<p>how many faculty members are at Caltech? They have grad schools and such. They are not TINY.</p>
<p>I'm not arguing ;), I was just saying what I was under the impression of. If you have links and data I'd like to see them since I'm curious and considering Caltech for college.</p>
<p><em>Edit</em> I just looked for some numbers, if anyone's interested Wikipedia has them for each uni.</p>
<p>Harvard was founded in 1636; it is the oldest institution of higher learning in the United States. This is a big reason why it is the most well-known university in the United States. Same goes for Yale and Princeton, which are almost as old. It is not the whole reason, but I'm guessing if CalTech was 400 years old instead of 100 than it would be well-known.</p>
<p>Especially in non-technical fields, meritocratic policies don't always augment prestige. But that doesn't mean they aren't right. If Harvard takes the son of all senators no matter how dumb they are and then they end up being president because they have all the connections, then this augments the prestige. It is the smart bet. However, to make way for that senator's son, they may have turned away a smarter person who had better leadership potential. </p>
<p>However, issues like this should not concern MIT and CalTech because they ARE technical colleges. You cannot become a leader in math and science without the raw intelligence and motivation. Now there is no doubt that no matter how quirky admissions at MIT have become, they haven't descended to the level of absurdity of the top ivy leagues. Marilee Jones suggested that 15% of the admitted class wouldn't have gotten in under previous standards. There is no doubt that this number of people "unqualified" under previous MIT standards would be much higher at an ivy league. </p>
<p>Also, a big reason MIT has carved out its own, separate identity is that when you talk to an MIT guy, you know that you are talking to someone who was at valedictorian level or smarter. You can't say that with other colleges. MIT is THE most prestigious engineering school in the world. We don't want to sacrifice that identity. Also, I would venture to say that on a worldwide level MIT is probably more prestigious than Harvard.</p>
<p>
[quote]
He graduated with honors
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I thought no one graduates MIT with honors, with the idea being that the degree itself is prestigious enough.</p>
<p>I dunno... Harvard is pretty prestigious. :P</p>
<p>Agreed with collegealum, and disagree with sakky.</p>
<p>Look at the Harvard and Ivy threads. People are indignant about Marilee Jones' policies because they are extremely silly in the context of what is supposed to be MIT.</p>
<p>Do we ever see people bashing Harvard on affirmative action and other wacked admissions procedures? Probably not nearly as much as what we've seen on the MIT forum here on CC - where threads like this have popped up since the beginning of the admissions season.</p>
<p>That's because places like Harvard used to be about having the right connections and whatnot, and have actually become "better" in their admissions policies by having more middle class/URM admits. In a sense, the Ivies are fulfilling their institutional goals.</p>
<p>MIT used to be about admitting the best of the best. In a sense, they've gotten "worse" since new admissions policies have been anything but meritocratic.</p>
<p>But friends...that is why we have Caltech :-). And I can see where Ben Golub was coming from. MIT is definitely trying to pull off a Harvard - and a lot of people are indignant about that because that's not what we look at when we see the beacon of scientific achievement that used to be MIT.</p>
<p>No doubt though, MIT rejections have been unpleasant for a lot of the rejectees on this board...just look around. I don't think I've seen a single thread on Affirmative Action and whatnot on the Ivy boards - their ways are to be expected. But a "meritocratic" technology institution taking tennis players and "well-rounded" kids over science whizzes? Seriously...that's a big ***.</p>
<p>sakky -- you think prestige is the most important thing. I think there are things that are more important, like not selling out by doing the demographically convenient thing and staying true to your principles. That is the main difference between us.</p>
<p>As someone who considers himself (and yes, I see the arrogance in this) a best of the best (SATs currently at 2290, but it'll get higher, GPA lookin to be 4.8 by graduation, valedictorian, 5s on APs except for history (which was a 4)), I'd like to put in my 2 cents on the issue:</p>
<p>okay, first off, I'm only a junior .. I may or may not get into MIT next year and I really want to, but there are two things on which I can judge</p>
<p>1) Admitted students from my high school: </p>
<p>This year is the first year we have gotten any substantial number of students into MIT. Of those who I know, 5 applied, 3 got in. Those who got in (names changed to protect the innocent):
a) "Maria" A close personal friend of mine, Hispanic female. Not great class rank, decent GPA (probably around 3.7). Did AA help her? Maybe, but she really wanted to go to MIT .. she told me last year that she was going whether they let her in or not. Smart girl, large interest in Aero/Astro, gone to several engineering camps, did a summer internship at Raytheon. I think MIT made a good call. </p>
<p>b) "Steven" friends with "Maria". GPA rather low (3.2-5 ish), don't know about any of his other stats. White male. Always tinkering with electronics.. like constantly. Built a mini-fridge in his car console, wired Christmas lights to his car and programmed them to "dance" to trans-siberian orchestra. Smart, not a genius but extremely creative. Really wanted to go. Verdict: pretty good call.</p>
