MIT has the most moral admission policy?

Colleges and Universities A-Z Massachusetts Institute of Technology
1

<p>Out of the top schools I've read about, MIT seems to have fairest admission policy. It doesn't consider alumni relations, doesn't do athletic recruit, doesn't consider whether you visited the place or not, doesn't consider an extremely high SAT score. It seems to be all be based on whether you're a good match.</p>

<p>Yes, of course people will be blabbering MIT's supposed discrimination against AA. But I honestly think it doesn't, but rather a lot of Asians seem to be in the mindset that high scores gets you everywhere. I'm an Asian immigrant myself and my parents seem to think the same.</p>

<p>But still, MIT does seem very fair.
what do you think?</p>

2

<p>I don’t see how not considering alumni relations and not giving preference to ultra-high scorers are any more moral than doing so. What do you mean by “MIT’s supposed discrimination against AA”? </p>

<p>I do, however, appreciate the transparency of MIT’s admissions. I wouldn’t call it any fairer than other top schools, though.</p>

3

<p>Well, obviously considering alumni relations may cause underqualified students to be admitted. Same goes with ultra-high scorers. </p>

<p>And everyone seems to complain that MIT discriminates against asians.</p>

4

<p>I actually know two kids who were athletic recruits to MIT.</p>

5

<p>

</p>

<p>No, underqualified students are not admitted to top colleges. Also, I don’t see how considering ultra-high scores as better than high scores would result in underqualified applicants’ getting in.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>MIT seems to practice Affirmative Action in a manner similar to that of other top schools.</p>

6

<p>Ultra-high scores just means you spent more time studying… which indicates nothing of your potentials.
Students with alumni connections will have better chance. Otherwise why consider alumni relations?</p>

<p>MIT actually has disproportionally high acceptance rates for Asians compared to the percentage that applied.</p>

7

<p>

</p>

<p>MIT does practice Affirmative Action.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>You are mistaken. Plenty of people score ultra-high with no preparation. The average 2400er is unlikely to have studied any more than the average 2300er.</p>

<p>If 2400’s could be achieved by any competent person as long as he or she studies sufficiently, one would expect them to be quite common. Yet this is not the case.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Yes, but this does not mean that underqualified people will be admitted.</p>

8

<p>Affirmative action makes it fair for those who have less-fortunate background.</p>

<p>Still… Ultra-high scorers != high potential</p>

<p>but you are not as qualified</p>

9

<p>

</p>

<p>I’m not debating the merits of Affirmative Action. I’m simply making it clear that MIT practices it, because your comments about Asian admit rates seemed to imply that you were not aware of this.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Nothing necessarily equates to any with respect to test scores. However, it is highly likely that most metrics of college success positively correlate with scores across the entire range.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>What are you referring to?</p>

10

<p>fine you win, MIT sucks. happy? lol</p>

11

<p>^ Of course, that was not my point. :)</p>

12

<p>

</p>

<p>That’s impossible unless they were from a very long time ago (although I don’t think there were ever athletic recruits). MIT specifically said at the info session that they DON’T HAVE ATHLETIC RECRUITS.</p>

13

<p>^ It depends what you mean by “recruit”. Certainly, applicants can talk to MIT couches about their abilities, and MIT couches can tell MIT admissions, “Hey, we really want this person!” The difference at MIT is that MIT Admissions is not specifically looking to fill up sports slots. To MIT, sports is another cool thing someone can have on an application - just like music, or science competitions, etc, are all things that contribute to someone’s awesomeness :)</p>

14

<p>Ultra-high scores just means you spent more time studying… which indicates nothing of your potentials.</p>

<p>I understand what you’re saying, but as I’m sure you’ve corrected your wording slightly, we’ll agree that there’s a point where studying doesn’t help. </p>

<p>However, to your point’s credit, after a certain point, high scores do not necessarily correlate terrifically with desirable traits. A high score does mean something, and is an addition to desirable traits for validation and enhancement. Sometimes, desirable traits shine just fine alone.</p>

<p>However, it is highly likely that most metrics of college success positively correlate with scores across the entire range.</p>

<p>If it comes to success in test-taking, it’s true there’s a high correlation between test-taking and test-taking :)</p>

<p>However, as we both discussed in another thread, without heavy overpreparation for standardized tests, it is very likely that someone with traits much more correlated to positive academic success in college (e.g. drive and ability to deeply understand physics, etc) may not be rewarded, and indeed, may be penalized, in an SAT-like test.</p>

<p>But then, some schools may interested in people who, given the intellectual ability to do well on the tests, perhaps take and retake their tests in order to achieve the highest scores, since as you said, certain kinds of people are very much (score-wise) benefited by analyzing specific test-taking deficiencies and doing additional targeted prep.</p>

15

<p>I do, however, appreciate the transparency of MIT’s admissions. I wouldn’t call it any fairer than other top schools, though.</p>

<p>I will say one thing - when Chris from admissions posted the essay questions, I found them targeted and direct, which is what I expect is best.</p>

16

<p>Ok, so, a couple things: </p>

<p>1) Depends on what you mean by “recruit.” Do students talk to coaches? Yes. Do coaches send us lists of players that would contribute to their team? Yes (as do our music, art, and academic departments!). </p>

<p>Do coaches have “slots”, i.e. a certain number of totally discretionary picks that must be admitted? No. </p>

<p>2) We do not consider legacy, which - and I must disagree with silverturtle here - I do believe is at least more meritocratic, without wading into the uncertain language of morality. Most schools give weight to legacy because it ensures a higher rate of alumni donations. We have the ability to not do that, and we have decided not to. </p>

<p>Personally, I am happy that we do that, because - as someone said - legacy admissions tends to further disadvantage already disadvantaged students, like those who are first generation to college or whose parents (for whatever reason) did not attend highly selective universities. But to each school their own. </p>

<p>3) MIT does practice affirmative action, but perhaps more descriptively we are sensitive to a variety of contexts, including broad socioeconomic contexts. And, as someone mentioned, it is correct that we accept more Asian students than apply, even though Asian students are not URM - this goes to show that the process is more complex than it is often made out to be.</p>

17

<p>

</p>

<p>Certainly, it is more meritocratic.</p>

18

<p>

</p>

<p>Bravo, bravo!!
I’ve heard stories from friends in a private school that about 5 people in that school get into Princeton by connections alone.</p>

19

<p>It’s not the typical kind of recruiting you would see at D1 or D2 school, with a national letter of intent or a likely letter.</p>

20

<p>

</p>

<p>Princeton legacy acceptees are still academically qualified. The rare exceptions to this occur only for developmental admits.</p>