<p>I do believe that Mollie's point is an important one. Being qualified or even highly qualified is no longer enough. In the end, the selection committee will need to pick a certain percentage of applicants from each region, and where the line falls may sometimes appear arbitrary. In taht sense, it is very similar to grant applications. The NIH only has so much money and only a small percentage among the qualified applications will be approved. What makes your application being selected over another one may very much depend on how strong a case you are making.</p>
<p>While Mollie would certainly be able to comment on this better, from my meetings with admissions officers I understand that MIT generally takes a two pass process through its applications. </p>
<p>First, the reviewer looks at academic qualifications to make sure the applicant can make it through MIT's rigorous curriculum. With no easy majors, MIT can't afford to admits students who will fail advanced math or physics classes. This will weed out a certain number of applicants. The students that pass this phase get some form of academic score. A few with major academic awards get superscored.</p>
<p>Then MIT will seek out what makes the student a fit for the Institute. This is where a lot of people get confused and make claims or arbitrariness. While the process is holistic, it is far from arbitrary. Many admissions officers at MIT claim that they recognize a good fit when they see it and that there is very little disagreement between reviewers. Some form of score is then assigned for fit. </p>
<p>MIT knows what it wants in its candidates and it certainly broadcasts that message loud and clear through its president speeches, faculty, web site and school visits. It makes it a strong point that demonstrated creative ability is a highly valued characteristic for admission. At Harvard, the emphasis is more on leadership and the difference is substantial. At Chicago, it may be more intellectual curiosity and drive for learning. At Caltech, it may be more identifying students who will eventually pursue PhDs in the sciences. While some candidates may be a fit for multiple elite colleges, the parameters are distinctly different. </p>
<p>In the end, MIT, because of what it represents, likes to admit students at the extreme of academic and creative talent. Gold medalists in math competitions and winners at science fairs are heavily recruited. So are "extreme" innovators, students who may have actually created a device, filed for a patent, published an interesting paper, started a business. These students will both thrive at MIT AND will bring something unique to the Institute that furthers its mission. A student with a very high academic score, even an academic star but without evidence of creative skills, will be considered less of a fit than a student with a slightly lower academic score but clear demonstrated creative skills. </p>
<p>Some people argue that fit, or in MIT's case, creative talent cannot be detected in 17 or 18 year olds. I disagree. When I meet students at local high schools, I can easily recognize the students that would be a good match for MIT, and it is often not the valedictorians. If they are also academically qualified, they have a better chance of admission that other students, possibly higher ranked but who have no demonstrated innovative capacity. If they are not creative at 17, I doubt they will suddenly develop that capacity later in life. Some things you do not teach and are more part of your personality. There is a palpable difference between the MIT student body and that at virtually every other school. A few other schools may have as many academically talented students. None come close to having as many students interested in creating something new, whether in engineering or science.</p>