<p>lol. u guys are interesting. and how would admissions officers know how much hardship is present simply by asking a few simple essay questions?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I thought he put it quite well and quite clearly. The minority and female applicants are more self-selecting. Self-selection and interesting/compelling stories correlate.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“Dingos ate my baby! That means they will eat every baby!” -The Daily Show</p>
<p>While I do agree that the particular acceptance in question is, with no doubt, fake, it does not imply at all that MIT is free of discrimination. While I realize that the fact that every person I know that has gotten into MIT was a URM could suggest racial discrimination, I do not necessarily doubt that these people deserved to get in (as many do). While MIT’s model for selection is theirs to keep private, if they want to at all to disprove naysayers, they need to either provide data or suck it up (while getting hit hard in regards to reputation). It’s quite laughable that people have to ask a school like MIT for statistics that they refuse to provide.</p>
<p>Furthermore, MIT, by word of mouth, is notorious for racial discrimination in a similar sense that U of M is. There is a reason why the masses consider MIT guilty of this. Please understand that it is difficult for people to buy into MIT doing no such thing when they have nothing to compare other than scores, subjective material (which is really not comparable anyways) and race. We can’t change how people think, but we can control what they can see. This is why I suggest that the only way to truly combat against any such allegations is to provide a lot of new evidence that supports the contrary.</p>
<p>I just want to say that what you’re seeing with “every person I know who got into MIT is a URM” is not basis to assume MIT discriminates. Actually, every person I know who got into MIT is either white or Asian. Does this mean MIT favors whites and Asians? I’m only counting people I know in person and/or on facebook, but yeah. :P</p>
<p>
I don’t think the goal of the admissions office is to disprove naysayers, nor should it be. I think the statistics that have been provided are quite remarkable themselves.</p>
<p>Ultimately, I just don’t see the utility in releasing the full bevy of statistics on a given class of applicants and admits. After six admissions seasons on CC, I have developed a certain degree of cynicism with respect to the cycles of [group]-bashing. The bashing is going to happen whether or not the statistics are released, and whether or not the statistics support anybody’s chosen point of view; moreover, the stats represent only a small piece of the admissions puzzle at a school where virtually the entire applicant pool is clustered at one end of an ability/qualification spectrum. </p>
<p>No one’s opinions will change as a result of releasing the statistics. Nobody here is that intellectually honest.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There is space in the application for the applicant to tell the admissions officers additional things that didn’t fit into the rest of their application.</p>
<p>There is also the Questbridge application process, which verifies that students are economically disadvantaged and allows the applicant to write more essays and more in-depth on their life than a typical application allows.</p>
<p>I agree with molliebatmit. I don’t think anything would change even if statistics were to be released.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Self-selection is when members of one group (e.g., women) only apply to a college if they are highly qualified. In this instance, more men in the bottom 50% of their class may apply to MIT than women. Women have, in essence, only selected themselves to enter the admissions pool if they have high stats–hence the term self-selection. This artificially inflates the admission rate for women, making it look like admissions have lowered the bar for them when they haven’t.</p>
<p>This has nothing to do with interesting/compelling stories. His main point was that minorities often have led more interesting/compelling lives, and that these personal qualities may make up for lower stats.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I disagree with this. For instance, I think most people overestimate AA for girls. The adcoms have said that the scores/grades are close, but haven’t been specific. So people take the only available statistic, admission rate (which is skewed by self-selection), and mis-interpret it.</p>
<p>BTW, this thread is the first that I’ve heard that minorities other than women self-select in MIT admissions.</p>
<p>No - sorry - that’s not what I meant. Let me restate since I was editing my post and something got jumbled.</p>
<p>I find that students in general from urban and rural areas who apply to MIT had to jump higher hurdles to get their qualifications. Parents and schools don’t have us on their radar, they aren’t getting proper counseling, and there are stereotypes that put barriers in their path, the educational climate was poor, etc. So the ones that get as far as applying tended IMHO to do a lot of research on their own and their personality type was compatible with the types of kids who independently seek out activities they are passionate about.</p>