<p>c) "Kono". Black Male, decent GPA, probably top 15 class rank (of about 500). Held all-time single day winnings record for Jeopardy (only single day cause done on "Kids" version .. for pre-high school age preteens). Champion of Scholastic Bowl. Pretty smart, though not groundbreaking; knows alot of trivia. Already had gotten in Yale early, applied mostly so he could say he got in (also at Princeton, Brown, Harvard, Duke, UVA).. jerk (for that at least). Verdict: not such a good call.. but smart black kid .. probably got URM'd in on that one</p>
<p>those who didn't:</p>
<p>a) "Saguna". Indian Female. Salutatorian. Studys hard, not dumb, but doesn't "emanate intelligence". Took easier classes this year to keep workload lighter. Sings, but not in school choral program (which is well developed, successful, scored all "superiors" with grade 5 & 6 music at state choral festival.. I'm a member, btw). Did some physics research project. Claimed she really wanted to go to MIT, but had typical uptight "I just want a really good school" feel. Got into Hopkins, seems okay with it. Verdict: pretty good decision</p>
<p>b) "Luis". Hispanic Male, ranked 4th or 5th in class. Smart, good programmer, marching band drum major. Kinda wanted MIT, but didn't care alot, left application until last minute (along with others.. he was busy). Full tuition offer from Caltech, >half from OSU. Seems perfectly happy. Verdict: they could have let him in, but its okay; he seems happy with other options.</p>
<p>Overall .. I'd say of the pool I saw, MIT took the people who most wanted to go, all were qualified, those who got in spent more time doing what they loved, less wasting time freaking out about school. I think MIT made good calls and I applaud their decisions.</p>
<p>2) Campus Visits:</p>
<p>I just got back from MIT today and I visited Caltech last summer. MIT seems full of people who love to learn and who have interests in other things too. People vary a lot and girls are about even with guys in # (though there seem to be alot of asian girls (among others), but not as many asian guys; alot of white guys with a spattering of indian, chinese, japanese, middle eastern, and at a much lower rate, black guys). Tour guides were very different, but seemed smart. One was a senior who seemed to love the institution, but was planning to go into a start-up after school. Overall seems like a place full of people that, though there are rough times, want to be there and enjoy doing it.</p>
<p>Caltech on the other hand seemed SO uptight. Everyone seemed like they were focused on their academics and nothing else. Alot of guys, not so many girls. Mostly east asian and white, not much black, indian, arabic, etc. Asked the tour guide if he wanted to stay for grad school he said "no, I'm getting the hell out of here!". Overall my impression was alot of uptight, snooty people who worked hard and played little. Kinda bitter.</p>
<p>Basically.. my thoughts are MITs admissions aren't perfect (I'll especially think that if I don't get in), but I think the process gets people who are diverse, passionate, "well-rounded", and most importantly, really want to be there. So, I think they are doing all right</p>
<p>Peace,
~Donald</p>
<p>Edit: </p>
<p>Additionally.. at MIT, I had a campus tour group filled with the most stereotypically nerdy people I have ever seen: pasty, glasses, oxford cloth shirt and trench coat, chatting about their AMC scores; they didn't know about the school, just were looking at it cause it was "the great MIT"... I'm sure they were all very smart, but they aren't the kind of people I'd want to hang out with for any length of time.. the student body, on the other hand, had its share of stereotypical nerds, but was mostly people who were clearly nerds, very smart, enthralled with a subject of some sort, but they all seemed like real people, not caricatures. Definitely people I'd rather spend any length of time with.</p>
<p>This reply was originally about five or six times as long, but I've shaved it down.</p>
<p>The problem with going to whole numerocentric route is that it neglects those of us who are more than intelligent enough to do well at MIT, who did not see it fit to waste our potential with high school grades. Believe it or not, people exist who do great at MIT who did not do great in high school, for one reason or another. </p>
<p>What you need to measure in admissions is a person's ability to succeed. Grades and scores are some indicators, but far from the only ones. Yes, I'm speaking from personal bias, but I assure everyone, I'm not making MIT look bad. In fact, I'm kicking ass. Does it really bother you that much that people like me get in, who make MIT seem less "genius-y", even if only from a purely statistical measure of valedictorians admitted? </p>
<p>Olo</p>
<p>For the record, according to those office of the provost things and admissions records, some odd 25 people were admitted with class ranks lower than mine (and whose schools also ranked). The impression I seem to be getting is that people don't believe I belong at MIT, or that I never should have been admitted. I'll reserve my resentment to that statement for now, as it's in the chunk of this post I've deleted.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It's interesting seeing threads like this, people say all the time how admissions are a crapshoot and such. When my dad was a freshman at MIT he nearly flunked out, cause in high school he was the ****: captain of track team, salutatorian, all that bull. When he got to MIT he just started taking it like high school all over again except it was a hell of a lot harder....
