<p>Mollie - That’s what I’d heard for “recruited” athletes and minorities at Caltech, but that actual acceptances were higher for females (ie it was actually easier to get in).</p>
<p>My point was simply that people are complaining about everything on every forum! ;)</p>
<p>“Regardless of one’s background, if an applicant maximizes the opportunities that are available to them, they should be a viable candidate for admission to a highly selective college or university because they are likely to both take advantage of the myriad opportunities that exist in those settings and have a positive impact on the campus community.” from Putting Diversity into Context. </p>
<p>I don’t understand how an admissions person can accurately determine “if an applicant maximizes their opportunities”. How can they know what opportunities every one of thousands of students has and how well they took advantage of them? That’s a ridiculous statement! Also considering the fact that I chose to take advantage of some of my options over others because I would rather be doing that chosen activity and did not take advantage of other opportunities will this make me a lesser candidate? The system is flawed greatly, that is the worst tragedy. The best applicants may not be accepted because an application cannot accurately portray life or the entirety of a human being. Entrance into a great school will not be because you are the best person to be at the school but because you are the best application for that school. Being rejected does not mean you are any less deserving, just unlucky in my opinion. I am looking forward to decisions, but I know that there is so much out of my control and I did the best I could with what I was given, though this does not mean I will get in where I want to.</p>
<p><em>puts on ridiculously thick-rimmed glasses</em></p>
<p>NERD RAGEEEEEEEEEEEEEE in this thread</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wow. You’ve obviously never cared about MIT enough to actually take a visit or meet some of the people there. I know many students there who are, in your words, “‘normal’ kids” - smart, science-loving, and still sociable. MIT scouts for nerds, but only those with character.</p>
<p>But honestly, this thread is getting a little out of hand, and there’s no point in arguing a lost cause. I don’t even see why lyxdeslic even cares about this anymore, seeing as he claims MIT wasn’t even his top choice (oh hey, maybe MIT realized that and decided you wouldn’t be a good fit for their community).</p>
<p>Let me guess you drink and do weed every once in a while so you must be super-cool.</p>
<p>btw Princeton hasn’t produced an eminent political figure since Woody Wilson, so clearly there must be something wrong with that school. Nevermind that Yale’s most recently produced president clearly only got in because of connections. He was pretty damn social though.</p>
<p>Even more laughable - you go off on a tirade about how MIT is full of nerds and how the Ivy Leagues build leaders yet your only stats from the result thread show that you’re only strengths are math, test scores, and course-load. Stop being so delusional - in all reality, you probably were not what MIT wanted.</p>
<p>And also, let me guess, you’re parents probably programmed you to think that USAMO would get you into MIT? Surely, admissions at Ivy Leagues would be crazy to reject several IMO medalists over the years. </p>
<p>(And for argument’s sake, since you will probably try to bring up the Ivy Leagues and similar schools against me, I received likelies from Stanford, Columbia, and Yale as well)</p>
<p>@PAGRok</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s our job to make that determination.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What I also have a problem is with people stating their opinions on the proces, presenting a view that may not be ‘officially endorsed’ then being accused of “Being a Jerk” by MITChris et all. Despite what MITChris says to the majority of MIT students not bowing down to authority, the voice of those against affirmative action just isn’t represented on campus, and obviously all of the administration will officially support their own policies (their are no internal dissenters). Thus when you have MITChris and Mollie both on the same board you distort the discourse, especially when they get the status of “official moderators”.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Bush is proof there are normal people at Yale.</p>
<p>Proof for MIT? Yeah I can’t find any</p>
<p>The valedictorian at my school got in with a 1970/2040(superstore) SAT but she damn well deserves it. Yeah her 670/620 subjects test scores aren’t impressive but she’s just not the best standardized test taker. Instead of being jealous, or mad, learn to be happy for others you self absorbed prick.</p>
