<p>Well, I've been looking at some of the stats profiles as well as the acceptance lists for this year, and I'm confused as you are about what makes MIT want to grab you. It's obviously not SAT and GPA. So the solution happens to be to make yourself "INTERESTING AS POSSIBLE." As silly as the idea is, does anyone have any thoughts or ideas on what "INTERESTING" means to MIT admissions officers?</p>
<p>Its not just that interesting people get in early. Interesting people get in. Its all about the match.</p>
<p>It's not that it's not SAT or GPA. Those factors are important, but only as long as they're good enough. And they are good enough for most of the people who apply, because MIT's applicant pool is extremely qualified in terms of stats. </p>
<p>So at that level, it becomes difficult to discriminate between people in terms of stats -- the admissions officers are not going to admit someone because his SAT score is 10 points higher than somebody else. So other factors become important after you've demonstrated that you're capable via the easy stuff.</p>
<p>I don't think it's about being interesting per se. I think it's about presenting a compelling case for your admission in your application through any means available to you. As a graduate student, I'm applying for funding for my research from the National Institutes of Health, and I have to think about these issues a lot -- it's not that only "hot" science gets funded, but the kind of people who do "hot" science tend to be able to craft compelling funding applications. As the applicant, it's my job to tell the NIH why my research is vital and interesting, and why I'm the exact person who should do the research. Your job as an undergraduate applicant is quite similar.</p>
<p>One thing I've noticed is that if you sit there too long thinking how to present yourself as interesting if you feel that you aren't, you've already lost the game. Becoming a truly interesting candidate is the type of thing that starts happening years ago. </p>
<p>Don't worry about what the admissions officers consider interesting. You should worry about doing what you consider interesting. If your interests and MIT's interests don't match up in some way as the adcoms see it, then it might not be in your best interest to attend MIT regardless.</p>
<p>^^^CORRECTO!! differential.</p>
<p>But i think people like us--including me-- get deferred because the decisions committee i.e. the final stage in the admissions process, does not achieve the "UNANIMOUS VOTE" in that particular group on that concerned applicant who was deferred as a result.</p>
<p>What do you think about this mollie?
Is my hypothesis true?</p>
<p>dashboard,
It is true that only SAT or only GPA does not get you in, i would like to refer to my case: I do not have competitive SAT reasoning score but really good GPA i.e. 4.00 UW. I also do have awesome SAT subject test scores. If you see my SAT 1 score, you will certainly be amazed and say that i am not going to get into MIT for sure, but I sent in 4 letters of recommendation in my EA application and the letters were SUPER SUPER STUPENDOUS and as a result i got deferred and not flat out rejected based on my SAT 1 score. But i got into Caltech EA though.</p>
<p>Moral: Personal personality and ability are most important rather than stats for MIT.
I am sure mollie agrees with me on that one.</p>
<p>HAPPY HOLIDAYS TO ALL CC MEMBERS READING THIS POST!!!!!!</p>
<p>^^^also, my admissions essay is quite stupendous and fantastic.</p>
<p>I don't have any idea how selection works on a level that fine.</p>
<p>So, anyone remember when I wrote that thread "I hate my app" and frantically asked what to do?
I sent in a letter and ended up thinking that the letter killed it more. And then got in early. </p>
<p>Apparently they really do like weird people o.o</p>
<p>In the past I've aced several exams I thought I flunked, though, so maybe something's just wrong with my judgement. </p>
<p>So anyone else who hates their app, have faith.</p>
<p>Yeah...I'm definitely not the perfect app....not a concert pianist, haven't published any stupendous scientific research, although I'm obsessed with chemistry. Nope, no ISEF or USAMO.
I guess it comes down to luck?</p>
<p>I believe it's fallacious to say only interesting people get in early. I'm sure the majority of applicants have their own interesting, unique stories. Undoubtedly, those who win things such as ISEF stand out. However, these applicants cannot represent an overwhelming majority--many complex research projects of this caliber require connections and resources to universities that simply may not exist for many applicants. Rather, it is those people that can present themselves as interesting that are admitted.</p>
<p>Just as an example, someone from a neighboring school was accepted to MIT but lacked any extracurriculars pertaining to science or math and, in addition to that, manipulated the school system to compete for valedictorian (it's complicated). Although this doesn't appear to be what is presented as the "ideal applicant" (someone with general passion for learning), they were able to present themselves as interesting.</p>
<p>Admissions officers undoubtedly have a difficult job as evaluating a "good Match" is hard to do by simply looking at an application.</p>