He graduated with honors
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm afraid that you story is complete bull, for the simple fact of the matter is, as Dirt McGirt pointed out, MIT does not award degrees with honors.</p>
<p>"...does not award athletic scholarships, ad eundem degrees, or Latin honors upon graduation ? the philosophy is that the honor is in being an MIT graduate."</p>
<p>I don't want to be overly harsh, barfdog17, but perhaps you could tell us what really happened with your father?</p>
<p>MIT does award Phi Beta Kappa to about 60 people in each class.</p>
<p>It also has Tau Beta Pi, the engineering honor society.</p>
<p>Because of pass/no record, it was possible to almost fail out freshman year and still get in Tau Beta Pi or Phi Beta Kappa. I'm guessing Barfdog means Tau Beta Pi.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Especially in non-technical fields, meritocratic policies don't always augment prestige. But that doesn't mean they aren't right. If Harvard takes the son of all senators no matter how dumb they are and then they end up being president because they have all the connections, then this augments the prestige. It is the smart bet. However, to make way for that senator's son, they may have turned away a smarter person who had better leadership potential. </p>
<p>However, issues like this should not concern MIT and CalTech because they ARE technical colleges.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh, I don't know about that. Putting Caltech aside, I think MIT is attempting to branch out of just being a technical college. </p>
<p>Let me tell you a story. I once overhead some MIT students who were talking about how absolutely terrible they were in mathematics. One was laughing about how she couldn't do any math more complicated basic algebra and how she knew absolutely nothing about science or technology - that she was sometimes even afraid to use computers (and she was completely serious when she said it). I remember being complete mystified and indignant as to what was really going on, thinking to myself - were these really MIT students at all? </p>
<p>Only later did it dawn on me what was really happening. They were bonafide MIT students allright - but they were * MIT PhD students in philosophy *. That girl certainly knew very little about math or science, but she certainly knew a heck of a lot about Eastern feminist philosophy. </p>
<p>Look, the truth of the matter is, there are disciplines at MIT that are not technical and that MIT is attempting to expand. MIT has quite prominent programs in linguistics and philosophy, ranked #1 and 9 in the NRC reports respectively. Political science is also not a particularly technical discipline, yet MIT sports a #12 poli-sci NRC and #10 USNews graduate ranking in poli-sci. MIT also has the top ranked graduate Urban Planning program in the country according to Planetizen. Media Lab is a rather prominent nontechnical center. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.planetizen.com/node/21731/%5B/url%5D">http://www.planetizen.com/node/21731/</a></p>
<p>And then of course, there is the Sloan School, which aims not to be judged any longer as a boutique "management science" or operations research school, but as a strong general business school in its own right. I know some Sloan MBA's who are quite mediocre at math and science, just like there are plenty of other people with elite MBA's from other schools who are also rather mediocre at math and science. If there is any discipline for which networking and connections are paramount in importance, it's business. Even as far as the undergrads are concerned, Sloan management is now the #4 most popular choice of major (after EECS, ME, and Bio), a substantial increase over what it was in the old days. </p>
<p>The point is, it seems to me that MIT no longer wants to pigeon-hole itself as being "just" a technical college. Seems to me that they're trying to become a more fully-fledged and broad university. If all they wanted to do was stay technical, they wouldn't have even bothered to build poli-sci, linguistics, or philosophy departments at all. </p>
<p>And they certainly wouldn't be attempting to develop the 'softer' side of management to the expertise of the Sloan School. Some of the most prominent Sloan professors are decidedly non-technical. For example, the inventor of the term 'corporate culture', a clearly non-technical (but nonetheless extraordinarily important concept in management) was invented by Sloan prof Edgar Schein. Michael Cusumano is basically a business historian, strategist, and culturalist (his PhD is in East Asian Studies, focusing on the industrialization of Japan) yet nonetheless has produced some of the most widely cited business literature in his field. Deborah Ancona is an authority on leadership development, Tom Kochan specializes in labor-management relationships, John Van Maanen works on employee culture, Eleanor Westney specializes in organizational learning. None of these topics are particularly technical in nature. If the Sloan School simply wanted to remain as just a boutique business school that taught only purely operations research or engineering/industrial management, and that's all Sloan wanted to do, then sure, Sloan should have never hired any of these people. But I don't think Sloan should be doing that. If you want to break out of just being a boutique technical management school, you are going to have to tackle those parts of management that are decidedly non-technical in nature. Otherwise, you are * always * going to be losing out to those smooth cats from Harvard Business School or Wharton who may not know much about technology, but know how to communicate, negotiate deals, and lead people.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Agreed with collegealum, and disagree with sakky.</p>
