<p>I don’t see how any of these documents substantiates your claims or have any bearing on the discussion. </p>
<p>The first one is a self-report from around 60 students per year total from some unverifiable source. Hardly a basis for evaluation. Even CC has more data point in its annual HYPSM cross-admit survey. This data is not compiled by any school and certainly does not show much of an overlap between MIT and the rest of HYPS with less than 40% of the cross-admit pool admitted to MIT. If anything it shows that more often than not, students admitted to one of HYPS are not admitted to MIT.</p>
<p>The first one is a self-report of 123 students taken from the CC annual survey. It isn’t an ideal sample, but it’s hardly inappropriate for use in a forum.</p>
<p>My point is that MIT shares about the same (slightly less) rate of cross-admits with HYPS as they do with eachother.</p>
<p>Only 11.8% of the Yale admits in the sample were also admitted to MIT
This compares to 41.1% admitted to Harvard, 44% admitted to Princeton and 23.5% to Stanford. Clearly much lower overlap with Yale compared to HPS.</p>
<p>Only 11.5% of the Stanford admits in the sample were also admitted to MIT.
This compares to 46% also admitted to Princeton, 26% also admitted to Yale and 23% admitted to Harvard. Again much lower overlap with Stanford than HYP. </p>
<p>Only 25.8% of the Harvard admits were also admitted to MIT.
This compares to 45% also admitted to Yale, 22.5% admitted to Princeton and 19.3% admitted to Stanford. Much lower overlap than Yale, about the same as Princeton and Stanford. </p>
<p>38% of the Princeton admits were also admitted to MIT.
This compares to 41% also admitted to Yale, 32% admitted to Stanford and 19% admitted to Harvard. This is the only school showing some strong overlap with MIT. </p>
<p>In conclusion, outside of Princeton, which not surprisingly has a strong engineering program, the overlap with the other school admits is quite low.</p>
<p>When 9 out of ten Yale or Stanford admits are either rejected or don’t even apply to MIT shows good overlap in student profiles, then I wonder what is a bad overlap. Caltech has far greater overlap than any of HYPS.</p>
<p>It’s also much less selective and has far fewer applicants. Students that are accepted at an HYPSM school often do not get into another HYPSM school. In terms of selective college admissions, that’s a very high number of cross admits that is consistent with the statistics for other schools in the group.</p>
<p>MIT and Caltech attract some of the same applicants, that’s a given. I’m arguing that MIT is beginning to attract more students who in the past would not have considered MIT in favor of other similarly ranked schools. If you can find cross admit statistics from the 90s, I think you would find that MIT applicants very rarley applied to or were admitted to Harvard, Yale, Princeton, or Stanford. That has changed rapidly.</p>
<p>MIT still shares an admit pool with Caltech, but I think that pool is shrinking as MIT competes with other top research universities with a more broad scope.</p>
<p>cgarcia, I agree with the essence of your last post, but you have to remember that Caltech’s admit pool is extremely small. They probably admit 300, and 200 people a year enroll there. This is in contrast to the ~1500 people MIT admits for 1000 spots. So MIT-Caltech cross-admit yield can be very high even as the cross-admit overlap with the top ivies grows.</p>
<p>That may be true, but the fact remains there are far more Harvard-Yale cross admits than Harvard-MIT or Yale-MIT cross admits. The latter group for instance is tiny. The same would hold true in the applicant base as in the admitted base. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree with that statement and that fact is most evident with women and minorities. But this is not because MIT has changed its admissions practices and started admitting more well rounded students. The data is not showing that at all. Just the opposite. The typical MIT student is just as lopsided in math/science as ever, but often with more research and competitive experience than in prior years. MIT is just increasing its mind-share among elite students in math and science as opposed to just engineering where it was always dominant. As engineering is slowly shrinking at MIT, the science departments especially the life sciences have been growing. MIT is getting more USAMO and IMO medalists, not less. The concentration of elite math talent has reached staggering peaks with heavy outreach to China, Korea and India. It is getting more Intel/Siemens finalists, not less. It is also getting more premeds and MD/PhD candidates. </p>
<p>So again, don’t expect to see anytime soon a significant increase in students majoring in the humanities or even the social sciences, that is not happening.</p>
<p>Again, this statement is taken from the mission statement for MIT during the last great reform of the educational philosophy in 1949 which pretty much defined MIT as we know it today. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The document expands further:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is interesting that MIT of 60 years ago already rejected the idea of rigid admission standards in favor of capturing “the gifted mind”. The current admissions process is simply seeking to meet that same objective with all the tools of modern cognitive neuro-psychology. In the same manner that no modern organization recruits on the basis of resumes alone but uses interviews and questionnaires so is MIT in going beyond transcripts in selecting its candidates. Such psychometric tools are often much better predictors of success than standardized tests.</p>