<p>I'm not going to express a sentiment towards either side of the argument, but it's clear to anyone that the MIT Admissions process causes more controversy than that of any other school over here on CC, even before the whole Marilee "resignation." I mean, there has to be something to it since it's really the only school that has this reputation on college confidential.</p>
<p>So, what is it about MIT Admissions that's responsible for all this?</p>
<p>Oh, and I think everyone should keep in mind that, regardless of your feelings towards its admissions committee, MIT is an incredible institution on the whole, and your sentiments towards the adcomm shouldn't negate that notion.</p>
<p>This is the same idea that I've been trying to communicate, but a lot of the more "zealous" posters on this forum keeps on ignoring this fact.</p>
<p>In reality, really, the Ivy admission committees and those of super-selective colleges are all the same. I have posted this question before and I will post it again, how is the MIT admission process "flawed" when Harvard and Yale practices the same procedure of keeping a couple hundred on their waitlists and not notifying them until late May/early June? I understand that Harvard still hasn't finished notifying all of its waitlisted applicants - why is MIT getting all the crap for the waitlist issue then?</p>
<p>My posts may seem biased because I've chosen to matriculate at MIT, but I did notice a significant negative bias in the MIT forum at CC. I've always wondered why Harvard and Yale doesn't get the same kind of posts I see here when their admission committees are not more fundamentally different from MIT's and I would even say, more confusing and secretive. Perhaps the prestige factor and the aura of those superpower schools prevents posters from being completely honest.</p>
<p>And s snack, I whole-heartedly agree with your last paragraph.</p>
<p>Well, I agree that MIT's admissions isn't THAT different than most elite schools in most regards, however, where MIT differs is that the adcomm claims to be "fairer, more open and transparent" than that at any other school.
So when we see brilliant kids rejected from other elite schools, and much less qualified kids getting in, we're all just like "hey, it's a crapshoot." But when it happens at MIT, all hell breaks loose, since we all expect MIT to be fair, when they really are no fairer than any other school.</p>
<p>"Fair" is such a subjective word - perhaps someone would like to define "fair"?</p>
<p>
[quote]
MIT differs is that the adcomm claims to be "fairer, more open and transparent" than that at any other school.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't want to spark another debate, but out of the 15 colleges I applied to this year, this is true. Please consider Stanford, Caltech, Harvard and Yale's admission processes, just to give an example.</p>
<p>I'm not implying that - though I do agree with the point that it's more transparent than Stanford or Caltech's. "Fairer" is too subjective for a definite answer.</p>
<p>Well, if we define "fairer" as being more academically meritocratic, MIT's troubles arise.
The problem is that, unlike other elite schools, MIT doesn't have the elitist, preppy, incestuous reputation that the Ivies are known for. It's known for simply taking the brightest kids. However, since the Marilee takeover about a decade ago, it's completely changed how it accepts kids.
So, at an Ivy, where people don't necessarily expect to be judges purely on academic merit, people understand when they aren't accepted. When incredibly qualified kids don't get into MIT and they see academically "lesser" applicants accepted, they freak. It just doesn't compute, unlike at Ivies where it's "oh, they just want legacies and football players."</p>
<p>
[quote]
However, since the Marilee takeover about a decade ago, it's completely changed how it accepts kids.
[/quote]
This is the contention that a lot of people make, but I don't think it's necessarily true.</p>
<p>I think when Marilee took over, MIT was more vocal about the kinds of kids it wanted, but I don't think the basic admissions criteria have changed in the past ten years (except perhaps to make admissions more stringent as the quality of the applicant pool has increased).</p>
[quote]
During his years at MIT, Behnke has played an essential role in building "a wonderfully diverse undergraduate student body," Vest said. Since 1985, when Behnke joined MIT, there have been significant changes in the demographics of the undergraduate population.</p>
<p>While the size of the entering class has remained relatively steady, the percentage of women has soared from 28 to 42 percent and the percentage of minorities has more than doubled from 8.5 to 17.5.