<p>Look at the Harvard and Ivy threads. People are indignant about Marilee Jones' policies because they are extremely silly in the context of what is supposed to be MIT.</p>
<p>Do we ever see people bashing Harvard on affirmative action and other wacked admissions procedures? Probably not nearly as much as what we've seen on the MIT forum here on CC - where threads like this have popped up since the beginning of the admissions season.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, don't you see what you've done here? So basically you are arguing that just because the Ivies were "worse" in the past than MIT, that they deserve a free pass, even though they are * still *, relatively speaking, less meritocratic than MIT. </p>
<p>So again, I ask, for those people complaining about unmeritocratic issues with MIT admissions, why don't you also complain about the unmeritocratic nature of the Ivies? After all, be honest, right now - * who is worse? * </p>
<p>
[quote]
MIT used to be about admitting the best of the best. In a sense, they've gotten "worse" since new admissions policies have been anything but meritocratic
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, if you want to take a historical view, then MIT "used" to be little more than just a trade school. For the first half of its existence, MIT was little more than that. MIT didn't become a serious research university that truly did become attractive to the best technical minds until WW2 or so. Heck, I would argue that Caltech became a research powerhouse before MIT did. After all, Caltech was already winning Nobels in the 1920's. MIT didn't win any until the 40's. </p>
<p>But the point is this. Even if MIT's standards have declined from a meritocratic standpoint, like I said above, they are * still better * than that of the Ivies. Which is why I find it so ironic that somebody using the handle "ivyaccepted" would complain only about MIT's admissions policies.</p>
<p>
[quote]
sakky -- you think prestige is the most important thing. I think there are things that are more important, like not selling out by doing the demographically convenient thing and staying true to your principles. That is the main difference between us.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hey, it's not * me * that's saying that prestige is the most important thing. Like it or not, * the market * is saying it. Ben, you're basically an economist. (Yeah, Ok, you're strictly speaking a math major, but we both know that you're effectively an economist). Let's be honest. Prestige is basically a form of market signal of quality. It doesn't really matter if you're a strong employment candidate if people don't know you're a strong candidate. </p>
<p>Besides, you talk about 'staying true to your principles' and not 'doing the demographically convenient thing'. Well, let's not romanticize what's been going on at Caltech. Consider the following rather interesting history of Caltech's relationships with Jews. </p>
<p>"Reading from a prepared statement, [Caltech physics professor Leverett] Davis said, "the senior members of the committee felt that our policy should be to admit some Jewish students but not to admit enough of them so that it made a substantial contribution to the student population." As Davis recalled, "They just did not want the place to get a reputation as having significantly more Jewish students than other corresponding universities," adding: "In the general climate of things at that time, that would discourage some substantial fraction of non-Jewish parents from sending their children here." In practice, if the committee had two applicants who were more or less equal, the older members of the committee chose the non-Jewish applicant."</p>
<p>"T.H. Morgan's goal was to put together a good diversified staff for the Caltech Biology Dept. Good Jewish biologists were plentiful, but good Gentiles were in short supply.""</p>
<p>"An eyewitness later reported that Morgan made it his business to tell everyone that he wanted to find a physiologist "who is not Jewish, if possible.""</p>
<p>"Morgan's assistant was Albert Tyler who was also my teacher in a couple of courses. Once when Morgan and I were alone he made an entirely gratuitous rather snide remark to the effect that you could always tell a Jew by the way he walked. That was stimulated by hearing Albert Tyler approach down the hall"</p>
