<p>Do these really matter? I mean, from a MIT admissions officer's point of view in comparison to math/science grades.</p>
<p>Of course they do.</p>
<p>A straight A in math and a big C in history can tell you something really offensive about this guy 
MIT looks for someone who has the potential to be successful in the future, so I guess they do matter :)</p>
<p>Scientists and engineers need to be able to write. 
Also, you’re going to have to take at least eight humanities/arts/social science (HASS) classes at MIT, so you do need to show that you can perform reasonably in those subjects.</p>
<p>I don’t know that they matter as much as math/science grades, but they do matter quite a bit. And having bad grades in a class because you don’t care about it is a bad sign to an admissions officer. There will be classes that you take at MIT - GIRs in subjects that you don’t like, for instance, or classes in your major that are required but just not your area of interest - that you don’t like or care about. If you don’t show that you can do decently well in that sort of class in high school, why should MIT admissions officers believe that you have the work ethic to get through such a class at MIT?</p>
<p>^ What is a bad grade? Technically speaking.</p>
<p>I mean of course engineers/mathematicians and what not need to write in addition to having good quantitative skills but I’m just asking about the amount admissions officers really care about the different grades in different types of classes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think to some degree it depends on how many grades we’re talking about. For a high schooler applying to MIT, a C is a bad grade*, unless perhaps you go to some super-hardcore high school with little grade inflation. A B is not, in itself, a bad grade. But getting all Bs in a certain subject might be “bad grades” in that subject.</p>
<p>*Note that one bad grade will not necessarily sink your application. Especially if it’s in something like, say, phys ed.</p>
<p>Clearly MIT cares more about your grades in math and science than your grades in other subjects. After all, MIT is a technology institute not a liberal arts college. The same thing goes for SAT scores, The mid-range SAT scores of admitted students to MIT is significantly lower for the verbal part than the the math part and the SAT writing score is not even taken into consideration. </p>
<p>I would argue that a student with an SAT M-V of 800-600 stands a better chance of admission to MIT than a student with 700-700 scores. Same thing with students with all 5s in math & science APs and 3s in other subjects as opposed to all 4s. They will disregard even more non-technical subjects if you are a so-called “academic star” i.e. USAMO qualifier, Intel/Siemens semi-finalist or Olympiad medalist or done some amazing research. A very rigorous curriculum in math and science if available is also very important. </p>
<p>MIT has never been about admitting 2400-valedictorians. Remember the Polish immigrant two years ago who was admitted to all 21 schools he applied to including 7 Ivies but was rejected by MIT, his top choice. Terrific student, perfect scores but nothing real stood out that made him a fit for MIT. </p>
<p>In short, from my experience as an MIT interviewer, and a daughter currently at MIT, I don’t believe MIT looks for reasons to reject applicants such as some bad grades. There is no cutoff unlike places such as Caltech which is much more stats driven. MIT looks for reasons to admit, such as some unique creative talent. That is why they have their own customized application, eliminated the main essay and focused on short questions on key topics such as creativity and resilience. MIT is not for everybody. This is also why they try to interview every applicant. If you have some bad grades in some non-technical areas, focus on where you are really strong. Take the AMC and the AIME if you can. Demonstrate some real passion for some scientific field by doing some research outside of school. That will more than compensate.</p>
<p>[MIT</a> Admissions: Admissions Statistics](<a href=“http://www.mitadmissions.org/topics/apply/admissions_statistics/index.shtml]MIT”>http://www.mitadmissions.org/topics/apply/admissions_statistics/index.shtml)</p>
<p>Distribution of SAT Reasoning Test Scores (Critical Reading)
Applicants Admits Admit rate
750-800 3,066 606 20%
700-740 2,868 418 15%
650-690 2,764 304 11%
600-640 2,153 172 8%</p>
<p>Distribution of SAT Reasoning Test Scores (Math)
Applicants Admits Admit rate
750-800 7,156 1,085 15%
700-740 2,872 346 12%
650-690 1,980 148 7%
600-640 891 19 2%</p>
<p>=O</p>
<p>MIT is becoming more and more well rounded in admissions like the other top ten colleges. Their admissions criteria are more in line with those of Harvard or Stanford than Cal-Tech or Harvey Mudd.</p>
