<p>*Princeton legacy acceptees are still academically qualified. The rare exceptions to this occur only for developmental admits. *</p>
<p>Sometimes, “academically qualified” is a term that pales in front of the job of admissions, no? My meaning is, lots of people can be qualified to do some good work, but some do more than others certainly to indicate their drive and what they bring to the table, and I’m talking individuals with the same resources, and of comfortable to affluent background.</p>
<p>Then again, as you did admit, some schools are more meritocratic, and that’s something I’d never take away from them, even if other schools admit “qualified” students.</p>
<p>^ Yes, there are people who are more qualified than others. My point was that resilient193 erroneously indicated that these people were accepted only because of their connections. They brought something compelling to the table otherwise, even if they were not as compelling as a fellow applicant who was unhooked and ultimately rejected.</p>
<p>accepted only because of their connections. They brought something compelling to the table otherwise</p>
<p>I guess logically speaking, it’s true that “only” connections likely wouldn’t work, since there are grades of qualification even among the connected folk. A much more fair question to ask would be - how much of a chance would the person have stood without the connections. </p>
<p>This reminds me of when a friend said he argued logic with a girl who claimed her friend to have met his girlfriend only because of her, because without her influence, the meeting would certainly have not happened or something.</p>
<p>Talking to MIT couches probably has the same effect on admissions as talking to MIT coaches—not much. It might get you some strange looks, though. Then again, maybe not. It is MIT.</p>
<p>I looked at the MIT’s Common data set,and saw that they are also in favor of legacy.
So, there is not a thing that MIT does not favor legacies.
What do you think ?</p>
<p>^ Like everything (AA, for example), there’s context. I think children of MIT students are going to be more likely to be well-educated, know what it means to be a Match and if they fit it ('cause their parents will have spent years talking about what exactly IHTFP means), etc. This is pure speculation, though :)</p>
<p>I can tell you, as an admissions officer, that we do not favor legacies in our process. I don’t know how to put it more plainly than that. </p>
<p>Now, that’s not to say that being a legacy doesn’t help you! For example, students whose parents went to MIT benefit from the science and technology skills of their parents, familiarity and interest in the school, the advantages that go along with socioeconomic success (with correlates with an MIT degree), that sort of thing. </p>
<p>But what we don’t do is give an extra boost to students because their parents went to MIT as per such. So what you’re detecting the data is a sort of correlative, rather than causative, trend.</p>
<p>hmmm. depends on how your prejudices lead you to define ‘fair’. year in and year out black + hispanic admits = approx 24 %. women admits = approx 46-47%. and internationals [who lean particularly hard on the endowment for finaid] = about 10%. Athletic recruits dont get likely letters like the ivies but they do get get an admissions “preference” [call it what you want. MIT calls it a ‘request to admit’]. and anyone want to guess at the admit rate for the issue of faculty and staff who get that free tuition benefit.</p>
<p>I don’t know whether it is still the case, but a few years ago the gripe from rejected male applicants was that MIT favored women. Numbers were quoted showing that women on average got admitted with lower stats than men. I don’t know how favoring women somehow made MIT fairer than schools favoring legacies or athletes. The bottom line is every school goes out and works and sometimes makes compromises to get the students it wants. Whether that is “moral” or “fair” depends a lot on your point of view rather than some objective definition.</p>
<p>You guys seem to be making the error of assuming that numbers tell you everything - or the answer you’re looking for. Self-selection among applicants plays a huge role in acceptance rates.</p>
<p>Chris,
Do not take it too seriously.
I am an international FT employer trying to make my way to MIT Sloan, nothing more or less.
But, I have to admit that CC forums helped me a lot, though they give more emphasis on undergraduate.
I love MIT, and the motto: An education from MIT is like drinking water from fire-hose.</p>
<p>MIT admission seems pretty much like other ivies, with only a small difference in what OP noted. With that in mind, the word “fair” is rather vague (it’s also subjective). I’m sure MIT makes mistakes all the time in admitting and rejecting applicants, and AA might help some and hurt some. Thus, I agree with silverturtle that admission in MIT isn’t fairer than other top schools.</p>
<p>not really, other than the fact that they both have AA.</p>
<p>MIT doesn’t favor developmental admits or legacies. Athletic recruits are automatic at ivies if they have certain stats, while at MIT it’s just like another award like being in student govt. (a plus, but not the golden ticket.) Geographical diversity is heavily emphasized by ivies and hardly at all at MIT. The other main difference is that there is more of an emphasis on academic prowess at MIT, whereas the ivies might take someone with a “B” average who is a famous actress (or the next world-class kazoo player.) Also, ivies seem to get a bunch of people who are the children of celebrities and govt. officials. Unlike the children of faculty, these people don’t tend to be particularly smart.</p>
<p>As for the children of faculty, what do you expect? Of course their admit rate is going to be higher–they have the whole genetic thing going for them, not to mention the value system.</p>
<p>“Also, ivies seem to get a bunch of people who are the children of celebrities and govt. officials. Unlike the children of faculty, these people don’t tend to be particularly smart.”
Of course, rich folks would never send their kids to MIT to suffer for 4 years.</p>