<p>I have got some information for the applicants of MIT from India. For the past two years, I was very much inclined towards pursuing my undergraduate studies at MIT. But after knowing this year's results, I do not think that there is any good in doing that(I will pass my 12th exams next year). We all know that only 5 to 6 applicants are admitted from India every year. I have came to know about the names of 4 admits of this year- Ganesh Ajjanagadde, Diptarka Hait, Harine Ravichandran and Jeevana Priya. Now if google about them, you will come to know that all of them are medal winners. The purpose of this talk is to ask the MIT admission officers about the hypocritical attitude shown by them towards Indian applicants. I do acknowledge that these students deserve to be selected in MIT but then MIT should not fabricate its policy of selection of international students. The adcoms state on their blogs that they do not require medals from international applicants but they fill 95% of their slots with medal winners. There is nothing wrong in this policy. The issue is with requirements for international applicants. I think Chris and others should at least have the courtesy to enlighten the applicants about the proceedings of their review process when they receive a major chunk of their applications from India and not use the admissions blogs as a marketing medium with which they dupe applicants regarding their policies.
The future applicants must not waste their money on MIT application and if they think they really want to study at this place, then they should prepare for Olympiads.
Do not fell to the trap woven around you by the adcoms over the year as the non-medalist Indian applicants will regret their dream school choice and the time wasted on a separate application.</p>
<p>we have another MIT admit here - MHIAD. </p>
<p>@MHIAD - do you have medals too v?</p>
<p>We have TheE too. 
He may have medals though. 
Also, I dislike how people have started defaming medals and other major awards. It isn’t that the adcoms want to admit <em>only</em> medal holders, its just that these people have better accomplishments and therefore deserve admission.</p>
<p>Don’t you think that the admissions at MIT are self selecting??
The people who have International Olympiad medals or have done extensive research apply to MIT because they belong there and like to be a part of an equally competitive student body. The Olympiad medalists apply to MIT not because they want to be there, they feel like they belong there.
That is what the MIT Admission blog says, that the student body is self selecting.
And as a matter of fact, not the whole 3000 students can be International Olympiad medalists. Can they?? 
So, irrespective of what the stats say and how many geniuses enroll there, One should not give up hope and hope for the best.</p>
<p>I’ve refrained from posting on these matters for a long time, but I think that 112358esh’s point hits the nail right on the head. All admissions offices claim to interpret students in their CONTEXT. I do not think this is the case. I am an NRI, and where I live, there are no opportunities to even compete in local Olympiads. So, does the fact that I WANT to participate in an Olympiad mean I “belong” to MIT? How about the 1000s of other applicants who are in the same boat? And if yes, then why doesn’t MIT expand its enrollment to admit all these people, as would be coherent with their educational goals?</p>
<p>@Mrinal No, not all 3000 (is that how many Indian applicants there are?) can be Olympiad medalists, but just about all <10 admitted applicants ARE. Domestic admission is a completely different matter (though even there, extraneous variables like URMs, legacies, etc. play great roles)</p>
<p>@idream Why don’t the Indian applicants with 2400 SAT I/SAT II scores deserve admission? If doing well on a test is all that matters–and the preferred test is an Olympiad (coz that’s all an Olympiad is: a test)–adcoms should make this clear.</p>
<p>@112358 I feel your disappointment. Unfortunately, with US college applications, a lot of the messages are directed solely to domestic applicants. This is the sad consequence of only 10% of admits being international (different policies apply to different internationals as well). But I agree that this fact should be addressed and brought to more people’s attention.</p>
<p>At the end of the day, why do you wish to go to MIT specifically? What’s at MIT that isn’t somewhere else? I can’t actually find good enough answers to these questions to feel chronically depressed about my rejection. Penny for your thoughts, anyone?</p>
<p>So, I have had privilege of knowing all 4 of the applicants personally and I see that you have got some(well many) facts wrong.
- Ganesh does not have International Olympiad medals.
- Two others I know about got admitted to MIT, and both of them, I am sure do not have an Olympiad medals.
- ~7 Olympiad Medallists were wait-listed or rejected by MIT.
- Even last year and the year before, there have been people who do not have Olympiad medals but still made to MIT.
- Each of these 4 do have something more than Olympiads that makes them Awesome. For eg. Harine was Google Science Fair finalist last year
- Something you may not know: Ganesh got in Early Action. (I hope you know what that means)
- The 95% is statistics with ridiculously low sample space.(I am not even sure that it is correct. I think it should be 66% : 4/6) If you know what I mean: the probability that these statistics can be correctly used to predict future results tends to zero. For statistics to work well, you need many times more observations.(for more read a good book on statistics or probablity.)</p>
<p>So frankly, when you put in the above factors, not even Olympiad medals help admission to MIT. </p>
<p>You still need to be awesomer. And the two non-medallist Admits sort of “prove” that.