<p>Likewise - if you take “race” out of the mix - I’ve found that more affluent suburban and private school students of all races tend to take more for granted, tend to be focused on “what can get them into college” and during the course of my interviews I find that the passion isn’t what it seems. It’s about a means to an end, rather than a pursuit because of a built-in joy. I’ll ask a question three different ways over the course of an hour to see if I get the same “answer” and they don’t see it coming. And since I’ve been interviewing consistently for 30+ years I can say with some certainty that MIT isn’t an affirmative action kind of place.</p>
<p>Rather - they tend to look for subtle qualities that set students apart, and they look to develop a good diverse mix of students. Hence, when you visit campus you’ll find Ballroom dance teams, bellringers, Olympic hopefuls, nerds, geeks, artists, musicians, video gamers, role players, community volunteers, etc. among the mix.</p>
<p>So if you can try to eliminate “race” and look instead at students (of all races) that may have come from disadvantaged perspectives but apply - they often present more compelling cases because of what they had to do to get those opportunities and the passion that shows therein. And yet - they are still a small percentage of the whole (and hence under represented) but still - someone who is rejected will fret that they should have had “THAT” spot because their test scores were higher.</p>
<p>To which I reply - an “extraordinary” application at many other schools may be an “ordinary” application at MIT because of the sheer caliber of students who apply. So when applying my question is “what else have you got?” If the answer is nothing - then why would you expect a better outcome?</p>
<p>When applying to competitive colleges - first take an objective analysis of your inventory, eliminate the elements most likely held by every other student who is applying and figure out if you have a compelling case when reviewing what is left.</p>
<p>Doesn’t mean you’re not smart, or bright or qualified and capable of graduating. But college isn’t just about classwork - it’s about community. MIT is looking for diversity, not homogeneity. So a good candidate is one that the admissions officers have a hard time forgetting even after reading 16,000 files.</p>
<p>I’m a full-time author. Editors frequently say - “Make me laugh, make me cry, make me feel something when I read your manuscript.” The same is true for life, job applications and college entrance. Be memorable.</p>
<p>Sometimes - just sometimes - kids with less than perfect scores have a lot of other amazing things going on to make up that gap. And you know what? They often tend to be some of the best students in the long run.</p>
<p>So I’m more engaged when talking to someone who has played and instrument for many years, volunteers, holds a job, faced a difficult challenge, or is passionate about something not related to academics, then someone who spent their entire life with a singular goal of getting into a top school. One knows about scholarly work, but the other knows about how to apply it to life. When given a choice - which would you pick?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ve never seen anything about self-selection stating that it is only based on objective qualifications. Is there any reason why women and minorities wouldn’t consider their subjective qualities as well when self-selecting? </p>
<p>I see that ExieMITAlum has posted again and that may have satisfied any problems you had with his previous post, but I’m personally interested in the above question.</p>
<p>So basically, MIT picked its class of 2014. No cares if you think that they picked it “unfairly.” This MIT admissions season is over. finito. End of discussion. No need to rehash AA and etc. ■■■■ and let the acceptees celebrate and don’t instigate AA debates because you’re unhappy.</p>
<p>lol but “lets talk about race some more, because thats always fun!” LOL</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, you are taking the concept of self-selecting a little too literally. It’s not that students in a particular group are basing their decision to apply on their stats or subjective qualities. It could be; frankly no one knows why for sure. In the case of women, I suspect that they don’t like the idea of tech schools in general for whatever reason. I went to a math/science high school, and even there, their was an “ick” factor to MIT and Caltech.</p>
<p>But other than MITChris, who seems to be using the term differently, over the past decade I’ve seen self-selection defined by objective criteria by MIT and Caltech adcom officers and students.</p>
<p>There is a meme out there that minorities may get into top schools despite lower stats because of compelling life stories/essays, but other than the threads over the past couple of days, I’ve never seen this called self-selection.</p>
<p>I started reading the thread, but I haven’t finished reading it completely, because it’s kind of long. So I apologize in advance for any redundant questions. But from what I’ve garnered, women tend to have higher acceptance rates simply because they are more self-selecting, and in turn more qualified.</p>
<p>But let’s say you had two equally qualified applicants. Very similar numerical stats, equal passion, both had great personalities. etc. Would admission officers actually show a predilection towards the female applicant?
