Probably not JHS.
S with stats to match anybody here, was deferred EA and then rejected.</p>
<p>By the way he is URM and was rejected in favor of other URMs with lower stats (and I'm sure other URMs with even better stats).
[/quote]
J'adoube, sorry to hear your S. Did he follow up with MIT after EA deffered? If not. Then is it possible the adcom might assume he has had other options?</p>
<p>I kind agree what JHS said to certain degree.</p>
<p>On the other hand, I think it is MIT's best interest to admitt certain percentage of low stats students (so they have to rurn away some of looks overly qualified one) so that get the words out you don't have to be in really high stats to be addmitted to MIT. More applicants drive the acceptance rate % down.</p>
<p>ETA,
btw, I actually not even talk about my 17 year old. I'm talk about ones who posted here.</p>
<p>For the record, I listed no math/science ECs on my application- I did science olympiad and math team, but they were both pretty laid back and I didn't even mention them anywhere.</p>
<p>The only four I listed were debate, lacrosse, cross country, and quiz bowl. So a lack of science or mathy ECs doesn't hurt as much as people here tend to think, either.</p>
<p>thanks CountingDown:
yeah I talked about how our mentors teach us stuff and i get to pass it down to younger generation so they learn the joy of making things; also how our retired math department head was always saying that everyone can do math! just give them the opportunity.
I worked very hard and got like $20k in grants (writing grants at same time as college apps ... hehe) for my robotics team, and organized visits to headquarter of companies to ensure our grant. I think my robotics coach wrote about how I take/make opportunities for the robotics team to succeed. When any officer mess something up, I take hours out of my planed "hw" time to make things work out.</p>
<p>I feel bad about getting accepted over my friends :\ Don't get me wrong, I was ecstatic about my decision, but several of my friends were rejected or waitlisted. They worked so much harder than I did (I'm fairly laid back) and had better scores; they seem to believe that the main reason I got in over them was because I'm female. I know their essays weren't very good (I read two peoples' out of three), but neither was mine (although my EC said it demonstrated passion?)...</p>
<p>MIT admissions is really really strange, but I guess it worked in my favor. Just can't help feeling bad about my friends though :(</p>
<p>I am female and was accepted EA. I have worked very, very hard over the past four years and have been very committed to my extracurriculars. I spent a lot of time on the application, and I'm sure that my love for science and the arts was apparent.
I resent the implication that MIT only admitted me because I have an additional X chromosome. MIT accepted me because I'm smart and I work damn hard.
Now shut up about affirmative action.</p>
<p>^^ bananaland: Agreed. Female admits aren't less qualified, and neither females nor males should argue that they are. I know boys who applied to MIT not having worked very hard, not having very good grades/stats/involvement in ECs/passion, where the girls I know who are like that would never have even thought of applying to MIT, as they are not interested in a math/science school (probably, those people would be more likely to apply to say, Harvard or Yale as a "what-the-heck-reach"). So, I think overall, MIT just gets fewer "might-as-well-give-it-a-shot" applications from females than males. Probably for that reason, people like molliebatmit and ben jones have stated that the female applicant pool is stronger on the whole than the male applicant pool, generally speaking.</p>
<p>My S was accepted EA, and also got a likely letter from Stanford, dated 2/1. He never reads these blogs...he's too busy DOING what he loves and not obsessing about "stats" and getting in.</p>
<p>I also teach at the HS he attends. By reading these blogs, I realize that most schools are looking for a well-rounded class. That is how things get done. Having 1500 students with the same stats and accomplishments will not move and shake the world. Some great students will get turned away, but there are other schools.</p>
<p>I also know that character matters. Those who are yelling "AA" and complaining are proving that you don't have the character to be team players, and you still don't get it. Best of luck to all you you who did get in. You earned it.</p>
<p>"Having 1500 students with the same stats and accomplishments will not move and shake the world."</p>
<p>MIT is a school for future scientists and engineers, or people with a highly intellectual/scientific bent that later choose to do other things (finance, entrepeneurship). At age 18, people have not yet specialized so it makes sense to select for academic talent and especially for prowess in math and science. It's not that complicated.</p>
<p>If academic promise is to be likened to a vector, it makes the most sense to just take the people with the highest magnitude of talent/work-ethic in math/science/engineering and not worry about the direction of that vector. And there are certain common denominators which highly promising scientific candidates share, among them high test scores and grades and generally some type of success in academic competitions. Diversity of interest will happen naturally.</p>
<p>MIT isn't Harvard; it doesn't make sense to cherry-pick the application pool for rodeo clowns to make a "well-rounded" class.</p>
<p>Why assume my S is a "rodeo clown?" He has stats that match up with the best. But not all of those with perfect stats have perfect character, and teachers/counselors can see that. Some are purely there to "compete" and not contribute.</p>
<p>It seems to me that the admissions officers know what they're doing and can see through arrogance and attitude.</p>
<p>^^Oh, I wasn't talking about your son. I was just disagreeing with your logic. </p>
<p>I know that being a circus clown was the main EC of someone who got into Harvard years ago. If MIT started operating according to the logic of building a well-rounded class, it won't be long until everyone is riding a unicycle through the Infinite Corridor. It seems dangerous. Besides that, I don't like clowns in general. I am anti-clown.</p>
<p>collegealum314, now I have to disagree. There is nothing well-rounded in having a class full of circus clowns. The reason why the clown is so highly sought after is its rarity; if everyone and their dog joins the circus we have tragedy of the commons, aka being a clown is not valuable anymore.</p>
<p>Do you seriously think MIT cares more about my breasts than my brains?
