<p>who cares if the class is predominately white/asian? if they are the most qualified that's all that matters. the hell with diversity. it's overrated. and agreed, let's not turn this thread into an AA debate. i have the utmost respect for each and every applicant admitted.</p>
<p>Ummm ok you guys do realize that around 1500 or more were admitted and out of that maybe like 50-70 at most of that 1500 or so posted here. There are more than 1000 other MIT prefrosh so how can you guys make such judgments about MIT based on who posts on CC. Honestly with attitudes like that I'm not surprised at the decisions MIT made...</p>
<p>So why would the admits on CC be LESS high-quality than the average MIT applicant? That is what you are saying, right? If the kids here who got into MIT are a random sampling of the total number admitted, they should be reflective of the overall strength of the admitted pool of students.</p>
<p>
[quote]
There are more than 1000 other MIT prefrosh so how can you guys make such judgments about MIT based on who posts on CC.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>We make those judgments by understanding basic statistics.. which I guess you haven't taken..</p>
<p>
[quote]
Ummm ok you guys do realize that around 1500 or more were admitted and out of that maybe like 50-70 at most of that 1500 or so posted here. There are more than 1000 other MIT prefrosh so how can you guys make such judgments about MIT based on who posts on CC. Honestly with attitudes like that I'm not surprised at the decisions MIT made...
[/quote]
that's easy for you to say since you're a urm who was accepted (don't take that the wrong way; i'm just saying you're just as biased). also since cc is usually the cream of the crop i think it's acceptable to make some judgments based on these results.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So why would the admits on CC be LESS high-quality than the average MIT applicant? That is what you are saying, right? If the kids here who got into MIT are a random sampling of the total number admitted, they should be reflective of the overall strength of the admitted pool of students.
[/quote]
No. I'm saying that people who got in are likely to post on CC, while people who didn't get in are not likely to post unless they feel they had exceptional credentials.</p>
<p>The students at CC are highly unlikely to be a true random sample of admits. And I've taken statistics, in case the question comes up.</p>
<p>
[quote]
No. I'm saying that people who got in are more likely to post on CC,
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, but how does that skew the admit pool? That only distorts the apparent ratio of admits to rejects. </p>
<p>
[quote]
people who didn't get in are not likely to post unless they feel they had exceptional credentials.
[/quote]
Okay, so that would imply that the rejects posting their stats are more qualified than the average reject. But still, some of the applications of the admitted students on this thread fall underneath anything I would expect of an admitted MIT student, judging from what I've seen in past years.</p>
<p>Which ones?</p>
<p>I count 20 admitted student profiles currently on this thread, which is terribly thin information on which to base that thesis. All 20, for the record, strike me as perfectly consistent with my classmates at MIT.</p>
<p>I don't think that the admits on CC are likely to be lower-quality than the average admit, but I think it's a little absurd to be talking in terms of quality of the admit pool when all we have to go on are SAT scores and a few lines of self-reported information.</p>
<p>That is called Type I error Amber, which sad to say, happens. Since there's only 1 or 2 people so far that should've been admitted but didn't, which makes up about 5% of the sample here, give or take a few, that is pretty statistically acceptable. It just means the admission committee made a mistake, doesn't mean the whole system is broken.</p>
<p>@ amb3r </p>
<p>No not necessarily. Honestly lets face it. Not everyone is on CC, so in fact the rest of the class could very well be more talented than people here. The statistics from MIT suggest that of last years class 300 ppl scored between 650-690 in CR and 169 scored between 600-650. It also states that 30 ppl scored 600-650 in math and 139 between 650-690 and i don't remember that many people with such low stats that posted here and said they got accepted and were URM. Honestly I guess i am biased because i have a URM status, but what makes you more qualified then me (not literally) but what are you guys basing this on? Score? Awards?</p>
