<p>@RabbitHole -
Sorry, didn't mean to attack you back. I definitely agree with you (and ducktape) on that count, especially when it comes down to kids who go to amazing schools and have parents who push them to study in their free time, have teachers who have connections with research programs, etc, and the sense of entitlement that comes along with that. Seriously, I'm the kid from the crappy district who fights those kids at every competition and it sucks.</p>
<p>My problem is when my african-american friend who goes to a rich private school, drives a ferarri that his grandparents bought him, has sub-par (for MIT) scores and activities, and who wrote an admittedly atrocious essay (proofread it for him), gets accepted over my caucasian friend with amazing extracurriculars, who goes to a crappy school and literally built half the programs there himself (paid for his own physics olympiad test, taking the finalist test tomorrow, split the bio cost with me, took top science at state, everything), works constantly and lives, literally, alone. I know it's not my decision but I've known so many kids personally have gotten in and when this thing happens over and over to your friends it's hard NOT to feel somewhat slighted.</p>
<p>I agree completely with affirmative action based upon socioeconomic status and availble opportunity. I don't agree with the idea that those are directly correlated wtih race.</p>
<p>"Maybe the person who did phenomenal on all the USN_O contests went to a school with an excellent science program and which routinely offered those tests to their students. Not all of us went to those schools."</p>
<p>Yeah, but you also have to consider that the competition is typically harder at these schools. The talent level at Thomas Jefferson and other places approaches MIT-level, and you still have to be top 5%-10% from that school to get admitted to MIT. I went to one of those magnet schools, and while the education was excellent, they really didn't train you for competitions. I can't speak for every magnet school, but at mine the reason we had students winning competitions was because they had a lot of smart students--not because they prepared you at all. With most math and science competitions, we were pretty disorganized.</p>
<p>I don't completely disagree with you, though. It was easier to do well at a research competition if you went to a school like mine--they pretty much groomed you for it. And that's why I don't have as much stock in those types of competitions. For things like USAMO, however, it's pretty much the student qualified because they were extraordinary--not that he/she went to a special school.</p>
<p>I was an MIT Educational Counselor (interviewer) this year, and the numbers a pretty harsh. Only 1 of my 11 interviewees was accepted, and I'm from an underrepresented state. I'm interested to see what the final admit percentage will be.</p>
<p>What do you mean? No one has said anything on this thread about geography being important in admissions. When President Vest addressed the freshman class at MIT, he said, "You're here because you were the smartest people, not because you're from North Dakota." I took this to mean that being from an underrepresented state was not an advantage.</p>
<p>Yeah, I remember that it was on the common data set, but is it really possible that the president of the university is misinformed on the admissions policy? I guess it could have changed recently. Who knows...</p>
<p>Also remember that a large part of being a university president is playing politics. They must be politicians first and foremost, as unfortunate as that is.</p>
<p>...and that's not saying anything negative about (former) president Vest. I thought he was an awesome guy. I'm talking about the <em>position</em> of a president in general.</p>
My friend and I who got waitlisted this year have done, easily, twice as much for our school and community (not to mention academically) than the two hispanic girls who have gotten in over the past four years.
[/quote]
This is certainly a very common scienarios in todays college admittion game. If you attend the same HS, then you must be given the same opertunities in school. Is it fair? anyone's judgment.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I wasn't talking about URMs. In many cases, AA has nothing to do with it. Mammal's daughter had a 2400 and 4.0 unweighted GPA plus a nice research project in bio, and she got rejected.
[/quote]
And to say that, her daughter was accepted early by Yale (must be really good at ECs, Recs, Essasies etc.). And also accepted by Caltech (must be academicly very strong in math/science). No matter from what angle you view it, there is a ?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Posts: 1,091 hm...well, I don't think MIT cares whether you are from an underrepresented state.
[/quote]
Sure certainly they do. </p>
<p>MIT is certainly getting a lot of tiptops from their applicants pool. But there is no deny when above circumtances occure, low qualified URM (include geographic URM) gets the node. I have a long feeling since our college visit last year, MIT is more and more try to mimic main stream ivies in every aspect. Really, for those rejected with the tiptop qualifications, took a deep breath, think about do you really want to be there with people that you think is less qualified than you do?</p>
<pre><code>* Major Applied To: Bioengineering, whatever # that is...
* Fee Waiver Used?: No
* SAT I (by section): 800 CR, 780 M, 730 W = 2310 total, taken once. 1580 M+CR
* SAT IIs: 770 Math 2, 740 US History, 730 BioM
* GPA, Weighted and Unweighted: 3.67 UW, 4.3 W
* Rank: N/A
* ACT: 34 (35 Math, 34 everything else)
* APs (including this year's): 11 Taken total, 4- AP Euro, 5 - AP US, Bio, Calc AB
* Senior Yr Courseload: Hardest of anyone in the school =/
* Number of Apps from Your School: 100+ probably
* Other stats (Awards, etc.): Check my chances thread if you're really interested...
</code></pre>
<pre><code>* State or Country:
* School Type, Average Stats of School (if available):
* Ethnicity: East Indian
* Gender: M
* Income Bracket: Too much, yet not high enough to play completely out-of-pocket.
* Hooks (URM, first generation college, etc.): Nothing?
* Strengths: EC's, SAT's, Essays?
* Weaknesses: GPA. Definitely.