I guess that chalking my accomplishments up to affirmative action is easier than admitting they may be due to strong work ethic, intelligence, and a real passion for learning.
I get so much crap from people like you, at school, on my science teams, etc. Why is the concept of "qualified female" so difficult to grasp?</p>
<p>You've never posted your stats. How am I suppose to know how qualified you are? Yes, I've personally met several qualified females. One of them is a 4x USAMO qualifier, MOPer, Siemens Regional Finalist, Davidson Fellow, RSI qualifier (she actually didn't go since she skipped senior year to go to Princeton, and RSI does not allow this), 1600, 4.0. Maybe you're just as good as her, but judging from the stats posted by rejected males and accepted females, there seems to be a little disparity.</p>
<p>A male friend of mine is a Siemens Regional Finalist, Siemens AP Award recipient, USNCO qualifier, USABO semifinalist, 7 on AIME (missed USAMO by 1 question), 2360, 4.0 UW with 5's on 10 APs...and guess what? He was waitlisted.</p>
<p>Stats:[ul]
[<em>]SAT:2400
[</em>]SAT II:2400
[<em>]GPA:not stellar
[</em>]Rank:4 out of a few hundred.
[<em>]Other Tests (AMC, AP, IB): 5
[/ul]Subjective[ul]
[</em>]Essays: used same for other schools.
[<em>]Teacher Recs: phenomenal, i'd presume.
[</em>]Interview: it was cold, but fun.
[<em>]Hook(recruited athlete, legacy, Nobel Prize): see above? [/ul] Personal[ul]
[</em>]High School Type:Public
[<em>]Ethnicity:Azn
[</em>]Gender:m [/ul] Other[ul]
[<em>]Awards:Siemens/Intel/etc... no finalist.
[</em>]Advice? Commiserations? Feel like bragging?: Don't drink the kool-aid just yet, waitlisters.[/ul]</p>
<p>"A male friend of mine is a Siemens Regional Finalist, Siemens AP Award recipient, USNCO qualifier, USABO semifinalist, 7 on AIME (missed USAMO by 1 question), 2360, 4.0 UW with 5's on 10 APs...and guess what? He was waitlisted."</p>
<p>Students on the waitlist are students MIT would like to have. I just learned tonight of a young man I know who was waitlisted at MIT and disappointed. But I was a bit surprised to learn he'd applied to MIT, because I've always thought of him as a Harvard or Princeton type. I'm sure he'll get in one of those schools, just as I'm sure your friend will also land somewhere he'll be quite happy. </p>
<p>As for the implication that MIT females are underqualified, that is so ridiculous it's laughable. I talk with my freshman daughter every Sunday, and when she called tonight, I could hear several male voices calling for her to "come and help!" Turns out, some of the freshmen guys on her floor needed her to help them with their 8.02 physics psets. Which she's perfectly happy to do, because at MIT, the guys understand that a girl can be a varsity physics player. :-)</p>
<p>I normally don't post on this forum, but I think some of the comments in this thread have been absolutely ridiculous. I perhaps get this sort of thing double, because I'm a URM girl who happens to really like physics and building things. I think it's gross when I meet people and the first thing they notice about me to try to 'explain away' how I do at things is my ethnicity and my gender. Never mind that I'm taking quantum phys or am building a sci oly robot, clearly everything I do must be a result of AA.
So my only comment to the narrow-minded who have expressed their opinion is--please think about what you say, and how it impacts the people around you. I don't think I am the only girl in the AP phys classes at my school because girls are worst at physics, but because not everyone likes dealing with being told repeatedly you're supposed to be inherently worse at something, and that any success you attain must be a part of the system, which is 'rigged' in your favor. I'm not trying to impose my ideas on anyone, I'm just saying--please think twice before you say something of that sort.</p>