<p>That being said, exceptional talent in one area often precludes the need for very strong performance in others. But if your scientific claim to fame is an 800 on the SAT II Physics test, getting Bs in non-quantitative classes probably isn’t going to cut it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The above data does not show that MIT is looking for more well rounded candidates in recent years as opposed to “extreme” candidates. With the surge in applications in recent years, the reverse has happened. Fewer and fewer chances of admission for well-rounded candidates to stand out. Actually, Caltech and Harvey Mudd take more well rounded candidates based on SAT scores than MIT does. There are also plenty of students admitted to Harvard and Stanford rejected by MIT. At our local high school, the valedictorian is nearly always admitted to Harvard or Stanford, not so at MIT unless they also fit the profile. More likely the MIT admits will be those with external research experience, advanced coursework in math and participation in engineering or science competitions. Most vals don’t want to get a hit in their GPA by taking risks with advanced coursework or spend large amounts of time on activities that do not help their admission chances at most colleges.</p>
<p>MIT stresses fit. Strong mathematical and scientific skills are a requirement, but not the deciding factor in admissions. I also disagree with your interpretation that Caltech and Harvey Mudd place more emphasis well roundedness in SAT scores. </p>
<p>Caltech and Harvey Mudd both have more physics/math built into the core requirements. The recommended high school preparation for MIT also lists an extra year of english, social science, and two years of foreign language compared to Caltech. </p>
<p>We’re really splitting hairs in an unproductive way here. I just showed the SAT scores to refute your statement, “I would argue that a student with an SAT M-V of 800-600 stands a better chance of admission to MIT than a student with 700-700 scores.”</p>
<p>There shouldn’t be any argument that MIT places more emphasis on ability in all academic areas than it did in the past.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Source?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>25-75 Midrange SAT CR % 700+
Caltech 700-760, 76%
Harvey-Mudd 680-770, 67%
MIT 660-760, 58%</p>
<p>25-75 Midrange SAT Writing , % 700+
Caltech 690-770, 71%
Harvey-Mudd 663-750, 59%
MIT 660-750, 57%</p>
<p>76% of Caltech students with over 700 in CR versus 58% at MIT is quite a substantial difference. </p>
<p>@cgarcia. I understand you are a current applicant to both Harvard and MIT. I also get that you are a well rounded student with no prior research or competition experience. I hope you will post your stats and the results.</p>
<p>I’m not applying to Harvard. And I’m heavily lopsided in favor of math/science.</p>
<p>SAT scores are a very confounded way to see what a college favors. I did not post them as evidence of MIT placing less emphasis on science/math than Caltech. That much is obvious from the core requirements.</p>
<p>MIT has stated that they place little emphasis on SAT scores beyond the very soft requirement that they be around 700+. Caltech places much more emphasis on high objective scores. That absolutely does not mean that they have more of a focus on qualitative abilities than MIT. All the evidence you need is in the core requirements and offerings of each institution.</p>
<p>You have it backwards. </p>
<p>You are confusing what MIT looks for in its applicants and what it believes a solid education in engineering and the sciences should include. It is precisely because MIT feels many of the entering students have insufficient training in the humanities that it places such emphasis in its curriculum. For the same reason that many liberal arts colleges an universities have quantitative and science requirements that students would otherwise opt out of, MIT requires all its students to take a certain amount of humanities classes that many students would not take otherwise. If the Institute felt its entering students were such good writers why have a requirement for two writing intensive courses? Every year, the faculty complains that many entering students need remedial writing. </p>
<p>While MIT does have its share of students who excel in the sciences as well the humanities (much more common among female students) it is not what it selects for in its applicant pool. They even eliminated the essay from the application. My D who is double major in neuroscience and literature does not have many classmates who share the same passion. In her last HASS class, which was a lit. seminar taught by a former Oxford professor they were only 4 students. She loved it despite having tons of writing assignments. At Harvard such a class would have been booked solid. </p>
<p>In the majority, MIT students are somewhat quirky, nerdy (and proud of it) and very intense about what they do. It is a VERY different profile from the typical Ivy League student. If you get in, you will see it by yourself.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>At my high school, it was the opposite, though that was awhile ago. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not sure what you mean by this. Typically, in the past, they were looking for the best student. You were expected to crush you math and science classes, and typically, you would also get "A’"s in your humanities classes as well. If you were awesome at some respected math/science competition, like USAMO, then they would ignore some blemishes. This is true at Caltech as well. However, if you made the finals of bio intel but couldn’t do math, then they wouldn’t take you. MIT’s admission practices used to be very close to Caltech’s before Jones came in. In fact, while people have celebrated the fact that MIT will accept some people even if they get straight B’s in math or something, remember that that is the very reason it is now nearly impossible to get in.</p>
