MIT Admissions Have Become A Complete Joke

Colleges and Universities A-Z Massachusetts Institute of Technology
421

<p>

I'm surprised to see that comment. MIT has done everything it can to make the admissions process honest and transparent. As far as I know, only Johns Hopkins has made similar steps in this regard. </p>

<p>After all, MIT could have covered the entire thing up. They chose to make the facts known, and the admissions officers were the first to announce the news.</p>

422

<p>Everyone says it's transparent, but exactly how transparent is it? They don't really tell you exact characteristics they look for, they don't release more data about acceptees than other colleges, and the MIT blogs really serve as just a really great idea for marketing, at least that's all I could see when I went to their blogs...not saying anything bad but it seems that MIT's transparency is overrated.</p>

423

<p>In the interests of "transparency" perhaps MIT could release separate median SAT scores for male and female admits, then we could evaluate the effect of MJ's policies on the student body.
I hate to say this, but weren't pebbles and mollie both admitted under MJ's tenure? And, because of this, they are probably somewhat biased in their views.
This is such a mess, especially for the incoming class of 2011. :(</p>

424

<p>Oh no you didn't.....</p>

425

<p>MIT could have covered it up, but when the truth eventually came out, they'd be even more screwed than they are now. I'm not saying MIT came forward with this only because it was the smart thing to do, but I am saying it's a little far-fetched to understand why anyone would give MIT credit for being "honest and open". The honest choice is exactly the same as the choice that minimizes the damage to the institution in this case. That being said, there is no evidence to indicate that MIT has not been honest and open.</p>

<p>I believe MIT handled this in the right manner, although I'm not sure why Ms. Jones was allowed to resign (that being said, I don't understand enough about the way dismissals work to make comments on it). That doesn't mean they should be praised for their actions.</p>

<p>Of course, I certainly don't approve of some of the highly emotionally charged posts in this thread. It shouldn't be about little Johnny being upset about being rejected from MIT (Disclosure: I was rejected from MIT. I'm not angry about it, though). In addition, the MIT students and alums here should probably try to keep their emotions tempered, at least because anything otherwise fans the flames. Of course, the policies endorsed by Ms. Jones do lead to what I consider unfortunate consequences, but I don't think anyone can say that those policies would not exist at MIT if she had not been there. I only know of one "top university" that does not practice affirmative action. </p>

<p>In short, Marilee Jones probably was not the factor that caused MIT to practice AA. Thus, discussing the merits of it are probably best left to another thread (although that's what this thread was originally about, so maybe the Marilee Jones stuff should leave heh).</p>

426

<p>


</p></li>
</ol>

<p>
[quote]
We are looking for students who fall in line with MIT's educational philosophy - students who want to invent, enact change, and better society. We want students who have demonstrated initiative and dedication, risk-taking and resiliency as well as strong interpersonal skills. Due to the self-selective nature of our applicant pool, MIT tends to see a large number of applicants with very strong academic qualifications. Our task is to find those whose accomplishments are truly outstanding; students who are the best match for us based on our [url=<a href="http://www.mitadmissions.org/topics/schools/what_is_unique_about_mit/index.shtml%5Dculture%5B/url"&gt;http://www.mitadmissions.org/topics/schools/what_is_unique_about_mit/index.shtml]culture[/url&lt;/a&gt;].&lt;/p>

<p>First, we determine whether they are academically qualified, then we look for compelling reasons to admit. We go through each application evaluating not only the academic, but also the personal and extra-curricular excellence. Underlying these three areas is always a search for the context of the application and genuine engagement in the activities and interests. Particular "hooks" that might inform an admissions decision might be...</p>

<p>[ul][<em>]Applicants who have clearly demonstrated that they want to make a difference and help others
[</em>]Hands-on, technical types, people who like to invent and create
[li]Those who demonstrate unusual curiosity or expertise in a certain area[/ul][/li]
[/quote]
</p>

427

<p>


</p>

<p>Hey, if you're going to publicly question the qualifications of female MIT students, let's not leave me out, I'll be all offended. And if you really hated to say it, you would have kept it to yourself.</p>

428

<p>kemet,</p>

<p>If you take MIT's admission criteria and replace "MIT" with "our girl scout troop"
it works pretty well, too.</p>

429

<p>
[quote]
I hate to say this, but weren't pebbles and mollie both admitted under MJ's tenure? And, because of this, they are probably somewhat biased in their views.

[/quote]

Everybody currently at MIT (even probably most of the grad students who went to MIT for undergrad) was admitted under Marilee's tenure. What's the point?</p>

<p>EDIT: lizzardfire, re: post 420, what I wrote was a paraphrase of what Ben said, and any careful wording is mine alone. My understanding was that, once the decisions had been made in committee and Marilee was doing the final read, she did not generally (ever?) make a change in the decision already made on that person.</p>

430

<p>


how? we're already in. we have no business with admissions anymore.</p>

431

<p>Donemom, please see molliebatmit's post #429 above, which was also my understanding.
[quote]
My understanding was that, once the decisions had been made in committee and Marilee was doing the final read, she did not generally (ever?) make a change in the decision already made on that person.

