MIT Admissions Have Become A Complete Joke

Colleges and Universities A-Z Massachusetts Institute of Technology
1

<p>I didn't apply...the school doesn't appeal to my interests, but from what I've seen, their admissions process is ludicrous.</p>

<p>First of all, there's this Marilee Jones character who goes around telling everyone "don't stress out...there's no need," and emphasizes the fairness of the MIT system. Then she and her adcomm consistently reject a huge chunck of the most qualified applicants in favor of much weaker ones who they deem "more interesting" (aka tons of URM's, favoritism towards girls, athletes like crazy)</p>

<p>Seriously, out of the 5 students admitted from my school over the last 2 years, I can say, without any doubt, that not one of them was one of the 10 most qualified applicants from our school. </p>

<p>All but one were hooked...they got in via MIT's unjustly magnified Affirmative Action. These kids were basically, slightly above average math/sci students who couldn't hold a candle to our school's top performers.
That said, from what I've seen, MIT isn't even consistent with it's Affirmative Action....I hear of tons of 1800's/1900's getting in because of URM status, but occasionally they'll reject a 2300+ URM just to prove that they don't accept all URM's.</p>

<p>There was one other candidate accepted from my school, and honestly, it came out of nowhere. He was top 20%, in moderately hard classes, and had an SAT in the low 2000's. Nothing to brag about, but somehow, MIT deemed him interesting and admitted him. He himself admitted that of the 8 applicants from our school that year, he felt 6 of them were better suited for MIT than he was.</p>

<p>Honestly, I saw someone refer to Marilee Jones' new system on the Caltech forum as openly "caring less and less about academics each year," and MIT alumni even agreed. It seems they don't care where you are on the spectrum: as long as MIT deems you "qualified" (which I think they define, for example, as a 650+ on math), it doesn't seem to matter where you are, you're chances of getting in are no better with a 2350 than with a 2000. I'm not saying kids with 2000's shouldn't get in entirely, but that the acceptance rate should obviously be higher for kids with excellent academic records than for kids with "good" academic records. Yes MIT does maintain a high SAT range, but that's much more because of the applicant pool than it is the adcomm.</p>

<p>I'm honestly shocked. A student from my school last year, who everyone refers to as "the smartest kid we've ever met," was rejected. It's one thing to reject qualified applicants in favor of lesser applicants, but it's another thing to reject kids who are like Nobel potential: just flat out brilliant.
The kids that will be attending MIT from my school this year are never mentioned when someone is listing smart kids, for example, they're simply above average, but nothing special, nothing to talk about. At the world's most prestigious Math/Science University, the students SHOULD be something to talk about.</p>

2

<p>And here's a nice little Marilee quote to go along with this:
"We are a meritocracy. We judge each other by our ideas, our creativity and our accomplishments, not by who our families are." Marilee Jones, Dean of Admissions. MIT freshman application & financial aid information. Retrieved on January 2, 2007.</p>

3

<p>If you actually visited our campus and talked with some people, you would realize that this place is filled with "the smartest kids you've ever met". There are some people here who truly blow my mind as far as intelligence is concerned.</p>

<p>I actually like how MIT admissions works. It creates a better and more diverse atmosphere that truly enriches the undergraduate experience. If MIT didn't admit as many girls, I would definitely feel like I was missing out on something. </p>

<p>Further, these girls weren't admitted solely because they are URM. In fact, I am often asking them for help. I don't consider myself stupid either :P</p>

<p>The fact is, that there is more than just raw intelligence that goes into creating a good academic experience.</p>

4

<p>Well clearly there are still lots of brilliant kids at MIT. But there could be a lot more. Maybe that's not the school's ideal of a "well-balanced class," but it certainly is not fair to the kids that deserve to be there. </p>

<p>And the URM's and girls I know that got in from my school over the last few years, honestly had NOTHING over the much more qualified, non-URM non-female (mostly males ;) ) candidates who were rejected. </p>

<p>Caltech has a much fairer admissions process, which is probably why it's risen tremendously relative to MIT over the past years in terms of the public's awareness.</p>

5

<p>For the record, Marilee Jones has only been the director of admissions for about 9 years (1998 I believe was her first year.) As an alum, I have to agree that she's a nut.</p>

<p>MIT's admissions look more like Harvard's every year. Arbitrary and based on the whims of people without good sense. URMs are a whole separate issue, and I'm not even referring to that. (There are legitimate reasons for different URM admissions due to unfairness in the past, although I'm not sure why being female should be considered an URM.)</p>

6

<h2>Caltech has a much fairer admissions process, which is probably why it's risen tremendously relative to MIT over the past years in terms of the public's awareness.</h2>

<p>Sadly, fairness in admission has very little to do with public perception. Caltech might be more well known lately because US News let them be #1 in the rankings one year before shoving them back to the 5-10 range.</p>

7

<p>^But a fairer admissions process has lead to a smarter class, which certainly is a large part of Caltech's long-deserved rise in prestige.</p>

8

<p>I didn't apply to Caltech because of their admission process. Looks like they miss out on a few kids because of the way they do it too. I like how MIT does it, half of my best friends wouldn't be going here if they had a "fair" (as you claim) admission process, but these are exactly the kinds of kids that make my life not suck everyday.</p>