<p>Accepted</p>
<p>Stats:[ul]
[<em>]SAT: 2250 (800M, 730W, 720R)
[</em>]SAT II: 800 Math 2, 730 Chem, 700 Lit, 730 Span(R), 580 Span(W)
[<em>]ACT: 35 (34M, 35R, 35E, 36S)
[</em>]GPA: 4.0 Unweighted
[<em>]Rank: 1/206
[</em>]Other Tests (AMC, AP, IB): 5 on AP Calc AB, Comp Sci A, and Psych; 4 on AP US Gov and Chem
[/ul]Subjective[ul]
[<em>]Essays: I thought it was all right
[</em>]Teacher Recs: One good, one unread
[<em>]Counselor Rec: Didn't get to read it
[</em>]Supplementary Material: None
[<em>]Interview: None
[</em>]Hook(recruited athlete, legacy, Nobel Prize): See Personal Information[/ul]
Personal[ul]
[<em>]Location: Wyoming
[</em>]High School Type: Public
[<em>]Ethnicity: Hispanic
[</em>]Gender: Female[/ul]
Other[ul]
[<em>]Extracurriculars: Swimming, Academic Challenge (Captain, All-State), Student Council (Pres), Orchestra (All-State), Link Crew, Choir
[</em>]Awards: AP Scholar with Distinction, National Merit
[*]Advice? Commiserations? Feel like bragging?: Didn't expect it at all. Probably due to a locational hook more than anything.[/ul]</p>
<p>^^^ In general, URM+female 'hooks' combined are much stronger than a Wyoming locational hook for MIT.</p>
<p>Yea but what you guys are saying is that these "hooked" applicants take the place of caucasian/asian male who are more qualified then them. Look at the prefrosh above your post as a perfect example. What about her makes her less qualified than those males who got rejected?</p>
<p>lmao @ stupidkid saying he dumps MIT</p>
<p>and holy **** bballdude & hoplessly devout?!</p>
<p>i love how MIT would rather admit a URM with mediocre scores than a USAMO x2 qualifier</p>
<p>
[quote]
What about her makes her less qualified than those males who got rejected?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Nothing really, in her case. I mean, hopelesslydevote's application is stronger.. but then again I bet his application's stronger than 50% of the admit pool at MIT (minority or not), and I see him as an isolated, special case. Like, 95% of the applicants with his stats would have made it in...</p>
<p>lol so far MIT has rejected, out of the 25~ ppl who posted, IMO medaler x2 and a USAMO x2</p>
<p>Congrats to everyone! Wish me luck next year!</p>
<p>I get what you guys are saying....i really do. But what I'm saying is that i don't think its fair just too assume that the awards or tests (FBLA, AIME, or AMCs) is enough to say that they should have gotten in. But we all have our opinions i guess. Maybe they already admitted enough "math-allstars" with the same awards or even better ones and they didn't need any more. But at the end of the day i agree with you on one thing. hopelesslydevote's application was amazing and no doubt he'll get in somewhere great and do good things there. Congrats to everyone that got in again, and good-luck to everyone else. I know people say rejection from MIT isn't the end of the world; we'll I'll say it again. It's not. I'm sorry you guys feel the way you do but at the end of the day it'll all work out :-D</p>
<p>A few points:</p>
<h1>1) There is no evidence that AA is more extreme at MIT than other elite schools (other than Caltech, which doesn't practice it at all.) In fact, I think it is the opposite. MIT is pretty brutal academically, and an unqualified applicant could actually fail out. So the bar has to be higher for "hooked" applicants at MIT than the ivies or Stanford.</h1>
<h1>2) I wouldn't advise trying to make a political statement by turning down a school.</h1>
<h1>3) I don't know the breakdown for akybaky's SAT's (could have been an abysmal writing score for all we know, and no one cares about the writing SAT.) However, he did get a 34 ACT and had 3.93/4.00 unweighted (top 1%). Also, he got 5's on his math/science AP's. If you take both the SAT and ACT, I think MIT only looks at your best score. He is an all-american in soccer, too, although it's not clear what that means in MIT admissions. (At anywhere else, though, he would be automatic with far worse stats.) Anyway, his overall record is quite impressive.</h1>
<p>In regards to akybaky's post, qualilfying for USAMO is an amazing feat. High ability in math correlates well with high aptitude in science and engineering, so saying MIT had enough math all-stars really isn't a good argument.</p>
<p>ehh yeah i guess i went overboard with that. But my point was that maybe the rest of his application was lacking despite all of his awards. but anyway i guess we both just have diff views on the situation and like i said i do get where you guys are coming from.</p>