<p>Bizarre attitude! MIT admissions thanks to MJ took students who were not only 800's, high GPA's and exceptional EC's but despite being an engineering school recognized those valuable as musicians, applied artists etc. So anotherwords MIT took the same kids Harvard wanted in their engineering dept. Those complaining were clearly HYP types whining. Good work MJ we miss you. I think as an outsider she had great vision!</p>
<p>Ok, well maybe the policy changed a little before Marilee's time, but it's still the same policy. It's actually probably to MIT's advantage that Marilee took the crap for it, because now, without her, it seems like it was all her doing, even though admissions apparently went in MIT's current direction years before. </p>
<p>coffee: I don't think anyone has a problem with talented artists and musicians being taken, I think it's MIT's skewed acceptance of females, URM's, and athletes that upsets people.</p>
<p>Thank you Mollie for referencing this Feb. 1997 report.</p>
<p>"Behnke built diverse student body"</p>
<p>"During his years at MIT, Behnke has played an essential role in building "a wonderfully diverse undergraduate student body," Vest said. Since 1985, when Behnke joined MIT, there have been significant changes in the demographics of the undergraduate population."</p>
<p>"While the size of the entering class has remained relatively steady, the percentage of women has soared from 28 to 42 percent and the percentage of minorities has more than doubled from 8.5 to 17.5."</p>
<p>Today 44% (correct?) of MIT's undergrads are women. The differential hardly speaks to a revolution.</p>
<p>Yup, 44% -- according to the registrar's</a> stats, last year 1817 of MIT's 4127 undergraduates were female, or 44.03%.</p>
<p>EDIT: It might be worth mentioning that Caltech's admissions percentages are "skewed" toward women also. IIRC, women are admitted at 1.7 times the rate of men at Caltech, even in the absence of an administrative policy of affirmative action.</p>
<p>And skewed admissions of athletes? MIT is division III -- there's no "recruiting" process per se.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"I'm not going to express a sentiment towards either side of the argument"
[/quote]
</p>
<p>but then what's this:</p>
<p>
[quote]
coffee: I don't think anyone has a problem with talented artists and musicians being taken, I think it's MIT's skewed acceptance of females, URM's, and athletes that upsets people.
It might be worth mentioning that Caltech's admissions percentages are "skewed" toward women also. IIRC, women are admitted at 1.7 times the rate of men at Caltech, even in the absence of an administrative policy of affirmative action.
[/Quote]
</p>
<p>The number for MIT is about 3. So whatever, if anything, is happening at Caltech, more of its happening at MIT.</p>
<p>Let me just say that I love both Caltech and MIT and think they are both wonderful schools. Even if admission policies are slightly different or if they prefer to look at other details (including sex) rather than split hairs over stats that supposedly determine merit, these admission policies work. Seriously, what would MIT be if it were (not to sterotype) 4000 asian males who did nothing but program all day and couldn't have fun, throw a frisbee around, socialize, or <em>gasp</em> have a relationship?</p>
<p>I think a lot of it has to do with general perception here. I had a discussion with sakky in a thread back in the MIT forums, and he had a pretty good explanation for why a lot of people are in general - angry at MIT admissions practices. Granted, Ivies do have a lot of crap in their admissions policies, so that's why when a kid gets rejected BY them, it's an emotional response NOT to be angry at them. MIT on the other hand, is expected to live up to seemingly meritocratic ideals.</p>
<p>To oasis, Caltech's admissions are probably less transparent, but that's really not the issue here. Caltech admissions have definitely been perceived as fair - I rarely ever see people complaining about it.</p>
The number for MIT is about 3. So whatever, if anything, is happening at Caltech, more of its happening at MIT.
