<p>SOOOO am i the only person who hasn't gotten their decision? (in CA)</p>
<p>Isn't it on the website now? I'd assume that only admits can post in the guestbook.</p>
<p>Check my.mit dude.</p>
<p>uhh i looked on my.mit for a bit but couldnt find any clues... i know im either deferred or rejected but i still want to find out with a letter!</p>
<p>I got mine in Bay Area on Monday. Yours is probably on its way too</p>
<p>alright thanks</p>
<p>you can call MIT to know your admission decision if you haven't recieved your letter so far!
check it out at <a href="http://www.ben.mitblogs.com%5B/url%5D">http://www.ben.mitblogs.com</a></p>
<p>MIT is obviously subjective and becoming more like an Ivy in admissions. Well, anyhow whether this is good or bad, it depends on your paradigm.</p>
<p>Ugghhh...I loathe the Ivies' admissions criteria. MIT is perfect right now. Screw legacy/recruitment/other bs...</p>
<p>
[quote]
MIT is obviously subjective and becoming more like an Ivy in admissions
[/quote]
</p>
<p>with literally thousands more applicants than they can accept, im not really sure how they can avoid "becoming more like an Ivy"</p>
<p>i really don't think being subjective makes the more ivy like. if anything, i thought that's what sets MIT apart from the ivies. it seems like MIT cares more about who you are as a person and how you relate with others than whether or not you're the "perfect student." Matt said on his blog: "Ultimately, it is not our goal to admit the "best" students (whatever that means), but rather the students who are the best matches for MIT."</p>
<p>Hmmmm. MIT has always cultivated an impression that it's a place where actions, especially those demonstrating incredible scientific potential, speak louder than words, family connections, being the "All-American student," etc., which is not so true at many Ivies - Harvard - <em>cough</em> <em>cough.</em></p>
<p>I don't think subjectivity per se is a bad thing for admissions -- you're never going to avoid some kind of subjective bias unless you base admissions solely on the results of testing, a la IIT. (And even that isn't really "objective" since even standardized tests are not perfect, etc.)</p>
<p>Still, MIT wants to admit people who can thrive in the MIT environment. Often those people aren't the 2400/valedictorian/4.0/eight zillion APs type -- the perfect kids don't know how to fail. If there's one thing you need to learn as an MIT student (or really, as a scientist or engineer, regardless of school), it's how to fail without letting failure eat you.</p>
<p>MIT is looking for students with excellent school records, yes, but it is also looking for resilient people who can handle the (sometimes brutal) MIT work environment.</p>
<p>Decision: Accepted</p>
<p>Stats:</p>
<p>Fee waiver used- no
Sat I- 710M, 750V, 680W
Sat II's- 770MIIc, 760US, 690Bio M
GPA- 3.8 (?) unweighted
Rank- doesn't rank
AP's- US history, LatinIV, Latin V, Physics, Calc BC, Stat, English Lit,
Courseload- see above, mostly honors otherwise
EC's- Varsity crew (captain), senior editor of school paper, Varsity Cross Country, Model Congress, writer for literary magazine, political activist, volunteer tutor, a bunch of other things
Job- internship at large real estate corp</p>
<p>Subjective</p>
<p>Recs- probably incredible
Counselor recs- One of her favorite students
Essays- different, but I liked them (main one about losing my seat in a boat due to bronchitis-touching?)<br>
Interview- rocked! He's amazing
Hook- recruitment letter from lightweight coach</p>
<p>Anyhow, I'm just saying that MIT is becoming less like Caltech in its admissions. Caltech admissions criteria are based almost purely on scientific credentials. But on the other hand, MIT isn't as focused on science anymore as Caltech is.</p>
<p>Decision: Accepted </p>
<hr>
<p>Stats: blah blah blah and...also captain of blah blah blah.</p>
<p>I love MIT and in my ideal world that was enough. Shouldn't that be the most important stat?</p>
<p>Well, simfish, MIT isn't as focused a school as Caltech is. It has well regarded departments in management and poli sci, and I think in a few humanities departments as well. I think Caltech's smaller size lets it focus more exclusively on science.</p>
<p>"Shouldn't that be the most important stat?"
Yeah, but the problem is that it's true for about 90% of the people on this forum. Not to say you are obligated to post them...you are probably delirious with joy right now.</p>
<p>there's nothing wrong with MIT diverging from CIT in its admissions. That is the reason i applied to MIT but not CIT. MIT is science focused but u still can study other things like history at the same time. But CIT is too focused for u to major anything else than science or math.</p>
<p>I didn't apply to Caltech for the same reason, imiracle. Guess we think alike ;)</p>
<p>i agree... mit offers an intense math/science education AND OTHER THINGS, whereas caltech pretty much only has the first</p>