<p>Where does MIT rank on selectivity? I was thinking about this, and could it be argued that MIT is one of the hardest schools to get into? It has almost the same acceptance rates as HYP, but I would think the MIT applicant pool is even more self-selective, making it even harder to get in because of the type of applicants you're competing against. For instance I know a lot of people who apply to HYP "just for the hell of it", but rarely do I hear of people applying to MIT for that reason, and yet its acceptance rate is still so low. Sorry if I'm stating the obvious or getting you EA applicants even more nervous put I just want to put this into perspective.</p>
<p>I actually had a long conversation with my Chemistry teacher about this today. Our school is just a pretty normal HUGE public school, there's no such thing as research or AMC tests or whatever their called. We have a Math League club that only gets 3-4 people to compete each time. Same with our Science League club, although our Bio II team has ranked pretty well. Our school has a very poor track record with MIT, maybe 1 kid every 5 or so years. It has appeared then, that MIT & HYP look for two different types of students. Our school sends 10-15 kids to an Ivy each year, which are comparable with MIT in terms of acceptance rates. However, the sort of students that my school produces seem to fit more to Ivies than MIT. My Chemistry teacher went on to say that it seems MIT is looking for "ready" students, as in they have gotten their feet wet in research/very high level sciences, which is impossible for our 3000+ high school who has 60 students taking AP Chem. These class sizes aren't conducive to delving farther into Chemistry etc. than say, a private science magnet school.
It really seems to depend on the type of school you come from whether or not at MIT is more selective; for my school, we've had 5 more Harvard kids and 15 more Princeton kids than MIT kids.</p>
<p>for my school, HYP are much easier to get into than MIT and Stanford. haven't had an acceptance to MIT for at least 4 years and haven't had one to stanford since prolly the 1990s... not sure why though, because we have a pretty sweet science research program..</p>
<p>We have a research class, but until last year it was only open to seniors. At our school, we get a bunch into lower Ivies, usually 1 into H, Y, or P. I only know of 1 person from my school who has ever gone to MIT...</p>
<p>Admission statistics seem so misleading to me. Chances depend on unobservable and unmeasurable variables. There are frivolous and unrealistic applicants to every school, so chances are probably higher than quoted for realistic applicants. All of the websites which give you a 9.7or 32.9% chance of admission at MIT - what does that really mean? For me, I think my chances are 50-50 everywhere - either I'm in or I'm not.</p>
<p>I would actually tend to agree with neuron- I mean, so based on my SATs say I have a 20% chance of getting into MIT (based on the information they give on the admissions website). So does that mean that in 1 out of 5 situations, I get in? What situations are we talking about? How do we account for other factors? What do "chances" really mean? Does it mean that I have to get myself into the top x percent of people just like me to get in?</p>
<p>Frankly, I see admissions as a 50-50 so long as you're qualified- giving any other numerical chances is silly.</p>
<p>haha how reassuring =P</p>
<p>our school hasnt had a single HYPSM since god knows when.</p>
<p>w/e i'll just hope for the best on saturday</p>
<p>Agreed.</p>
<p>I do agree with your point about MIT being such a self-selecting applicant pool, though, too. I don't know whether that holds as true for the guys, but I know admissions has in the past explained the female acceptance rates as based on an extreme level of self-selection (though I'm sure there's some diversity incentive as well, though this doesn't mean we're not just as good, if not better, than you young men).</p>
<p>I wonder if the school depends on admissions as well. We had two '07 students enroll at MIT, two to Princeton, and one to Harvard. I hope that doesn't demolish my chances haha. Good luck to everyone.</p>
<p><strong>Supposedly Asian males are the hardest bracket to compete in? >.<;;</strong></p>
<p>The best school anyone has ever gotten into for my school is Cornell >_></p>
<p>It's kinda weird at my school, we have had people go to MIT relatively consistently for the past couple of years (like 2 a year), but almost never Harvard, Yale, or Princeton.</p>
<p>my school get about 2 to the higher Ivys and MIT per year for as long as i know.3-4 to caltech and 5-8 to stanfords cuz we are right next to it.
