<p>how much would being both a legacy and a recruited athelete help in admissions?</p>
<p>Not to the degree that it would at say, U of M or Notre Dame.</p>
<p>Being a legacy doesn't help in MIT admissions at all -- legacy isn't considered as a factor.</p>
<p>And being a recruited athlete is great, but it's definitely not the kind of factor it is at division I schools.</p>
<p>Just out of pure curiosity, what sport were you recruited for?</p>
<p>why does the mit application ask about relatives that have attended the university/work there when they don't consider legacy?</p>
<p>Well, legacies get one more read by the Dean of Admissions before the final decision.</p>
<p>Being a legacy or being recruited won't give you a huge advantage, but I guess it could give you a slight edge. The athletic recruitment should hold more weight than the legacy status though (as mollieb suggested).</p>
<p>
[quote]
why does the mit application ask about relatives that have attended the university/work there when they don't consider legacy?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Legacy apps get an extra read from the Dean. This almost (I say "almost" because different admissions officers like slightly different things, and you never know if the applicant will just happen to fit what the Dean wants perfectly) never affects the decision. The major point of this is so that if the angry parent/relative calls demanding to know why their legacy kid was rejected, the Dean can say "Well, I read it myself, and the decision stands."</p>
<p>I remember from either my CPW or Orientation that they went out of their way to tell us about this...I guess they are afraid that otherwise people will make assumptions about the legacies.</p>