Just stop whining about medal winners. There has been more than debates on this topic now</p>
<p>Of course International Olympiad medals help. What you mean to say is, and I completely agree with it, they do nothing more than just help. They do not guarantee admission. Nor are they the most important factor. But, they obviously help. </p>
<p>dasadhikarik, I never said that those Indians don’t deserve admission. I was merely commenting on the fact that many of the medal holders do, in fact, deserve to be admitted.</p>
<p>^ Agreed idream, sorry for bad communication from my side here.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hey, you yourself quoted that less than 10 students are International Olympiad medalists, So the other admits are admitted without International Olympiad medals, right?? (rhetorical question, don’t answer it ).
So, the MIT adcoms do admit students who are not Olympiad medalists, so doesn’t it sound harsh on the part of the applicants to give biased comments and blame the adcoms for being rejected. As for you, do community services, be nice and follow your dreams. You can’t keep thinking about MIT rejection or decision. Just be nice and follow your dreams. 
Even though, I admit that many deserving students do get rejected, but can’t it be that even though with almost similar stats, they might have a better rec or a batter essay. With the US admissions, one cannot be sure what might go in or against their favor. </p>
<p>All we can do is do our best and enjoy our HS senior year( I am now a senior too…
I can’t wait for the admission processes to begin )</p>
<p>@Mrinal</p>
<p>(I will answer it) No, I meant that <10 international Indian applicants are ACCEPTED annually, on the average. Compact said that Ganesh does not have International Olympiad medals, which may be true, but he does have a national standing–> I couldn’t even hope for that. So far, every applicant who I KNOW got in has Olympiad participation.</p>
<p>I don’t blame the adcoms for being rejected. At this point, I have no interest in thinking I’ve been wronged in some way by MIT. I’ve written the adcoms a thank you letter for making the process so user-friendly and moved on.</p>
<p>My point is more a comment on the college’s strategy. I mean, if they know so many applicants want to get in, and are better for it, why DON’T they expand? It’s a fair question, no? They achieve their goals better and we get to fulfill whatever whim drove us to that college (there must be one, since so many people are applying).</p>
<p>You also mention recommendations as a point of differentiation. But what can an applicant do about this? In fact, I waived my right to see my recommendations–I feel better that way, knowing there’s no risk of getting accused of manipulating it. Some teachers just aren’t well-versed in rec writing, and that reflects badly on the applicant. Why are all of these extraneous variables added to the process? Merely for the sake of selectivity? There’s nothing an applicant can really do to manipulate his or her environment, but environment itself is an important factor in admissions (not just at MIT).</p>
<p>^ To some extent, I do agree with you. Despite the universities repeatedly maintaining the fact that they will evaluate an applicant keeping in mind the context of his environment and opportunities available to him, the applicant with internationally/nationally acclaimed awards will in most cases be given preference over an applicant who simply did not have the opportunity to compete at such a level. However, I also believe that making the most of one’s opportunities is an important decisive factor.
Correct me if I’m wrong though.</p>
<p>No, I agree with you. I do not believe for a second that adcoms will know what the maximum opportunities available to an Indian male studying in a religious, American school in Japan which hasn’t gotten a single student into the Ivies for 50 years are. I really can’t expect them to.</p>
<p>Hey, in now way I meant that you are blaming MIT about your rejection, its just human nature. Well, in a way You are correct in a sense. Most of the applicants( even us) are National rankers in nationally accredited Olympiads. Yes, the olympiads do have a positive and great impact on the application. :)</p>
<p>A majority of MIT admits have some sort of international or national award which is science related. A little research about a college(which an applicant is expected to do) clearly indicates this. So when you’re applying and don’t have an award, you know you’re in the minority and the chances of acceptance are miniscule. </p>
<p>As for applying and getting your hopes up about getting admitted, it’s imperative to keep your head on the ground and not get carried away by imagining yourself at a dream college - as international applicants, all our chances are low. No matter what grades, essays, extracurriculars, awards, or reco’s we have, NOTHING can guarantee us admission. Regarding the application fee, if you’re applying for aid, you get a fee waiver, so its not a waste of money. If you aren’t applying for aid, and your parents can pay for college, one college application fee, even if you have a minute chance of acceptance, especially at a college the caliber of MIT, is not wasted. </p>
<p>The college application process is not to just get admittance - it helps you grow as a person by introspection while writing essays, and later by dealing with rejections and acceptances. </p>
