<p>I've been looking over a few of these threads and it seems that a lot of people are either complaining or promoting the "more diverse" admissions process that MIT now seems to employ. This has given rise to the speculation that the school now has a weaker student body (ie. the academic/fierce grade competition has dropped in favor of lesser qualified athletes, URMs etc.) I'm on neutral ground on this issue but as someone possibly looking to apply I would like to know if the school still retains its dominance in the math/science fields or if it has slacked in the recent years (espcially with the rise of Caltech as others have said) Would, for example, someone who walks out of MIT with a physics major be flown off to who-knows-where to work on technology for the government(happened to a friend of mine in the aerospace field) or would they be passed over for someone from Caltech with the same credentials. Has MIT gone soft with their fields of study or do they still retain a rigid set of standards and ideas that keep their graduates on top. Again this is just a question. Thanks</p>
<p>The reports of MIT's death have been greatly exaggerated.</p>
<p>I am not aware, for one thing, that the average SAT score of admits has fallen over the past several years. It's hard to find standardized sources of numbers, but comparing the most</a> recent common data set and some published</a> numbers for the class of 1996 indicates that the more recent classes probably have higher stats than classes of the past. (It's tough to compare the math scores, as the old numbers give the mean and the new ones give the 25th/75th percentiles. The average verbal score of admits has almost certainly risen, as the mean in 1992 is below the 25th percentile in 2006.) All MIT graduates have had to pass the same set of General Institute Requirements to graduate since the mid 1990s, so I think there's little trouble of MIT going "soft".</p>
<p>There is very little "fierce grade competition" at MIT, either now or in the past, but that doesn't relate to the collective brainpower in the school -- MIT is a very collaborative place, and people tend to work together rather than against each other.</p>
<p>There is more than enough room in the world for qualified Caltech people and qualified MIT people to make great post-undergrad choices.</p>
<p>The "rise" of Caltech? </p>
<p>What's that?</p>
<p>Mollie, have you taken into account the recentering that happened in 1995? In 1995, the scores all artificially went up.</p>
<p>I took the SAT before (as a freshman) and then after the change (as a junior,) so that's why I know there is a significant difference. You have to readjust the scores if you're going to compare them.</p>
<p>You also make a good point about the averages vs. the quartile reporting of scores. Marilee Jones said that 15% of the admits wouldn't have gotten in under the previous director of admissions. This sort of thing would be masked by a quartile rating since the 25%-75% range wouldn't change. (In fact, I suspect this is why the US News & World Report does it this way. That way, the ivies can take people with low scores and not have it look like they lag behind MIT and Caltech.)</p>
<p>The thing that has been overlooked is that MIT's applicant pool has risen much faster than the national averages. As a result, MIT remains fiercely competitive to get into. As a result, MIT could admit a "qualified" class several times over.</p>
<p>MIT has become a more diversified university than Caltech. The business, political science, architecture, and economics departments are all world class, and as a result, MIT has now taken some more students who aren't pure math/science geeks. That is true. Though I would strongly dispute that MIT has "lowered its standards" in any way.</p>
<p>When one applies for a job, the school they went to is not the deciding factor. It is about what the person has assimilated. The school will just get a look at the resume and possibly an interview. MIT is definitely there in terms of reputation. The quality of instruction at MIT and the level of expectation from students have not fallen. So anyone who can live up to the rigors and master the concepts will have the chance to compete. Once a student is in, it is all about how he/she progresses intellectually. To be "flown-off", a person should demonstrate the capacity to invent and innovate. Opportunities to do that are abound at MIT.</p>
<p>Damn it was so much easier to get into MIT in the mid-90s.</p>
<p>I had forgotten about recentering -- much before my time, sorry. I just picked a random year from The Tech.</p>
