<p>Same reason for me.</p>
<p>I agree completely, as well. </p>
<p>It seems MIT is also looking for a different type of students than it had in the past. After noticing the deferral of Brian, I seem to have come to the conculsion that they want people with non-science involvement as well--not complete science nerds!</p>
<p>I'd bet if we analyzed the essays of the accepted students, we would notice certain marked simillarities in their essays and activities. The people who got in EA probably DON'T have research experience on average and DON'T have strong science hooks. I think they're looking for a more balanced generation.</p>
<p>So strong science hooks are a negative? I doubt it. This year, RSI had a 100% EA rate at MIT.</p>
<p>Science++ </p>
<p>That will never change. Let's not make assumptions based on one person's EA results - especially when you know none but one part of that particular person's application. Hooks are nice additions to the package, yes, but one hook (no matter how strange or potentially impressive) will never make anyone an auto-admit -- too many factors could have influenced something like research projects.</p>
<p>I know I'm probably going to get a lot of opposition in this assertion, but it seems MIT admissions is seeking a more balanced class. As a result, they want people with strong science hooks, not machines. They want people who are more balanced--people who have a social life and balance their rigorous academics with rigorous recreation ("work hard and play hard"). For example, if we look at the class of 2006 and compare it to the more recent classes, we would surely notice more nerdy traits in the earlier generations. The newer generations seem less nerdy and more balanced. After all, they did have a question on balance. </p>
<p>It seems most of us (myself included) are EXTREMELY nerdy :).</p>
<p>pebbles:
I hope you can see from my first post that I'm not just basing my deductions off of a single case, I'm basing them on multiple deferrals of people with lots of research experience AND a transition noted in the classes.</p>
<p>Anyway, you might be able to confirm or reject these observations as you are an actual student at MIT. Would appreciate your comments along with comments from other current students.</p>
<p>Oh, we're pretty damn nerdy.</p>
<p>yep, still.</p>
<p>Well, of course! It is MIT after all ;-). </p>
<p>But comparatively, how much less (or more) nerdy is 2009 than 2006?</p>
<p>dNerd/dt is definitely in the negatives. WAYYYY negatives. Like you'll break your knees going down that slope. That's why the football team has gotten so deliriously good lately.</p>
<p>=</p>
<p>LOL! Can you quantify the first derivitive? Is the second derivitive of nerd w.r.t time negative or is it positive :)?</p>
<p>I've always heard that 2006 was the "cute and dumb" class. So perhaps d[Nerd]/dt is positive between 2006 and 2007.</p>
<p>"cute and dumb"--really! What about 2007-2008 or 2008-2009?</p>
<p>lets write a function!</p>
<p>N(x) where x is the year mod 2000 and N(x) is the nerdiness</p>
<p>so, if dN(x)/dx = -5x^2 + 200
then N(x) = -5/3 x^3 + 200x + C</p>
<p>but C= 50 since in 2000 50% of MIT were nerds
therefore, we can predict the nerdiness of the class of 2010!</p>
<p>*sigh, its been a boring morning...</p>
<p>^Dude, calculus is for losers and engineers (same thing, really).</p>
<p>So, this reminds me of one time my friends and I were sitting around in fuddruckers and somehow brought up the aging of women.
(I think we were referring to a teenage girl and her relatively young mother).</p>
<p>We came up with a figure dAss/dT, and it was the rate at which a person gets uglier as they get older.</p>
<p>We took the age old art of looking at girls and turned it into nerd humor.
It was sad, yet we all laughed so hard.</p>
<p>yea a friend and i plotted out various graphs using semi-real data point for chicks such as *****iness v. hotness, hotness v. intelligence, etc.</p>
<p>umm, and I thought I was nerdy. ha.</p>
<p>People, please go to my blog and click on the link of the first post, it is a link to an article that explains very well what MIT thinks about the students they want and other top colleges, is a must read!
my blog is <a href="http://www.omareduardo13.blogspot.com%5B/url%5D">http://www.omareduardo13.blogspot.com</a> go there and click on the link of the first post and you'll see</p>
<p>Decision: Accepted</p>
<p>Stats:[ul]
[<em>] SAT: 1600
[</em>] SAT IIs: Bio M, 770; Math IIC, 800; Writing, 800
[<em>] GPA: 4.0 uw
[</em>] Rank: have no idea
[<em>] Other stats: 5 AP Bio; 4 AP Phys B
[/ul]Subjective:[ul]
[</em>] Essays: I...don't know, honestly. I thought they were good technically, but they certainly weren't earthshattering.
[<em>] Teacher Recs: quite good, probably gushing
[</em>] Counselor Rec: ditto
[<em>] Hook (if any): Two different intensive research projects
[/ul]Location/Person:[ul]
[</em>] State or Country: TX
[<em>] School Type: private
[</em>] Ethnicity: azn, yeah
[<em>] Gender: female
[/ul]Other Factors:[list]
[</em>] Extracurriculars: debate, lit mag, research, stuco, 550+ hours community service, lots of math/science competitions, random stuff really
[<em>] Why I think I was accepted/deferred: Probably the research.
[</em>] Other thoughts: I applied as a junior, and didn't really expect I'd be making a post like this even to say that I was rejected...if that makes sense...</p>
<p>btw, i love the rather shocked tone of #182 (the whole "they want people who aren't science nerds!" one)</p>