If an international applicant has applied in the previous year to MIT and other colleges, was rejected from MIT and accepted by other top Engineering colleges (e.g. Caltech, Berkeley etc.); but after considering deeply, that MIT is still his/her top choice school in the field he/she wishes to pursue and rejects those colleges to apply for MIT again, would it help him/her if he/she were to mention and explain this in your application and interview? [On a side note, is it an overkill to do so? But MIT is great :) ]
I understand that there have been many questions in this forum on the issue of international admits needing international olympiad medals. As explained by @MITChris and @Mikalye (thank you guys), there are people who get admitted without medals too, in fact, almost half do. In the case where an international applicant doesn't have a medal, would it be necessary/ helpful to explain why he/she, while crazily obsessed, intrigued and passionate about engineering, decided to pursue other extracurriculars outside of the high school setting by his/her own initiative instead of the typical olympiads/ science fairs?
Should an ongoing initiative/ competition by the applicant be described in their application if related to the field he/she is writing about or should the applicant stick to only events which have occurred? (e.g. If you are in the semi finals of a sports competition currently, should you talk about your journey thus far and how you wish to move on from here, or leave it out entirely?)
How would a conflict of ideas (e.g. A wannabe Mathematics academic researcher who is looking to do a PHD at MIT vs. currently pursuing web start-up with funding in his home country) work against/for the international applicant?
Would a current (and future - after MIT studies) military man in another country be viewed negatively by the admissions officers based on the limited field (military) and area (country of residence) he can have an impact in?
In the realm of maths, science and research, there's probably a structure to determine who's excellent (i.e. International Olympiads, ISEF). But in the start up/ product development/ product management world, there doesn't seem to be an equal gauge. Would developing a product with a top-notch professor in the field, validating the idea and product with customers in your community and getting funded be regarded as highly in the eyes of the admissions officers? (As mentioned by Bill Aulet from MIT's Martin Trust Centre of Entrepreneurship, customer inclination to purchase is one of the best validation one can get for an early stage start-up) If not, what would if the applicant's interests lie in product development?
Would a recommendation from a tutor you have worked with on high school subjects, but isn't a tutor from your high school (i.e. you sought more help elsewhere to better hone your grasp of the subject), be detriment to your application?
It also isn’t a good idea to use your real name (just in case your screen name is your name, which it looks like it may be).
And yes, I am talking about #1. Anyone dumb enough to turn down Caltech to hold out for MIT in a second attempt doesn’t seem worthy of either school. A smiley face doesn’t cut it. That is lunacy. I surely wouldn’t admit to anyone if I had done something that silly.
@intparent and @jpm50 I am not sure why you would think its lunacy and dumb, but one could have done #1 for carefully thought out reasons that justify why an education at MIT would be better than Caltech in the field which he/she intends to pursue.
@bodangles I did apply before. I won’t make excuses, but please do tell me why it sounds silly? I would honestly like to know if the MIT admissions officers do in fact wish to know why a student did not pursue olympiad competitions or science fairs even though his/her school offers it even though he/she is interested in engineering.
I probably should add that all the scenarios presented, while not said explicitly, can be safely assumed to be the truth or as close to be the truth in an applicant’s context.
@GMTplus7 Thank you for your comment. I definitely am not. Perhaps if you would understand where I am coming from, you would understand it better. I did not purposely wait for one year just to apply to MIT. In fact, it was already in my plans to defer my admission by a year, even before I got into any school. So instead of deferring, I chose to re-apply the next year.
@intparent I really have no idea why you would wish to continually flame me. While I can’t claim to be the absolute best at them, I don’t have an issue with statistics or analytics. I would like to take the standpoint of greater match for the college instead of pure numbers of how tough the school is to be the gauge for my college.
Anyway, there are definitely other issues to be discussed other than why I chose to apply to MIT instead of Caltech.
@JonathanTan As a current MIT student, passing up offers Berkeley or Caltech to spend another year to apply for MIT again is a poor choice and I would probably also consider it lunacy.
@miter94 I do respect your views. Thank you for them. As I mention above, the additional year was pre-planned. I believe you do know there are certain differences between those two colleges and MIT. And I do find them limiting in the field which I wish to pursue, which is what supports my choice to apply and hopefully attend MIT.
As a current MIT student who probably knows more about MIT and has been through the MIT admissions, could you kindly help me with the other points too?
@JonathanTan If you pre-planned a “gap” year, then why apply to Caltech and Berkeley this year in the first place? I’m a little confused.
Caltech, perhaps, since it’s much smaller. But UC Berkeley is large enough. Even if you apply to MIT again, there’s a high probability you won’t be accepted simply because it is very competitive internationally.
@miter94 Thank you for your attempt to understand. I was planning to defer my studies for a year to take the gap year, which was why I applied last year. MIT is definitely the top college I wish to attend. While I applied to Caltech because of its great engineering programme, it wasn’t one of my top top choices because of my interest in designing products which isn’t an area Caltech places a huge focus on. While Berkeley does have diversity, comparatively, as a match, I would say MIT with its focus on and excellence in Product Development, Innovation, Collaborative Work and Start-Ups would be a better fit for me which is why I have made the calculated decision to re-apply.
I do understand that the chances aren’t very high. But I have since made the decision (well, a couple of months back). While seemingly unconventional, and I’m not entirely sure if this is risk-taking reflected positively or negatively, I think I have learnt from the acceptance of failure and the experience this past year, to reposition myself with a greater focus and determination in this admissions cycle.
The complete story is the most important thing. Don’t worry about medals, olympiads, etc. Can you get your complete story through to the admissions committee within the limitations of the application? Ben Gulak certainly was able to leverage his entrepreneurship into admissions and after-graduation success. It can be done.
However, your thought process seems to me to be a bit uncritical; as if you are off alone without guidance, which leads to “drinking your own Kool-Aid”. If you want a PhD from MIT, I would wager that another choice of school (yes, even CalTech!) has sufficient depth and specialization while completing undergraduate requirements to give you a stellar UNDERGRADUATE education. Often, institutions prefer changing schools for graduate degrees to avoid inbred cultures.
You may wish to re-apply broadly and seek out counsel on your educational path/arc.
Regarding one of the other questions, no, you do not want your tutor to write your letter of recommendation. Your tutor is your paid employee and a letter from him or her would not be considered objective.
@jpm50 I love that you are helping and making me think. Really appreciate your effort.
Simply, #5 and #6 forms a huge core of what I have done. Working with the top management in my immediate military unit and discussing and proposing ideas with the top rungs in the military organization; working on my start-up, got academics and engineers on board to develop and build the product while corroborating and proposing solutions to customers. Also took up courses on Edx and in my country, especially with a focus on entrepreneurship, innovation, product management, what makes a great company great, financial statements etc.
I can’t comment on how impressive you think I am or whether what I have done this year is enough for admission but I have definitely grown throughout this year and I’m happy I did. My passions and directions are clearer, I have done things I like and have found things I would want to continue to do in the future.
And… If you are targeting a specific school, why are you not doing every possible thing to involve professors there in your ongoing work? Make an appointment and brief them on Skype, see if you can collaborate with them- somehow develop a plan wherein they are involved in your daily life so that when you transition to that single, and only acceptable, school, you will continue to push your project forward working, now locally, with your collaborators.
If they are the best, why not collaborate with them? If they are not, why go to their school? If there is a logical reason for you to be at a school (to continue/deepen existing relationships), and you are working in a peer relationship with members of the community already, why would they not seriously consider asking you to join them?
If you are getting traction in your country, your project may be of sufficient interest to involve some professors at your target school. Just saying…
