<p>MIT has a great, world renowned student body for a reason. They know how to pick students.</p>
<p>
But how does this imply that the best candidates are not being admitted? It’s not controversial, I think, to point out that members of underrepresented groups applying to top colleges tend to be phenomenally self-selected. At least as of a few years ago, Caltech’s female acceptance rate was ~2x as high as the male acceptance rate, and nobody accuses Caltech of practicing secret gender-based affirmative action.</p>
<p>
This is generally not worth addressing, but if you knew anything at all about MIT culture, you would be aware that MIT students as a whole are not only strongly authority-resistant, but that the MIT administration is generally seen as a malevolent force and treated as an enemy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Respectfully - there is a difference between criticizing those who voice their opinion, and criticizing specific allegations / descriptions / demeaning statements which are wrong and/or mean and certainly unjustified. </p>
<p>I don’t expect anyone who was not admitted to be happy. And I don’t have a problem with anyone saying so. </p>
<p>What I do have a problem with is people mischaracterizing the process or demeaning admitted students because they are unhappy with their own decision. That’s not a culture of silence. That’s a culture of Not Being A Jerk For No Good Reason, and a culture I’m proud that both the majority of MIT and the majority of MITCC share.</p>
<p>@phuriku, Yes, but the female applicant pool is more selective - considering (let’s face it) that more guys are in math/science fields than girls…Fewer girls apply, but when they do, they’re applying to a tech school because they are heavily interested in the math/sciences</p>
<p>Uh oh people are being shut out of their ridiculous opinions on an internet forum. Somebody call the police!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I never said that it was true. No one ever said that it was true. I’m just saying that after a certain point, and considering all other variables, a 2400 doesn’t really mean much more than a 2100.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That happens at other schools too, you know. It’s just less publicized than at MIT because MIT is such a well-known institution with a reputation for challenge.
But you can’t predict everything. You can gain an awful lot of knowledge about a person from their essays and what have you, but there aren’t necessarily a whole lot of markers that tell you whether or not someone is prone to suicide. Nothing ever goes perfectly. This is no different, but a few exceptions are no reason to fault the entire system.</p>
<p>And I must admit I’m still kind of wondering why you all applied in the first place if you don’t agree with their philosophy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Proof? … Yeah I didn’t think so</p>
<p>Why would you want to apply to that kind of school anyways?</p>
<p>And really, who cares if MIT is not doing the best to select top applicants. If that’s so, it’s MIT that’s missing out. If you have the capability, you don’t need MIT to be successful. You don’t even need college.</p>
<p>Man, stop complaining. If you said you wouldn’t have gone to MIT anyway, why make this post? You have a likely to Yale (my dream, where I got deferred) but you’re insisting on parading around to make everyone feel bad for getting in.
I have many friends who were rejected and did the MITES program. None of them are bitter about it and we spent a solid 6 weeks at MIT. What have you done that makes you a shoe-in?
Maybe my stats aren’t amazing. Maybe I wasn’t USAMO or whatever that is. But you know what? I have heart. I had to overcome losing a father and uncle at early ages. I had to overcome my school, which has a mean SAT score of 1200 M/CR/W and is crawling with drug users, gangs, and other bad influences. I had to fight tooth and nail to get to where I am. For you to say that I shouldn’t be admitted because of my scores and involvement is insulting.
You don’t know what people have gone through in their lives. MIT may take scores and all that jazz into consideration, but what matters most is heart and the ability to thrive. If anything, you’re only showing that you truly lack these qualities.
Take your losses as lessons and don’t use your victories as excuses to say your losses were unfair. People would kill to be in your position.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ll let you say it yourself:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ve been following this thread all evening and just wanted to offer my opinion. I work with admissions for another high-level college and while I realize we obviously don’t have your entire application in front of us, would like to share what I see as your weaknesses. </p>
<p>Obviously your numbers are great. Astonishing and all. You know that. But based just on your first post, I think you’re attaching way too much weight to those numbers. The phrase we use is “well-rounded candidate”. Now obviously MIT has a different focus but I see nothing in your stats that shows me that you do anything else besides numbers. No sports, no volunteering (besides donating money that you raised in a single-person activity), no leadership, no indication that you can “play well with others”. </p>
<p>Which I think you’ve proven through your remaining posts on this thread.</p>
<p>That’s my point. MIT is missing out and it doesn’t even know it is. </p>
<p>Ever wonder why all our presidents went to Harvard, Yale, etc? Its because MIT scouts for nerds. I probably didn’t come across as some geeky kid would enjoyed science for the ‘love of it.’ All the MIT kids I’ve met/known were either autistic or borderline - no social skills whatsoever. I probably came across as a ‘normal’ kid who just happened to be really good at math/science. Whatever. I guess thats what the ivy league is for.</p>
<p>Hahaha, this thread is laughable. First of all, a likely letter at any one college is not an absolute indicator of college acceptances elsewhere.
Secondly, your argument is based on the silly myth that standardized tests are the best indicator of college acceptance (in fact, I bet some people with high SAT scores probably neglected the important stuff in life just to cram for a single test) .
Thirdly, your sample size is too small to even determine anything.</p>
<p>And why are you targeting MIT? They are trying to build a diverse class size, just like Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Stanford. So you weren’t fit for the class they wanted to build - sorry, but suck it up</p>
<p>
…let’s not forget, in our collective orgy of asking for Evidence and The Truth, that we don’t have any evidence that anyone on this thread who claims to have participated in USAMO has, in fact, done so, either.</p>
<p>From the looks of this thread, you probably came off as a narcissist. Just saying . </p>
<p>And wow, way not to sperg by calculating the entirety of the MIT results thread. Pot calling the kettle black, aspie?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They think I wasn’t fit for the class they wanted to build.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>ROFL… if only you knew</p>
<p>@Mollie - not to derail the thread, but I’ve definitely heard that for Caltech - that being a female is the only kind of “affirmative action” they do practice. I hadn’t heard anything like that at all for MIT in the last couple years but seems like I’d read it several times over on the Caltech forums. Not saying whether or not it’s true - just that I’ve definitely heard people complain about it!</p>
<p>But I do fully agree that there is a self-selecting application process to either school for females.</p>
<p>My understanding was that Caltech worked to recruit admitted women to attend Caltech, but not that women were preferentially admitted.</p>
<p>There is also a self-selecting process for males. If anything I would argue that the quality of female applicant is lower since they know they are receiving a boost in admissions.</p>