[/quote]
Oh, for sure, and I'm sorry if it sounded like I was trying to be misleading. Obviously MIT does have an administrative policy of affirmative action, but even in the absence of such a policy, women tend to be admitted to tech schools at higher rates than men, presumably because the female pool is self-selected to a greater degree than the male pool.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think a lot of it has to do with general perception here. I had a discussion with sakky in a thread back in the MIT forums, and he had a pretty good explanation for why a lot of people are in general - angry at MIT admissions practices. Granted, Ivies do have a lot of crap in their admissions policies, so that's why when a kid gets rejected BY them, it's an emotional response NOT to be angry at them. MIT on the other hand, is expected to live up to seemingly meritocratic ideals.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>To reiterate the discussion I had with Big Brother 1984, the difference in reaction is * purely * emotional, rather than rational. Basically, the Ivies have fostered an aura of unfairness about them - so that when you see the Ivies making admissions decisions that you don't agree with, you chalk it up as par for the course, as everybody "knows" that the Ivies are unfair anyway. So the Ivies have successfully brainwashed you. But not so for MIT. Apparently people expect MIT to be fair, so when MIT makes decisions that others don't agree with, it enrages them far more so than do Ivy admissions. </p>
<p>But that's pure emotion. What that basically means is that the Ivies benefit from low expectations of fairness. But rationally speaking, they should not benefit. In fact, from a rational standpoint, people should be MORE angry at the Ivies than at MIT. After all, I still strongly suspect that MIT admissions are STILL more meritocratic than Ivy admissions are.</p>
<p>Another component of the emotional reaction to MIT is that a lot of students get emotionally attached to the institution years before they come to the institution. Now, the fact is - most people do think of MIT as hardcore math/science/engineering - such perceptions are slow to change over time. Affirmative action and other programs do not go hand in hand with an institution's perception of being hardcore with math/science. And as a result, many believe that its AA program is completely dissonant with its status as a tech school. </p>
<p>It's categorized as a completely different institution from HYPS. People are more forgiving towards those schools - since they're seen as bastions of the traditional elite. But MIT has never been seen as a bastion of the traditional elite. Moreover, many people do believe that there SHOULD be an institution uniquely for those who possess academic merit - they believe that all individuals who have demonstrated enough aptitude in math/science DESERVE the best education that they can get (at least at SOME institution). And MIT is perceived as the institution that should bear the weight of the individuals who do DESERVE to get in (since Caltech is comparatively small and has few applicants).</p>
<p>Not only that, but MIT has a VERY LARGE Asian applicant pool (isn't the applicant pool over 50% Asian? Are there statistics?) A lot of Asians do tend to take affirmative action personally as we know in the case of Jian Li - slots taken by URMs seem to drain institutions of their Asian numbers rather than their white numbers. </p>
<p>It's amazing how misinformed people can be about colleges - a lot of people apply with little knowledge of the institution. Caltech is often thought of as an engineering college - even though it's stronger in pure hard science.</p>
<p>I don't think AA has anything to do with this. People were all well aware that MIT employed this practice. The male-female and diversity is the same as it was before Jones became director. It has more to do with the de-emphasis of objective criteria by Marilee Jones...</p>
<p>True or not, there is a sentiment that lots of academic stars may have gotten out-warm-and-fuzzied by their less intelligent peers. That said, there is little doubt that mit admissions is much more meritocratic than the ivies or stanford.</p>
<p>I don't know if I'd say it's more meritocratic than the Ivies and Stanford.
Yes. the Ivies have a lot more legacy/developmental admits, but after that, excluding athletes (since MIT + Ivies + Stanford work similarly), I'd say the Ivies go for more of "the best of the best" students than does MIT. So I guess they're each meritocratic in their own way.
Maybe this is an anomaly, but the absolute most qualified kids I know that have applied (in a different league than other applicants) have been rejected, while "inferior" students were accepted, some without a URM/female/sports hook. In general, the absolute most qualified students aren't rejected by the Ivies.</p>