<p>lol the MIT rep believes in meritocracy- that’s the biggest bunch of BS i’ve ever heard in my life. perhaps that lady that cheated her way to the top of the MIT admissions office rubbed off on the rest of you guys. you still practice the social engineering experiment called affirmative action, which is not based on merit but rather on skin color.</p>
<p>Unlike Caltech, MIT is very opaque about its admissions process and will use lots of sugarcoating to hide their processes in what they do for affirmative action. Form your own opinions, there are many ways of looking at the same issues. Also, we shouldn’t just hate on everyone who says something that contradicts the official opinion.</p>
<p>Molliebatmit and mitchris should get married.</p>
<p>Are you guys serious? Man you kids are some sore losers. Get over yourselves and congratulate those that did get in. They seem pretty normal and probably more deserving than you. Sorry for double post.</p>
<p>@MITChris that is very true, but I believe it must be difficult or innaccurate to an extent, and that is what is scary to me. I know there is likely no way to change that fact, but I wish there was, and I’m sure so do many. I thank you for your response, and am sorry about the outrage from other posters. I really hope I am not like this if I get rejected from some of my schools.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Everyone here complaining about the OP’s bad stats should post some solid MIT stats on admissions, SAT score, demographics, and correlation. Some schools, Harvard, are under investigation for precisely this reason of holistic admissions distorting meritocracy too far: </p>
<p>[Harvard</a> Targeted in U.S. Asian-American Discrimination Probe - Bloomberg](<a href=“Bloomberg - Are you a robot?”>Bloomberg - Are you a robot?)</p>
<p>And by the way, most people HAVE given a definition, or have a definition inside, for meritocracy: Taking out factors like race and gender and considering everything else: Activities, passion, test scores, grades, award, etc.</p>
<p>Instead of telling the OP to shut up about whining, think about the underlying issues. Change starts from one person at a time.</p>
<p>While I respectfully don’t agree completely with MIT’s admissions process (such as giving more weight to individual circumstance than need be) and that they may lose a few smart cookies each year that way, I think lyxdelic is being a total jerk right here. That being said, I don’t think he would necessarily been a bad fit for MIT or anywhere he applied. For all we know, he may have better character than some of the acceptees.</p>
<p>Let me just be clear: I am a moderator on this website, but am not affiliated with the admissions office beyond being an alum and a former blogger. I support affirmative action not because it is MIT’s policy, but because I believe it is fair. I have a lot of other lefty commie pinko political philosophies, too, but I don’t generally talk about them on this board. My opinions are my own, and are not related in any way to MIT or to the admissions office.</p>
<p>I feel that everyone should be free to voice his or her own opinion, regardless of its agreement with my own opinion (there I go again with those liberal ideas), and you will hopefully notice that I have not edited or deleted any posts in this thread, despite the fact that some do not follow CC’s rules for posting, and despite the fact that I have evidence that some posters on this thread have multiple user IDs (also against CC’s TOS). However, anyone who voices his or her own opinion should be prepared to defend that opinion in the face of vigorous disagreement – being able to voice an opinion doesn’t mean that no one can criticize it.</p>
<p>Let me further be clear that Chris is not a moderator on this website, and the “college rep” status is there to indicate that he is a bona fide admissions officer at MIT who has been vetted by Roger, our site owner.</p>
<p>Incidentally, there has been some discussion of affirmative action recently in the MIT community, starting with Brandon Briscoe '12’s column in The Tech ([here[/url</a>], and continued in the comment section. My [url=<a href=“http://tech.mit.edu/V132/N6/faber.html]favorite”>http://tech.mit.edu/V132/N6/faber.html]favorite</a> response](<a href=“http://tech.mit.edu/V132/N4/briscoe.html]here[/url”>http://tech.mit.edu/V132/N4/briscoe.html) was written by Jacob Faber and Pius Uzamere (both, IIRC, '04), who were UA president and VP when I was a sophomore.</p>
<p>
Chris is great and all, but I’m already married. And he’s too young for me, anyway.</p>
<p>The thread got too heated and had run its course. Closed.</p>