<p>^ And those are exactly the observations that have been T'ing people off about MIT. The point is though, the Ivies and Stanford shouldn't get slack for admitting legacies, developmental admits, or other wacked cases. </p>
<p>As I've also discussed before with sakky, I'll allow for the possibility that MIT admissions isn't what it used to be. I too have certainly noticed some "odd" acceptances. If you want a truly satisfying admissions process though, check out Caltech's ;)</p>
<p>
[quote]
In general, the absolute most qualified students aren't rejected by the Ivies.
[/quote]
I disagree with this. I think that if you analyzed the average superstar science/math applicant (Olympiads, RSI, science fair finalists, etc), you would find that those types of kids are admitted to MIT at a higher rate than they are admitted to any other school except Caltech.</p>
<p>Or when you say "absolute most qualified," do you mean something else?</p>
<p>Also, MIT does not treat athletes in a similar fashion to Ivy League schools and Stanford, as the other schools are division I and have formal recruitment policies in place. At MIT, which is division III, athletics is not a hook, it's just another extracurricular activity that applicants can do.</p>
<p>Well, MIT admissions director Marilee Jones claimed that only 15% of the new admits wouldn't have been admitted before her tenure. If 85% of the admitted class is similar to the old days, then it is still significantly more meritocratic (in academic terms) than HYP. </p>
<p>I don't know for sure whether that 15% number is correct; if it was only 15%, I have a hard time believing that mit doesn't have room for the USAMO/USAPHO qualifiers with stellar grades, scores, and research. It sounds like quite a few of these guys got rejected. </p>
<p>Still, MIT would have to have changed completely to eclipse Harvard, Princeton, and Stanford in terms of rejecting top academic people in favor of those less talented or accomplished.</p>
<p>
<p>I don't know for sure whether that 15% number is correct; if it was only 15%, I have a hard time believing that mit doesn't have room for the USAMO/USAPHO qualifiers with stellar grades, scores, and research. It sounds like quite a few of these guys got rejected.
</p>
<p>I remember reading a quote to that effect by Marilee Jones a few months before her resignation, and I proudly declared that I must be one of those 15%, and I defy anyone to tell me that I don't belong here, despite my ovaries.</p>
<p>Just saying. =)</p>
<p>^^well, as I said, I don't think the 15% change in the admissions pool has anything to do with trying to admit more girls. My class was like 53-47 or something, pretty close to being 50-50, and I was admitted before Marilee Jones became head of the admissions office.</p>
<p>There are plenty of girls interested in math and science these days.</p>
<p>There was this one poster I remember on CC who's currently a senior at MIT. He has a 2.9 GPA, is a URM, has a kid, and is really worried about getting into med school (not trying to insinuate an AA debate here). At least he'll graduate.</p>
<p>I assume you mean 2.9 out of 4.0, right? (MIT GPA's are on a 5 pt. scale.)</p>
<p>I'm not sure. Either way, you're not getting into med school with a 2.9.</p>
<p>yeah, you're right.</p>
<p>Isn't a 2.9 GPA not that far below the average though? And he has a kid - that could put further pressures on him down the line.</p>
<p>That said - smart people can make surprisingly stupid decisions.</p>
<p>
[quote]
That said - smart people can make surprisingly stupid decisions.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Are you referring to the MIT admissions committee? ;)</p>
<p>No, an undergrad's decision to have a child in the middle of undergrad => that is a stupid decision</p>
<p>Well, I'm no judge of what's stupid. To answer your other question though, I never said that a 2.9 GPA was far from the average - I don't even know what the average GPA for MIT Bio/Pre-med students is. A 2.9 most likely won't get you into med school though.</p>
<p>lol that post sounds like such a non sequitur then. :p (hmm, how relevant). Oh well we can all throw irrelevant random details in (i like to do that)</p>
<p>==</p>
<p>anyways, i'm fine with aa with females. females generally get higher gpas than males due to increased maturity.</p>
<p>The average GPA for accepted MIT med school applicants is a 3.6, range 3.1-4.0 (source</a>). (They used to have the GPA and range for applicants, but don't have it on the site this year; last year the applicant average was a 3.6 and accepted average was a 3.7, if I recall correctly.)</p>
<p>I read the applicant average was 3.8 and remember thats an MIT 3.8!</p>
<p>I'm pretty sure that's a normal GPA, otherwise the range would go up to 5.0, not 4.0.</p>
<p>Oh yes, the data I gave was on a 4.0 scale -- they make applicants recalculate for medical school (and most other) applications. Luckily, recalculating is not that hard. :)</p>
<p>MIT admissions gets a lot of crap because they are IMO and USNews's opinion, the most selective school in the country.</p>
<p>I didn't apply to MIT, but I do know that two girls from my public school in VA applied and both got in. One is a URM waitlisted at Harvard, with good test scores and a 3.8, and involved in a couple of sports and EC's, so she was competitive and most institutions. The other, however, is not URM/legacy/anything, is ranked #21 in our class (at a public school... she got 7 B's, I think), has done nothing to explore math/science at all in high school, and has very few extracurriculars (orchestra, tennis, NHS). She was rejected from Princeton, Columbia, and Tufts, but got into MIT as a southern girl. It seems like a northeastern male with her stats wouldn't have had a chance.</p>