[/quote]
</p>

432

<p>artiesdad,
I pretty much agree with you. And while I don't excuse, condone what MJ did (I posted on PF my thoughts), I think her equal error was the practical one. I believe that she was ambitious (nothing wrong with that) when she applied for an admin.asst. job in '79, listing 3 (unnecessary) degrees. I believe that she approached this effort in a way that doomed her. Like latetoschool (post on PF), I believe that there were other options for her in self-promotion within MIT that did not "require" dishonesty.</p>

<p>HOWEVER....I remember distinctly the job atmosphere for <em>women</em> in '79-85. They were suddenly entering a predominantly male environment in many cases. I do not know what the gender breakdown of MIT administration was then or is now. But let me tell you, depending on the environment, women had to be uncommonly aggressive & tactical if they wanted to go anywhere. For example, you best not be In A Family Way (or considering that) if you were ambitious. At our company, any woman who was pregnant tried to hide it. It was a Take No Prisoners approach to any woman who wanted the slightest flexibility with regard to family needs + job advancement, for example. They had to "behave like men" and they were competing with men, on men's terms (whose wives were home behaving like accommodating nannies). MJ thus probably believed that she needed every edge she could get. This is probably hard to fathom for modern students, but they were born into a whole different world of greater gender equality.</p>

<p>Again, not to be excused. I think I just understand <em>why</em> she did it, even if it was foolish & dishonest. Somewhere along the way -- between '79 and '97 or '98, whichever year it was -- she would have done better for herself by getting some career counseling as to how both to come clean with her earlier mistake but to seek opportunities which were legitimate with her experience and yet advanced her. For example, she could have left MIT and sought an admissions job elsewhere in a different (non-scientific) environment. </p>

<p>And in '79 she was only 27. That's why I agree with latetoschool's post in PF that she could have at that point completed some degree(s) gradually but in plenty of time to <em>later</em> apply for the Dean of Admissions job, with honest credentials. </p>

<p>I'm really sad for the students' frustration & disillusionment, but I'm also sad about her personal tragedy because I think she could have rectified it at some point along the way.</p>

433

<p>"I hate to say this, but weren't pebbles and mollie both admitted under MJ's tenure? And, because of this, they are probably somewhat biased in their views."</p>

<p>lol, I think being less ignorant than you are is what's making us biased in our views.</p>

<p>EDIT: However, I would really like to see that women vs. men SAT scores data as well. I have a feeling a lot of big mouths would be shut on the issue.</p>

434

<p>
[quote]
EDIT: However, I would really like to see that women vs. men SAT scores data as well. I have a feeling a lot of big mouths would be shut on the issue.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'd rather see women vs. men AIME scores data. Or women vs. men GPA in theoretical physics or mathematics. The SAT is trivial and scoring highly is a minimum standard for students applying to top schools.</p>

435

<p>There are always those who are willing to blame anything for their own shortcomings - whether their gender or another's admitted mistakes.</p>

<p>Keep your MIT rejection and Marilee's situation two separate entities.</p>

<p>And think tiwce before you decide to start bashing girls for being smart.</p>

436

<p>"I'd rather see women vs. men AIME scores data. Or women vs. men GPA in theoretical physics or mathematics."</p>

<p>Uh... until I got into college I'd never heard of the AIME. I think judging people by exposure and opportunities available is pretty much what got all this URM-bashing and girl-bashing started to begin with.</p>

437

<p>I'd like to see the women vs. men SAT and GPA data too. And then while we are at it, lets graph those scores against the grades they actually get at MIT. That might finally shut all the naysayers up!</p>

438

<p>
[quote]
Or women vs. men GPA in theoretical physics or mathematics

[/quote]

Although I've never seen the data myself, my understanding from people who have is that the GPAs of female students are higher, even taking differential major choice into account.</p>

439

<p>I can't judge the intelligence of MIT women I don't know, but I do know the girls at Caltech (including those who turned down MIT for Caltech) are smart cookies :D</p>

440

<p>
[quote]
Uh... until I got into college I'd never heard of the AIME. I think judging people by exposure and opportunities available is pretty much what got all this URM-bashing and girl-bashing started to begin with.

[/quote]

I agree, I did not know about AIME until senior year, but a comparison between those who did submit AIME scores among the admit pool would be valid.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Although I've never seen the data myself, my understanding from people who have is that the GPAs of female students are higher, even taking differential major choice into account.

[/quote]

If that's the case MIT should have no reservations about releasing such data. However, I do not care much for unsubstantiated claims.</p>