9

<p>Ummm, I'm not sure you can say that the over-acceptance of girls here (which is apparent no matter what the admissions office says) is a bad thing. Personally I wouldn't have even considered MIT if it had a girl-guy ratio like it used to. You may find it silly that I would put so much emphasis on that type of thing but when looking for colleges I wasn't just looking for a place to study but a place to live. A "college experience" (if you want to call it that) was a big factor for me. In fact I didn't apply to CalTech BECAUSE of that... seriously. With Academics at CalTech and MIT being so close I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people made the same decision. </p>

<p>Oh, and athletics plays very little role in admissions. You can get a recommendation by a coach in your admissions file, but as far as I've heard it means nothing if you aren't absolutely qualified for MIT. I've personally never met an athlete here who isn't qualified (includes crew, baseball, hockey, sailing, lacrosse, etc.). In fact considering athletes versus non-athletes here I'd say that generally I find that the athletes are much smarter than the non-athletes (they can get through the MIT curriculum while still playing a sports every day for hours).</p>

10

<p>Hahaha!</p>

<p>I am having the most stressful week of my life, so thank you for this highly amusing post.</p>

<p>Get a clue: There's more to life than SAT scores.</p>

11

<p>Frankly, I'm a little irked by the implicit girl-bashing in the criticism of MIT's process here -- not going to share my opinions on said process, since as a female applicant who was rejected (though the situation's a bit different for international students -- they do explicitly state that they don't gender-balance the international pool) I'd be setting myself up for rather a lot of subtle 'oh, wow, you're a girl and didn't get in? You must be both idiotic and bitter.', but 'girls' as a group aren't less qualified than 'boys' as a group. In my humble and decidedly female opinion.</p>

12

<p>thank god ivyaccepted isn't going to MIT.</p>

13

<p>
[quote]
I'm not saying kids with 2000's shouldn't get in entirely, but that the acceptance rate should obviously be higher for kids with excellent academic records than for kids with "good" academic records.

[/quote]

It is. Check out the admissions</a> statistics.</p>

<p>Look, a test-score based admissions process is unfair too. It's just unfair in different ways.</p>

14

<p>I'll probably be applying to MIT Class of 2014 but I'd like to say something too.</p>

<p>Did you even research anything about MIT's admission process ? They clearly maintain a "good fit for MIT culture" is more important to them than a 4.0UW , 2400 and Val.</p>

<p>They also state Character and Personal Qualities are the most important to them.</p>

15

<p>Milki - BINGO.</p>

16

<p>You'd think, though, that with such faulty admissions policies, MIT would cease to be such a math/science powerhouse... its blatantly weak student body really should have no business sweeping the Putnam competition.</p>

17

<p>lol true thye always win putnam</p>

18

<p>


</p>

<p>Read what the OP said Pebbles.</p>

<p>While I don't agree that MIT Admissions have become a Complete Joke, I do agree that if a college favors certain applicants than it will have a less talented student body. By favoring applicants and not awarding spots in a class based solely off merit, you will inevitably have a "weaker" class. Of course there are positives in an admissions process like MIT's, but one has to judge whether or not these positives ("Increased Diversity", Better Male:Female ratio, and others) make up for a less "talented" student body.</p>

<p>MIT definitely has an extremely talented student body, I'm not arguing that. Even though it has one of smartest student bodies, the OP is just expressing his opinion that he thinks the positives of a less merit based admissions policy don't justify straying away from solely merit based admissions policy. I agree with him here ;), but I wouldn't go so far as to call MIT admissions a complete joke. After all who doesn't like a good M/F ratio?</p>

19

<p>The last time we all gathered together to have a pointless, flame-filled argument like this one (well, maybe not the last time -- it's hard to keep track), I made the point that it would be nice to be able to stick a thermometer in everybody's head and measure exactly how much merit is in there, but unfortunately, it's not possible.</p>

<p>I understand that an SAT score is made of numbers and therefore looks concrete and objective, but it's not possible to make a culture-neutral test. Basing admission solely on SAT scores may look terribly meritocratic, but you're going to be missing people who don't test well but have a lot of merit in their brains anyway. By decreasing emphasis on a test in an already talented applicant pool, the admissions office is trying to pick up those people who would be falsely passed over in a test-only system.</p>

<p>Here's my question: If MIT is truly admitting less-qualified women and minorities, then why do those "unqualified" students succeed at MIT? Why do the women graduate at higher rates than the men, who are supposedly more qualified? Why do minority students choose to major in more difficult departments than other groups at MIT?</p>

20

<p>No, MY challenge is, show me how the class is "weaker" than it used to be. How it is in your words, "less talented". I've never seen any evidence to that effect and I think one thing the admissions department prides itself on, here, is the ability to do what you think is impossible, to build a healthy learning environment as WELL as maintain the level of the student body. Admissions is a harder job than just lining people up in order of their SAT scores, I think. </p>

<p>In my opinion the strange way that America some how seems to lead the world in talent output is largely due to its experimental system of college admissions and education. I say experimental because it is employed in no other country with which I am familiar. I recently gave a little talk in a Chinese school to that effect. Why fix what isn't broken? What would be our incentive to make reverse progress and backtrack to a selection system of ranks and numbers and grades? </p>

<p>Knowmsayin?</p>