<p>So you did bring up the issue of Caltech staying true to its principles, and after reading the above, I now wonder - what principles would those be exactly? Do those principles include discriminating against Jews? Or about the notion of not wanting Caltech to be seen as having too many Jews relative to other schools - wouldn't that be a case of Caltech doing the 'demographically convenient thing'? </p>
<p>Look, Ben, I've always respected you as a poster. But let's face it. No school - not even Caltech - has been perfectly meritocratic all the time. We should stop pretending that anybody is pure in this regard.</p>
<p>What makes you think this is 'new'? What makes you so sure that 50 years ago MIT was more of a meritocracy (as being defined by some). Where is the data? Anecdotal information is not significant. Every year there are well qualified students who are not admitted and kids who fall outside a typical profile who do get admitted. My class was loaded with kids who had parents who were MIT affiliated. My class had kids who were admitted to improve the diversity of the group. My class had kids who soared, kids who failed. Seriously, I think Ms. Jones is drawing attention to a generational issue, but I doubt there has been a change in admissions policy in terms of the goal to admit students who will benefit most from the education provided.</p>
<p>rofl Big Brother, and now you contribute what we discussed over phone. ^_^</p>
<p>==</p>
<p>
[quote]
"Reading from a prepared statement, [Caltech physics professor Leverett] Davis said, "the senior members of the committee felt that our policy should be to admit some Jewish students but not to admit enough of them so that it made a substantial contribution to the student population." As Davis recalled, "They just did not want the place to get a reputation as having significantly more Jewish students than other corresponding universities," adding: "In the general climate of things at that time, that would discourage some substantial fraction of non-Jewish parents from sending their children here." In practice, if the committee had two applicants who were more or less equal, the older members of the committee chose the non-Jewish applicant."</p>
<p>"T.H. Morgan's goal was to put together a good diversified staff for the Caltech Biology Dept. Good Jewish biologists were plentiful, but good Gentiles were in short supply.""</p>
<p>"An eyewitness later reported that Morgan made it his business to tell everyone that he wanted to find a physiologist "who is not Jewish, if possible.""</p>
<p>"Morgan's assistant was Albert Tyler who was also my teacher in a couple of courses. Once when Morgan and I were alone he made an entirely gratuitous rather snide remark to the effect that you could always tell a Jew by the way he walked. That was stimulated by hearing Albert Tyler approach down the hall"</p>
<p>So you did bring up the issue of Caltech staying true to its principles, and after reading the above, I now wonder - what principles would those be exactly? Do those principles include discriminating against Jews? Or about the notion of not wanting Caltech to be seen as having too many Jews relative to other schools - wouldn't that be a case of Caltech doing the 'demographically convenient thing'?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Perhaps Caltech was discriminatory against Jews in the past, just like other universities. Today, such comments would be so politically incorrect that they would never be made. </p>
<p>Leverett Davis, Jr., 1914-2003
Thomas Hunt Morgan (September 25, 1866 – December 4, 1945)</p>
<p>Even so, these statements are purely statements of faculty members (who can have whatever political views that they're entitled to). They do not say anything about the admissions office itself. </p>
<p>
[quote]
But the point is this. Even if MIT's standards have declined from a meritocratic standpoint, like I said above, they are still better than that of the Ivies. Which is why I find it so ironic that somebody using the handle "ivyaccepted" would complain only about MIT's admissions policies.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's fairly simple, as Big Brother 1984 explained above. MIT is perceived as becoming less "meritocratic" (one quote I had from soneone: "MIT is losing its roots") than it was in the past, whereas the Ivies never had to encounter such an accusation - since they always had legacy and athlete admissions. From the viewpoint of a random person who knows a little bit about admissions, "if Bush got into Yale in the past, well, you can't complain about admissions standards of Ivies declining...." ;) (note that I'm talking about the popular conception of Ivies and MIT, not stating my own views)</p>
<p>
<p>What you need to measure in admissions is a person's ability to succeed. Grades and scores are some indicators, but far from the only ones. Yes, I'm speaking from personal bias, but I assure everyone, I'm not making MIT look bad. In fact, I'm kicking ass. Does it really bother you that much that people like me get in, who make MIT seem less "genius-y", even if only from a purely statistical measure of valedictorians admitted?
