<p>So I recently read in another thread that, unlike other ivies/ivy-caliber schools, MIT does not discriminate based on legacy status, celebrity status, regional representation, or athletic recruiting. In other words, its admissions policies seem a bit more merit-based than that of other schools.</p>
<p>But does MIT place quotas (caps, limits, whatever you want to call it) on the number of students it will admit from a given high school. Specifically during the early action round?</p>
<p>To my knowledge, the only quota MIT has is that it cannot have an incoming class be more than 10% international students.</p>
<p>There are no official quotas for how many students can be admitted from a high school.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It depends on how you define merit. Do you consider standardized testing scores to be a meaningful indicator of merit across the entire range? If so, then MIT would seem less meritocratic than other top schools to you. If, however, you care more about the subjective elements and see them as better indicators of merit, then you would probably find MIT to be more meritocratic with its admissions.</p>
<p>Even for early action? This year, my school had exactly 1 girl and 1 boy admitted EA, so I thought that was a little suspicious.</p>
<p>On another note, I do disagree with its SAT threshold policy. Say what you will, 2250 =/= 2400.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s not exactly convincing evidence. :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m with you on that, though I can’t say that I am completely free of bias.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Say what you will, both scores indicate adequate performance at MIT combined with other stellar parts of an application.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think that that is what the poster was denying.</p>
<p>^ I’m not sure what the poster was denying. Sure, those two numbers are, in fact, different numbers. The threshold policy, however, indicates that MIT has kept track of scores/success rates, and the results are the same. I’m not sure what part of the threshold policy the poster disagrees with.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, if I recall correctly, Chris said that the results were similar, not the same. And I have brought up concerns in the past over this: specifically, if having 2400 was an advantage over 2250, that admissions boost could serve to level the field; if that boost were gone, the difference in results may widen. Just an idea. Nonetheless, I am still eager to see those data, if Chris is ever willing to share. :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>:)</p>
<p>I, too, am not entirely in agreement with MIT’s threshold policy, though a 2250 does adumbrate a degree of future success comparable to that of a 2400.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How are we defining success? Percent who graduate? Percent of classes passed? GPA?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>For my purposes, the graduation rate is sufficient, though I am sure there would be many who would beg to disagree. However, this is simply my personal view; I doubt that the graduation rate is the only metric utilized by the MIT office to formulate its threshold policy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ll rephrase to “adequate for MIT’s purposes”. Given what I know/what I’ve said about agreeing with the policy, I’d be interested in hearing your guys’ reasons for disagreeing :)</p>
<p>
The only quota on early action is that no more than a third of the class may be admitted via EA. Of course, many EA applicants are deferred and then admitted RD, but MIT doesn’t want to tie up more than half its spots before the RD apps are in, the way it’s done at some peer schools. </p>
<p>There aren’t any quotas for any individual schools for either application period.</p>
<p>RE: SAT thresholds and whether 2250=2400, I think that thirty-seven angels can dance on the head of a pin, and I won’t be convinced by any argument to the contrary.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I suspect that if SAT scores were not considered in admissions, SAT scores would positively correlate with GPA at MIT across the entire score range. And I suspect that GPA is a good indicator of the subjective idea of how much a student is getting out of the education and, in turn, what he or she will do with the education; I value this. I do not expect a negative correlation between GPA and how much a student is contributing to the campus. So I disagree with the policy. If, however, it is shown that 2400ers, for example, do not have higher GPA’s than 2250ers (or around there) on average even when a threshold policy of 2250 is employed, I would certainly support the treshold policy because my suspicions about the breadth of the correlation would be incorrect.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I believe that the “or around there” part is implied with the “similar results” thing. If MIT Admissions saw a great gap at the threshold point and a 2400, I’m sure their policy would be different. They have picked this threshold because it’s the one that works. So… I’m still not sure why you disagree :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I meant for “there” to refer to 2250, not the GPA’s.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, if I see the data, I could offer a more definite stance. At the moment, I question whether the admissions officers accounted for the concern that I brought up on the previous page, how they are defining “similar,” and what their measure of “results” is. It could simply come down to a difference in that final consideration (i.e., the measure of results): GPA vs. graduation rate.</p>
<p>^Was the argument on the SAT thread not enough to satiate your appetite, sir?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’d like to imagine that they keep the limit the multiplicity of their sources in order to ensure their freedom to make grand statements about thresholds.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You mean with antonioray and kingsize? I much prefer discussing things here, as the posters are generally very calm and rational, and they avoid excessive use of thesauruses and Wikipedia logical fallacy pages, unlike in the other thread. :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think you know what I’m talking about.</p>