<p>The award winners proved that they deserved to be at MIT. The adcoms feel safer selecting them because they know and trust the quality of such olympiads and competitions. Adcoms say that applicants are evaluated in context of their environment - I believe this is completely true. This ‘evaluation’ is holistic, and can lead to acceptance or rejection. They don’t at any point say that those from a situation with less opportunity are at the same level of competitiveness, because they aren’t. </p>
<p>If you’re presented with two similar applicants with regard to scores, grades, essays, EC’s and the like, of which the only differentiating factor is an international award, who would you think is a better applicant? It’s EXACTLY the same with adcoms. After all, if we’re picking colleges to apply to based on their prestige and quality, they have the right to pick who to admit based on the quality and prestige of the applicants achievements.</p>
<p>If you’re truly, inexorably passionate about the sciences, you’ll get into MIT. Olympiad medals are very strong representatives of that passion. If you haven’t had the opportunity to take the Olympiads then your passion will be shown through your extra curriculars and your essays. Passion for the sciences is the crux of MIT admissions. If you want to get into MIT solely because of the prestige associated with the university, like so many people including the OP do, then I’m sorry that’s just not going to happen. An overwhelming majority of MIT students would have gone on to do great things even if they hadn’t gotten into MIT, and if you consider yourself to be on their calibre then you’d have relentlessly pursued mastery of the sciences, including the Olympiads, regardless of what is or isn’t written in the admissions requirements page of MIT’s site.</p>
<p>Will the lot of you stop harping on about the OP (and myself, I guess, since I identify with his problem) blaming the admissions office for rejections? Nothing in the comments above are aimed at the rejections received. What I was talking about was the fact that colleges fail to provide an accurate portrayal of international admissions. As international applicants, we are evaluated based on different standards than domestic students. This only makes sense. Why would top schools in the US want 1000s of foreign admits taking up seats in their universities? They want what they consider to be the cream (which is very much subjective). If the de facto standards for international students then include olympiad participation, then the college should admit this at some point, rather than deceiving applicants with “evaluation in context”. Looking back, if I’d known about the Olympiad tendency, I wouldn’t have applied–I’d have spent my time looking at some other more realistic school. Like I said, what is the hype about MIT’s “caliber”? What is it you can find at MIT that you couldn’t find elsewhere, in other, less fortunate students? I’m only repeating what the adcoms have to say. Stop this talk about “human nature” and “caliber”. It’s not as though we’re not deserving of MIT; it’s just that MIT doesn’t have enough land to take everyone, if I interpreted Mr. Schmill’s letter correctly. It’s this sort of post-rejection attitude (I’m not deserving! I’m nothing compared to the demi-gods that got in!) and its fall-out on next year’s applicants that’s making college admissions worse and worse year by year people.</p>
<p>@Ascaris I’ll back up the OP here. If s/he really cared about prestige, why wouldn’t s/he just go to a college in the UK, which would have marginally more or less “prestige” than MIT, and would be far easier to get into? Apportioning blame this way doesn’t make sense.</p>
<p>@Ascaris- I disagree with the passion thing man; I am an example myself. I am very passionate about economics and sciences. But the thing is that you have to show that passion in other things as well. None of my stats backed up my passion, no good grades, no unique activity connected to my passion. </p>
<p>But I agree with compact, MIT doesn’t accept only medal winners, some of those who are accepted are non medal winners, those who have impressive ECs, but not as impressive as Olympiads… I guess the reason why so many people who get accepted to MIT are medal winners is because they are some of the smartest people in our country and this is why they get accepted to MIT. Their performances in Olympiads is a corollary of this quality in them… Thus we all start saying that they get accepted to MIT because they won medals, when in fact their smartness, able to fit in at MIT and their qualities got them in.</p>
<p>@dasadhikarik: Cambridge is the only British university which holds a candle to the prestige held by MIT when it comes to math, sciences and engineering. Even Oxford doesn’t come close, and every other institution is leagues behind. And Cambridge is by no means easy to get into.</p>
<p>^^ exactly what I meant. </p>
<p>Take the example of world famous Aakanksha Sarda. When she applied to MIT, she did not have any Olympiad medals. She was selected for IPhO after she was admitted to MIT. Although the newspapers said that she is an IPhO medalist who in going to MIT, IPhO medal wasn’t a part of her EC’s in her application. So you might think that she got in at MIT due to Olympiad medal, but she didn’t. She got the MIT admit first , medal later.</p>
<p>^Nope you’re mistaken now. She won a bronze medal at the linguistics Olympiad. Her selection to attend the camp for IPhO might have been in her applications though…</p>