</p>
<p>I have to agree - but the problem comes in roots deeper than any admission office per se. There are many students who apply with subpar GPA and SAT scores, who for whatever reason didn't 4.0 their high school load (this is perfectly understandable, as in the case of Steven Chu above - high school is often an impediment to those who want to learn on their own). The question is, how to differentiate those who will excel in college from those who will merely "get through". Self-motivation and self-initiative are usually measures that help determine this. But it's very difficult to quantify self-motivation/self-initiative. Sure, the person can gun for independent research, but it appears that most Intel STS semifinalists have 4.0 GPAs (and independent research is often difficult to pursue in the first place). The self-studier has a very difficult position to prove his self-motivation, for teachers may not appreciate the student's self-studying in their recommendations. It is then up to the student to put such self-studying in his essays, and anyone can lie about that.</p>
<p>There is only one objective way to quantify self-motivation beyond the normal route (one that is accessible to all self-studiers). That is college final-like exams to test proficiency for subjects like abstract algebra, real analysis, etc (colleges have their finals too, there is no cultural bias that is worse than what a college has on its test). Some self-motivated students can take college courses in such subjects, but the key word here is some. Some of them have parents who can't afford the tuition, or who just won't pay for the distance education. Besides, what's the purpose of taking a course if you can self-study it? The only purpose is to show the college that you covered the material of a course on your own - and for just that - you've just shelled out $$$ (keep in mind, of course, that Caltech and MIT don't accept credits from most distance learning institutions like EPGY).</p>
<p>And check out the case of phuriku. He had outstanding recs (that supplemented his essays on his self-studying), and still got rejected from Caltech + MIT. He had the additional complication of disclosing Asperger's Syndrome.</p>
<p>anitaw, having parents which are MIT affiliated does not mean that they got in for that reason...</p>
<p>I mean, if you have two parents who went to MIT, there is a high likelihood they will have the genes as well as the value system to get in themselves. The admissions committee claims they do not favor people whose parents are MIT graduates. The ivies make no such claim. </p>
<p>The "evidence" is that Marilee Jones herself says that 15% of the class each year wouldn't have gotten in under previous standards. Also, the rhetoric coming out of the MIT admissions blog supports the view that admissions has changed.</p>
<p>
And those principles have the unfortunate side effect of de facto discrimination. There's more than one moral high ground here. You can take one, we'll take the other.</p>
<p>
Even if the standards have changed, I think it's pretty clear that the classes admitted now are academically stronger than those admitted in the past. There's a paradox for you.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Even if the standards have changed, I think it's pretty clear that the classes admitted now are academically stronger than those admitted in the past. There's a paradox for you.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It may be a product of more people applying to MIT than ever before (thus a higher calibre applicant pool out of the top X% that MIT has to then select from), more so than MIT admissions policies per se. Perhaps MIT would academically stronger had it adopted admissions policies similar to Caltech (note I'm using the key word "perhaps" - since "academically stronger" can be defined differently depending on which stats are valued).</p>
<p>I will straight up say that I might be among the 15% that would not have been admitted to MIT with the previous admissions process. Why? Well, I took classes I wanted to take in high school (including the ones that eventually depressed my GPA enough by being non-honors to push me out of the valedictorian spot), I played a sport all three seasons of every year, never went to a science fair, never had an internship, never did research. I worked at a tennis club in the summer and watched movies. I took the SATs once, got about a 1500 and thought that was good enough for me.</p>
<p>And I was let in. As a matter of fact, so was my twin brother who was every bit as qualified as me. I wasn't an academic powerhouse, but I was well rounded and apparently according to my friends in the admissions office the admissions officer for my area still talks about us because we had the most interesting applications he had ever seen.</p>
<p>Do I "belong" at MIT? Hell yes. And I prove it will my grades. I approach college exactly like I approached high school and I'm excelling with minimal stress. Could I have done better in high school, tried more thing, stressed myself out everyday? Yeah, but I didn't, and that doesn't make me any less qualified than the academic powerhouses that could have been let in instead of me or my brother.</p>