i am pretty sure we are going to get more than 3 to MIT this year ( i hope more than 3 though.... so i have a chance too)</p>
<p>wish you all the best!</p>
<p>My school is fairly new - we haven't sent anyone to anything higher than Rice University. I'm not even sure people -applied- HYPSM except for one of my senior guy friends who applied but was rejected =|</p>
<p>ducktape--</p>
<p>
[quote]
Admission statistics seem so misleading to me. Chances depend on unobservable and unmeasurable variables. There are frivolous and unrealistic applicants to every school, so chances are probably higher than quoted for realistic applicants. All of the websites which give you a 9.7or 32.9% chance of admission at MIT - what does that really mean? For me, I think my chances are 50-50 everywhere - either I'm in or I'm not.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>While I agree that statements about "chance" are hard to make sense of, the above represents an unjustifiably pessimistic view about what we might be able to say reasonably. Some of the smartest people who have lived have thought deeply about what chance statements mean, and one way to define the subjective probability of you getting into MIT is to ask:</p>
<p>"How many cents would you be just willing to pay for a piece of paper that is worth $1 if you get into MIT and $0 otherwise? That is, what price represents the tipping point between when you'd be willing to buy the piece of paper and not?"</p>
<p>On this (pretty reasonable) analysis of subjective probability, your claim that you think the chances of you getting into MIT are 50-50 is just wrong. (See, I can tell you what you think!) If not, then I'll sell you some contracts of the type above for 50 cents each. How many would you like? Visa or Mastercard accepted.</p>
<p>Ben, that depends on my finances, not my odds of getting into MIT! I'd have to decide that based on how likely I am to get into MIT, what my budget is and how low of a profit margin I'm willing to take in any venture (in other words, how greedy I am).</p>
<p>@Ben- that was actually neuron you quoted, but same difference. Just for reference, though, my comments were:</p>
<p>
[quote]
I would actually tend to agree with neuron- I mean, so based on my SATs say I have a 20% chance of getting into MIT (based on the information they give on the admissions website). So does that mean that in 1 out of 5 situations, I get in? What situations are we talking about? How do we account for other factors? What do "chances" really mean? Does it mean that I have to get myself into the top x percent of people just like me to get in?</p>
<p>Frankly, I see admissions as a 50-50 so long as you're qualified- giving any other numerical chances is silly.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Anyways, while I completely see your point, I still don't think it answers the questions I asked- frankly, when people try to give a "percentage" to someone's chances, it makes me cringe. If someone says "Well, you have a 25% chance of getting in," what does that really mean? Do you have to show yourself by subjective measures to be better than 3 out of 4 people at your general level of competition?</p>
<p>I'll concede that flat out 50-50 is wrong; however, for an applicant whose stats are "competitive," we can't assign them a more specific percentage. I don't really want to get into an argument or anything. I just dislike giving people set percentages. You'll get in or you won't.</p>
<p>I quite agree -- when asked for percentages, I always refuse. And sorry to misattribute the quote.</p>
<p>But, while you cringe at faux-precision, I cringe at faux-knownothingism. A distinguished person once said that everybody's chances at MIT are about the same, but that's just plain wrong. There exists a final resolution (0-1), an answer with no knowledge about the applicant (the admission rate will do well here) and many reasonable probabilistic judgments in the middle given various degrees of information. I agree that it might not always be reasonable to express these judgments numerically, but that is NOT the same as saying that chances are all equal or are meaningless.</p>
<p>:)</p>
<p>What chances does a kid have who has the following basic stats, according to you guys here?
SAT 2300ish
SAT II: MATH2 800 US HIST 800 PHYSICS 800
AP 3 subjects so far: 5
Unranked: highest tenth percent
Public: 510 students</p>
<p>19.3% +/- 0.7%</p>
<p>Are you sure? I'd definitely give a 26.7% +/- 1.7%. I think a larger margin of error may be necessary in this case.</p>
<p>@Ben- I agree. I essentially believe exactly what you just said, but enunciated it poorly and was a little too bold with the 50-50 remark.</p>
<p>Truce? :)</p>