<p>It’s been over twelve hours, and I still can’t believe I was accepted.</p>
<p>Dear MITChris,
do you have some information on a number of students applied and admitted from Central Asia?
Thank you in advance.</p>
<p>@pigs<em>at</em>sea CONGRATULATIONS! Enjoy and celebrate :)</p>
<p>@MITChris any news about the wait list? Any idea if MIT will take people off the wait list? My D was WL and MIT is her first choice 
She feels blessed though that she did not get rejected. She still has hopes. Any information is very much appreciated. Thank you in advance.</p>
<p>^MIT plans to takes people off the waitlist. They wouldn’t have one otherwise. Yield rates, however, mean that can’t always happen, but no one knows at this point.</p>
<p>Check out this discussion: [MIT</a> Admissions | Blog Entry: “Open Forum for Waitlisted Students”](<a href=“http://www.mitadmissions.org/topics/apply/the_selection_process_application_reading_committee_and_decisions/open_forum_for_waitlisted_stud_1.shtml]MIT”>http://www.mitadmissions.org/topics/apply/the_selection_process_application_reading_committee_and_decisions/open_forum_for_waitlisted_stud_1.shtml)</p>
<p>And this blog: [MIT</a> Admissions | Blog Entry: “Waitlist post”](<a href=“http://www.mitadmissions.org/topics/apply/the_selection_process_application_reading_committee_and_decisions/waitlist_post.shtml]MIT”>http://www.mitadmissions.org/topics/apply/the_selection_process_application_reading_committee_and_decisions/waitlist_post.shtml)</p>
<p>
MIT makes a difference.</p>
<p>I’m not sure about numbers for Central Asia as a region or what our projected yield rates will be. Sorry!</p>
<p>MITChris, thank you for the digest on MIT admissions this year. Your frankness and clarity of response is a breath of fresh air.</p>
<p>What do you suggest people on waitlist do if MIT is still their first choice? Will AA or racial balance still be observed when it comes to picking the waitlisted?</p>
<p>I found this contention by Chris to be interesting:</p>
<p>" The class of 2014 is 36% Caucasian, 30% Asian, 14% Hispanic, 9% African-American, a few percentage points for assorted “other”. All in all, it’s about 75% “over-represented” and 25% “under-represented.” "</p>
<p>At 36% of the acceptances, “caucasians” are underrepresented not “overrepresented.” And that is no doubt true regardless of whether over/under representation is measured against the total US population [where nonhispanic whites are 65% of the total] or the MIT applicant pool which I am guessing is fairly close to that.</p>
<p>At 30% of acceptances, Asians are “overrepresented” with regard to the general population but perhaps equally represented when measured against the applicant pool.</p>
<p>At 14 % of acceptances, hispanics are equally represented with regard to the general population but are likely over represented in terms of applications to mit.</p>
<p>And ar 9% blacks are underrepresented in terms of the general population but likely overrepresented in terms of applications taken to mit.</p>
<p>Conclusion: </p>
<p>Folks need to drop these claims about what groups are over represented and what groups are underrepresented because the terms are clearly being tortured beyond recognition. </p>
<p>Better yet, just eliminate these “issues” as admission factors. Isn’t that what everyone wants? to stand or fall on their own merits?</p>
<p>I truly appreciate MITChris for providing some statistical number and help us to understand. It was very difficult job for them to reject so many outstanding students. </p>
<p>I guess MIT does not have enough room to accept all qualified students.</p>
<p>However, it is very funny for MITChris to say that women and URMs who apply to MIT tend to be self-selecting - they tend to really, really want to come here, which makes them stronger applicants overall. Yes, they tend to really want to go MIT, so do all other applicants including whites and Asians.</p>
<p>Self-selecting means that the female applicant pool is, as a whole, more competitive than the male pool. Statistically, a larger percent of females are selected from their gender group than males. That does not mean that it’s easier to get into MIT as a female.</p>
<p>30% Asian and 36% Caucasian?</p>
<p>Damn. (in a good way)</p>
<p>I don’t believe that claim until they provide data to support it.</p>
<p>cgarcia: “Self-selecting means that the female applicant pool is, as a whole, more competitive than the male pool. Statistically, a larger percent of females are selected from their gender group than males. That does not mean that it’s easier to get into MIT as a female.”</p>
<p>Designing US stamps has got to be one of the best ECs I have ever heard.</p>
<p>How cool is it to enclose a few stamps with your application (better yet, stamp your own recommendation letter package) WITH THE SAME STAMPS THAT YOU DESIGNED?</p>
<p>I think I want to be an admission officer in the future : )</p>
<p>
Chris mentioned in another thread (too many in the past day for me to remember which, sorry) that Asians make up a greater percentage of accepted students than applicants, so they are overrepresented when measured against the applicant pool.</p>
<p>@oasis - </p>
<p>It’s a difficult, heartbreaking, exhausting, and awesome job :)</p>
<p>I didn’t apply to MIT, but I was wondering… you say that the % of acceptance is greater than the % of applications for asians… how about for all the other races? </p>
<p>and how are females more self-selecting? Isn’t it true to some degree that females have it a little easier than males in getting into engineering schools?</p>
<p>Any insights as to why an increased yield is expected?</p>
<p>MITChris, </p>
<p>Do you work for the MIT admissions office? </p>
<p>Just curious.</p>
<p>Chris is an admissions officer – he’s in the process of getting the “college rep” designation from our site owner Roger. (I’ll bug Roger about that again, Chris…)</p>
<p>this is just the info I wanted, thanks!</p>