<p>The class of 2000's SAT stats weren't out of line either. The math mean was 764, while the class of 2010 25/75 is 720/800; the class of 2000 verbal mean was 722, and the class of 2010 25/75 is 660/760. So although we can't reliably discern a trend, it's reasonable to say the stats have stayed basically the same.</p>
<h2>Damn it was so much easier to get into MIT in the mid-90s.</h2>
<p>Um no, if you look at the stats mollie provided, they look about the same as today's stats.</p>
<p>Of course, the Marilee Jones 15% wouldn't show up in the 25%-75% range. But it does show that there isn't a huge change in the class in general stat-wise.</p>
<p>In response to Mikalye, MIT has a more diverse array of fields, but the model for the undergraduate admit has historically been the same regardless of field. They don't say,"well this guy got a "B" in one of his math classes but we don't care because he's one of the business admits." I don't think the standards are any less for people who express an interest in business. The political science dept. has a very quantitative emphasis, and so they wouldn't want a different kind of person anyway.</p>
<p>I don't think it's a mystery that college admissions have become more competitive over the last 20 years. The average SATs have stayed about the same but where do you expect them to go? There is a maximum score ya know.</p>
<p>collegealum314, don't "Um no" me. The stats Mollie provided are exactly what I'm going by too. In 1996, the SAT math score was 20 points lower than today's and the verbal or "CR" score was about 60 or 70 points lower than today's. They accepted 31.3% of their applicants, 5% off of being three times easier to get in.</p>
<p>dsilva, the class of 2000 vs. 2010 numbers was what I was referring to (see post 8).</p>
<p>The class of 1996 has numbers which are artificially lowered by the lack of recentering. You are probably too young to know about recentering, but it effectively added close to 100 points to everyone's score across the country if you took it in 1995 or after that.</p>
<p>the post about 2000 stats wasn't even there when I wrote what I originally wrote. either way three times the percentage of people were accepted back in 1992 admissions.</p>
<p>Selectivity and academic strength of the incoming class are not the same thing. At least part of the reason why more people apply is the change in MIT's image. In the past, someone with a couple of B's in math or science wouldn't bother applying to MIT because it would be pointless. Harvard's selectivity was much lower than MIT's when I applied, but it was common knowledge that the average MIT student was much smarter because intelligence was about 95% of admission at MIT.</p>
<p>I would definitely say it's harder to get into MIT if you are applying with perfect grades and near-perfect stats (750+ on SATI and SATII.) It might be a bit easier for those who have under 700 on SAT's or were not conscientious students in school.</p>
<p>The class of 2000 stats does suggest that the entire class hasn't changed for the worse stat-wise, and pebbles point is duly noted that the stats can't get much higher. Considering Marilee Jones was saying that only 15% of the current people wouldn't have gotten in before, it's hard to have any discussion about what has happened by looking at 25%-75% ranges.</p>
<p>
[quote]
At least part of the reason why more people apply is the change in MIT's image. In the past, someone with a couple of B's in math or science wouldn't bother applying to MIT because it would be pointless.
[/quote]
My alternate interpretation is that more people are applying because more people have heard of MIT in the first place. When I was applying to college in 2001, I had only heard of MIT because an exboyfriend of mine had applied -- I hadn't and wouldn't have heard of the school on my own. There were two of us who applied my year, and we were the first two in my (typical suburban public) school to ever have gotten into MIT. In recent years, five or six students from each class have applied -- MIT's profile has been increased in my town, and I don't harbor any illusions that it was because of me or my friend.</p>
<p>except that it probably was partially because of you. partially because of your excellent blogging and forum skills. :)</p>
<p>Don't know if this means much to you, but [url=<a href="http://slashdot.org/tags/mit%5Dhere%5B/url">http://slashdot.org/tags/mit]here[/url</a>] is a link to slashdot with news related to MIT and [url=<a href="http://slashdot.org/tags/caltech%5Dhere%5B/url">http://slashdot.org/tags/caltech]here[/url</a>] is one for news related to caltech :D</p>