* Why you think you were accepted/wait listed/denied: I'm just not MIT material :(
</code></pre>
<p>
[quote]
Really, for those rejected with the tiptop qualifications, took a deep breath, think about do you really want to be there with people that you think is less qualified than you do?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Really, what these people need to do is get over themselves and watch those "less qualified" students give them a run for their money. That's the reality.</p>
<p>Honestly, once you step into your first class, your 2400 SAT doesn't amount to a whole lot. So you can do algebra and write grammatically at a 2% higher proficiency than your neighbor. Big f'ing deal.</p>
<p>^ agreed with the above.
As I said before, I'm sure anyone, if dedicated enough, can force themselves to study and get near-perfect scores, but I feel that colleges look at more than those booksmarts - they look beyond that to see who has the best -potential- to make an impact based on character and drive. Just my 2c.</p>
<p>
[quote]
* Essays (subject and responses): Great! best I've written, IMO; about toothpaste
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I could be wrong, but isn't there a pretty famous admissions essay about toothpaste published in one of those college essay howto books? For your sake, I hope there's no relation. You probably would have been better off writing about tooth*brushes* ;).</p>
<p>
[quote]
When President Vest addressed the freshman class at MIT, he said, "You're here because you were the smartest people, not because you're from North Dakota." I took this to mean that being from an underrepresented state was not an advantage.
[/quote]
But it's similar to being an underrepresented minority -- sure, the kid from North Dakota isn't there because he or she is from North Dakota, but that circumstance was certainly taken into account. How many science fair/research/math contest kids from New York and New Jersey were overlooked to take the kid from North Dakota? But is it right to overlook the kids who aren't clued in to the admissions game and take kids from super-competitive regions exclusively?</p>
<p>And I'd like to add my hearty agreement with post #233 (and hi, MITMathAlum, I'm class of 2006 too!). Dear lord.</p>
<p>I'm not talking about only 2400 score. And not every 2400 is achieved by study for it. And not every 2000+ is achieved by not study. I personally knew quite a few 2300+ SAT got by 2 hour over night preparation.</p>
<p>
[quote]
My friend and I who got waitlisted this year have done, easily, twice as much for our school and community (not to mention academically) than the two hispanic girls who have gotten in over the past four years.<br>
[/quote]
When you go to the same school every day, every one knows what ECs every one dose. Every one knows what the course load the others have. Every one knows how proficient the others performed in the same class room. Yeah, well to some may be not the big deal, especially those who got long end of stick. But to a 17 year old, who views the world with the open mind taught in class room "every one should be treated equal based on their own merit" ?</p>
<p>There's a thread lower down titled "Thanks" that includes some really wonderful posts by students who were not admitted. They evidence grace, maturity, and self-confidence. For readers who are getting tired of the bitterness of some of the posts on this thread, I highly recommend it. </p>
<p>I've posted before that I believe that luck plays a role in the process. Having said that, I do not believe that MIT admits students who are "less well qualified" than students MIT rejects. Where's the evidence? Simple test scores? Well, test scores don't tell the whole story. The application process includes three adults -- not friends, and not family members -- who weigh in on your personality, character, and potential. </p>
<p>I noticed that some of the students who had great scores but who were rejcted posted that their letters may have been 'okay' or 'average'. I doubt if that helps your application. </p>
<p>No one on this board can judge is someone truly "should have been admitted" without knowing anything about an individual except for a list of test scores and extracurriculars. And the only reason I'm taking the trouble to make this point is to help some high-school junior who might be reading this. Every piece of your application is critical. Every piece.</p>
<p>Mammall posted this about her daughter last week...</p>
<p>
[quote]
Okay - our D1 now has two acceptances radically different and both equally appealing to her - Yale and Caltech. She loves science, does well in math but doesn't live for math, is a truly gifted writer, and "gets" literature, history, economics, all the social sciences. What is the best way to help a kid like this figure out their best "fit" and direction? She wants to be able to earn a good living, have a real life with babies and down time, but use her abilities. We are just clueless as parents on how to help her with this and are anticipating yet more college options in the near future which will further complicate matters. Do those hired counselors who give kids tests and then tell them what to do with their lives really help? She is the quintessential well-rounded scholar - honestly likes it all. Even says second year calculus is fun whereas prior years math was just rote for her. Also says her two favorite classes were AP Chem and AP World History.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think it's very possible her rejection was about fit and not about her seeming arrogant or entitled as some have suggested about perfect stat kids who aren't admitted. This is obviously a brilliant young woman, perhaps her reader thought she'd be better served at Yale with a broader humanities opportunity. Maybe the lower scoring admits conveyed a greater sense of drive towards what MIT offers.</p>
<p>
[quote]
When you go to the same school every day, every one knows what ECs every one dose. Every one knows what the course load the others have. Every one knows how proficient the others performed in the same class room.
[/quote]
Sure, but the admissions committee doesn't know, except in what they're told in the application. As ducktape said, the applicant's voice (with the voices of his or her chosen recommenders) is the only one that's heard in the committee room.</p>
<p>So if anybody wants to write a letter bashing another applicant from his or her school who isn't good enough or smart enough or worthy enough, do it. The address is on the website. Just make sure you sign your name so the admissions commitee is aware that you're that immature and petty.</p>
<p>As I said before, this process is not about you, nor your open-eyed 17 year-old, nor even fairness. It's just not. Take a look at my post on page 15 (#222).</p>
<p>The consolation is that if your kid is so great, he or she will get into other excellent colleges.</p>