Also, of course I’ve heard the same rumours, that just because your a girl, you’ll have it easier. But recently, I’ve heard that you’d only have an easier time if you were a girl interested in engineering, math, or physics. And that if you were interested in a “softer” science like biology, that advantage no longer holds. Partially due to the fact, the females are already well-represented in the latter, but underrepresented in the former. Do either of these claims have any validity?</p>
<p>Yes. Mit simply hates asians. GOODBYE- GL w/ your less qualified admitted students</p>
<p>^</p>
<p>Erm, I’m not sure if that was a joke or not. Nevertheless, I think we can all agree that MIT most definitely does not hate Asians. I am one myself! As is about 30% of the undergrad population.</p>
<p>Actually, we have amazingly qualified students in our new class of 2014. Thanks for caring.</p>
<p>I know, 30% Asians. But UCB, UCLA and Caltech have many more. Because they don’t use AA. So why doesn’t MIT do like UCB and Caltech, anyone knows?</p>
<p>For all it’s worth, I attended both a high school that was 96% Asian/white and mostly the same background, and a community college. I preferred the diversity the community college had, and was reminded of its value every time someone in my class shared a life story only they could have had.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Where’s your source on that?</p>
<p>After a certain point, any thread that talks about race unfortunately degenerates into something meaningless. </p>
<p>Looking at the various postings,it appears that they have clusters of students: There is a cluster where almost every application looks like the next application: high scores, high grades, good recos, good AP’s etc. and many of the students happen to be Asian/affluent Caucasians. Then there are other clusters (may be smaller in size), where there are other factors that stand out like background. Not that these students are not less capable, they are different. Hence MIT chooses a variety of profiles that meet MIT’s admission needs, balancing between the different clusters. Hence, in some clusters the choice is to pick from a group of very qualified candidates, in other clusters some people stand out very easily. If you are in a popular cluster, you need to have something in your application that makes you stand out, else you are lost in the crowd. A lot of the people who are posting in this forum appear to be in this popular cluster.</p>
<p>MIT like other top schools, has an objective when they admit students. They want to admit students who are capable of using the opportunities MIT provides, they also want students who bring different view points and students who can succeed academically. Adcoms do not want to dilute the quality of the student body, on the other hand they do not want 1000 students who have the exact same profile. One needs to give the Adcom the benefit of the doubt, that they know what they are doing and that they are doing what is in the best interest of MIT by judiciously picking from the various clusters. </p>
<p>I can well understand that qualified candidates were rejected and they may have actually performed better at MIT then someone who was admitted. But this is the luck of the draw. There is certain amount of subjectivity in the process. Adcoms are people and they possibly made a few mistakes. But that is normal, and acceptable as long as there are processes in place to minimize the mistakes and it was not intentional. I have no reason to doubt that the MIT adcom has done the best job given their strategy of increasing diversity while maintaining quality. You may not like their strategy, but it is what it is. MIT gets to decide what they want their student body to be like. MIT may want a lot of scientists, but they also want the oboe player, and the person who decided that they wanted a better life then their drug dealing friends etc.</p>
<p>I know that rejection hurts. I have been around the block enough times to empathize with all off you who are hurt and disappointed. But the fact of life is you need to move on, rather than question the integrity of the adcom. Just because one did not get into MIT does not mean that the person is not capable of succeeding in MIT if they had been accepted, it only means that MIT did not have space for everyone like you. I am sure if you were a competitive candidate at MIT, you will get in somewhere else and succeed. Treat this as a bump in the road not a road block.</p>