<p>If you’re an applicant, don’t get overconfident. This “match” you talk about is a shifting target from year to year, and it depends on who is reading your application.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think I took this guy’s class. I was into literature as well, and I agree that it was somewhat rare to be actually good at humanities there.</p>
<p>MIT’s recommended high school preparation is also heavier on qualitative classes than Caltech’s. </p>
<p>I’ve been around both Harvard, MIT, and Harvey Mudd. I know students at each. MITs primary competitors for students are Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Stanford. MIT has said as much and released confirmatory statistics. MIT is still a tech oriented institution, but it’s clear to me that they’re moving more in the direction of their competing institutions. The commonly bandied acronym is HYPSM, not HYPS and MC.</p>
<p>I suppose we’ll have to agree to disagree.</p>
<p>@collegealum, the shift in admissions practices (largely instigated by Marilee Jones) is what I was referring to.</p>
<p>For applicants (and others) interested in how the modern MIT educational philosophy emerged, reading the linked document is a must.<br>
<a href=“http://libraries.mit.edu/archives/mithistory/pdf/lewis.pdf[/url]”>http://libraries.mit.edu/archives/mithistory/pdf/lewis.pdf</a></p>
<p>It is really first in 1949 that MIT added a strong humanistic education to its professional (engineering) training to better prepare its students to be active citizens in the community. Although, Rogers, MIT’s founder, always advocated a professional education combined with a strong liberal arts education, these principles were essentially dropped in favor of a strictly vocational training after his retirement. In the 1930s it was decided to rebuild the MIT education from the ground up on a strong scientific platform first as opposed to the traditional shop-oriented vocational engineering training of the past. That was essentially the birth of the modern engineering education as it is practiced in the US and of the research university model. In the 1949 reform, the humanities finally took its place alongside science as part of the core training of any engineer. </p>
<p>The Mission expressed then is essentially the same today.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not true. The #1 overlap school as far as applicants remains Caltech. Overlap with Stanford is substantial but fairly geographically defined. Overlap with Princeton is greater than with Harvard. Overlap with Yale is extremely small. The two cultures are so vastly different.</p>
<p>Many MIT applicants would not even consider HYP as options. (over 60% of MIT students major in engineering). Stanford, Caltech, Cal, CMU, Georgia Tech are the typical alternatives for these students. </p>
<p>MIT has never released any statistics on overlap of its applicants with other schools.</p>
<p>It would be mathematically impossible for MIT to have such a high yield if the majority of its admitted students were also admitted to HYPS and vice-versa. It is in part because it trounces the competition among tech schools that it does so well. It just holds its own against HYPS as the annual matchups on CC have regularly shown.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Marilee Jones was never about shifting admissions to more well rounded students. It was more about using non-stat factors in admission. BTW, these were not Marilee Jones policies but institute policies and they continue in full force today. As you correctly stated, the SAT plays less and less a role in admission. In that sense, it IS different from Caltech. </p>
<p>I believe the move away from excessive reliance on the SAT/GPA metric in search of students with unusual interests and aptitudes, has strengthened MIT not weakened it and brought more in line with its stated mission back in 1949. MIT never was about enrolling the highest scoring students on the SAT or going after valedictorians. It was always about finding that rare student with both talent and passion for science and who could transform the world. </p>
<p>If anything the results speak for themselves. The ratio of superstar candidates (defined as among other things as USAMO qualifiers, Intel/Siemens finalists or Olympiad medalists) has actually increased according to admissions to about 25% of the class from 16% three years ago. MIT enters over 100 students annually in the Putnam and has walked away with over 40% of all Putnam Fellows (top five individual contestants) in the past 10 years, an astounding record. Many more students are admitted to medical school. It is also getting more Rhodes and Marshall scholars than ever before. There is simply no comparison between the MIT I attended in 1980 and the one of today. </p>
<p>The large influx of women has fundamentally transformed the Institute and definitely for the better. By itself, this has motivated larger numbers of highly qualified students of both sexes to apply, who would not have considered it the past, when it was largely single gender school as most other tech schools remain today. In that sense, it is closer to HYPS than Caltech.</p>