for specific purposes (for example to win the Putnam).</p>
<p>It is interesting to see it in such cut and dried language. That "stars" are quantified to such a degree that it's a trackable, targeted group. Will that be added to the CDS anytime soon?</p>
<p>Academic star is typically a USAMO medalist, science olympiad medalist, Intel or Siemens finalists. A 2400 score on the SAT does not generally qualify an applicant as an academic star.</p>
<p>This helps to explain the almost binary results I'm seeing with MIT/Caltech cross-applicants this year. Seems like there are many students who got a 'yes' from one and not the other.</p>
<p>You know, I can see why MIT would initially be concerned with the release of this information. But then I thought about it, and I realized that this is probably a good thing. It would be inappropriate for the admissions office to officially release a letter like this, but they boast of openness and clarity (as well they should). The only way for them to be completely open without inappropriately releasing figures like this is to have them leaked.</p>
<p>This is a good thing MIT, sometimes info you don't want out there needs to be out there. Now people have a glimpse into how everything works (which is also not a bad thing). You have nothing to be ashamed of.</p>
<p>The problem with this release is that MIT has now tipped their hand on some very specific admits who no doubt have pending apps at other schools. Some of you may remember when someone from admissions at Princeton accessed Yale's database in order to gain information on who Yale was admitting. It's possible some "stars" may have their options affected by this being made public. Of course if these applicants are that top of the line one would think elite schools would assume they're going to be admitted at multiple top schools.</p>
<p>^^ It looks like CC has cleaned out all references to individual students...so lets stop talking about them and give those kids a fair chance ;).</p>