<p>
</p>
<p>I should hope so.</p>
<p>differential, good points. So, educate me, what should be the criteria for MIT or any other selective college admissions?</p>
<p>I've honestly got no idea ramaswami. I've never given too much thought to the problem as I don't see that I can have any influence on the outcome. </p>
<p>Besides, it's always easier to point out flaws in others work than do good work yourself. So I'll let you guys figure out the best method and I'll poke some holes in it. ;)</p>
<p>Good response. You guys have been very helpful, humbled me properly. My S got into the 5 lower Ivies, rejected by HYP and MIT (he did not want to go, school counselor pushed this school) and here I was thinking he was good enough for the other 3 and you have all punctured my vanity.</p>
<p>Several subject 800s, SAT 2350, 10 5s on AP , one 4 (in French), varsity athlete, nothing else going for him, except nice essays and school support, so he should not have got into any of the schools from the look of the posts of MIT applicants. No community service, he refused to help suffering humanity !!, no science awards, only award of national note is Latin Gold Medal all 4 years and 6th place in French contest. Why did he have so many acceptances? Baffling!!</p>
<p>I doubt if school letters and essays had such an impact over an otherwise ordinary performance (he took the toughest curriculum ever taken by anyone in the history of his prep school, 26 academic solids, etc but from what you all are saying even rigor is subjective etc. His school is well known, though).</p>
<p>So, please answer, why did he get in? Especially being a plentiful Asian.</p>
<p>Well from what I understand, most other schools do admissions differently than MIT. For example, I think your idea of a good admissions process, with a little more stuff, is sorta like Caltechs (Golub could fill in more here). </p>
<p>Seriously though, not getting into MIT is not an indicator of anything. Besides, MIT is more famous for it's graduate school, and most of those people came from other undergrad institutions.</p>
<p>Your son got into those schools because they are easier to get into. His stellar scores and academic record were impressive enough in the application pool to help him stand out and be chosen. Now, the other way around (in at harvard/yale/princeton/mit but rejected at cornell) would be much more surprising.</p>
<p>@differential: Except for certain fields (mathematics, theoretical physics), the undergrads were generally known to be smarter than the grad students. I don't know if that has changed.</p>
<p>Also, despite all the noises about Marilee Jones leading a revolution, the changes she instituted made MIT admissions very similar to Harvard's in philosophy. Harvard has said for years that they don't take the best students in the traditional sense.</p>
<p>I agree with pebbles. The lower ivies are somewhat less selective, so it is easier to get in by being an outstanding student who is well-rounded.</p>
<p>They are only a trifle less selective. RE Marilee Jones's revolution, the revolution was to make MIT more like Harvard. I have read the literature about the best graduates vs best students model etc etc etc. I do think HYP are more selective than the lower Ivies, I doubt this about MIT. It attracts a certain kind of student and many at Brown or Dartmouth would not even dream of applying to MIT let alone accepting an offer, I mean those who want to study in a liberal arts environment.</p>
<p>This may cause a stir, you may all claim how MIT is more than sci/tech. It is not. Most students major in the sciences and you don't go there to study the Renaissance or Persian etc etc. It is probably a terrific if narrow technical training. The liberal arts requirements won't hold a candle to Lit Hum/Contemp Civiliz at Columbia etc etc.</p>
<p>To pebbles:
Yes, I agree with you. That could be surprising, although that happened with my cousin. He got into MIT, but rejected from UC Berkeley (He is from CA). Things like that could happen.
But anyway, I totally disagree that race should play into the role of admissions. We have contrl on grades, SAT, ECs, you name it, all of the stats. But we have no control on race. Race is given by God. If admissions is judged by race, life would be unfair.
I would definately suggest location. I would also suggest interview, as it is THE BEST way to know applicants. I also agree with disapproving with SATs, GPA, and courses.
I would focus on how the applicant did more than just school stuff. I would look to see if the applicant went for travel or did research or went to worthwhile summer programs, etc.
I have reservations regarding awards. Gaining prestigious awards is open to very few people. Many are not exposed to USABO and AMC or any national olimpiads/awards.
What do you think about having a "googleable name" as a factor? Not that I approve it . . . just asking. </p>
<p>PS: ramaswami, are you Tamilian from Tamil Nadu of India?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Good response. You guys have been very helpful, humbled me properly. My S got into the 5 lower Ivies, rejected by HYP and MIT (he did not want to go, school counselor pushed this school) and here I was thinking he was good enough for the other 3 and you have all punctured my vanity.</p>
<p>Several subject 800s, SAT 2350, 10 5s on AP , one 4 (in French), varsity athlete, nothing else going for him, except nice essays and school support, so he should not have got into any of the schools from the look of the posts of MIT applicants. No community service, he refused to help suffering humanity !!, no science awards, only award of national note is Latin Gold Medal all 4 years and 6th place in French contest. Why did he have so many acceptances? Baffling!!
[/quote]
I don't think anybody here is denigrating the accomplishments of bright high school students, least of all your son. He is likely a very bright guy. All I'm saying is that there are many, many others in the MIT applicant pool who are just as bright, but some of them did not have access to the same resources that your son likely did.</p>
<p>My major point is that there aren't very big differences between the top 50% or so of MIT applicants -- even if these students have different SAT scores or class ranks, they are all very close in actual intelligence.</p>
<p>to Molliee, I agree that many did not have access to resources like my S did. But I disagree that the top 50% are close. Approx 12000 applicants, you think 6000 are close. I will settle for 3000.</p>
<p>Ashwin, factoring in travel and research does not make sense, the first is accessible to the moneyed and the second to those with parents with lab connections. And you disapprove of GPA. Mind boggling, an entire high school record rejected in favor of what? Interviews are close to useless in interrater reliability, predictive validity for anything. Lot of research has been done on employment interviews, they are close to useless except as a screen to weed out the mentally ill, I should say grossly mentally ill. Yes, I am from Chennai.</p>
<p>Quote:
"All I'm saying is that there are many, many others in the MIT applicant pool who are just as bright, but some of them did not have access to the same resources that your son likely did."</p>
<p>How would MIT know how much resource an applicant is exposed to? Is MIT looking for people who have been exposed to lots of resources or less anyway?
Thanks.</p>
<p>Of course MIT is a tech school- it is an acronym that stands for something. But what you say about students isn't true. Of course some bright students will only want to attend a liberal arts school to study classics, those, clearly will not consider MIT, but you might be surprised to find that a huge number of students apply to both Brown-like schools and MIT-like schools. Their applicant pools are not as distinct as you believe.</p>
<p>My college list back when i was applying consisted altogether of 7 colleges, brown was on that list, so was yale, I ended up deciding ultimately between Columbia and MIT. We're not so different here.</p>
<p>But none of this has anything to do with the selectivity of a school.</p>
<p>How would MIT know how much resource an applicant is exposed to? Is MIT looking for people who have been exposed to lots of resources or less anyway?</p>
<h2>Thanks.</h2>
<p>neither, I would guess MIT tries to take it out of the equation. If you go to a well-known school, then they will assume that you are exposed to more. It's a rough estimate. Also, family income may indicae this.</p>
<p>pebbles, good points, but there are also engineering students who would prefer to study engineering in a liberal arts setting, and they go to HMC or Columbia/Cornell/Princeton etc.</p>
<p>As I said earlier, it is clear HYP is somewhat, slightly, more selective than lower ivies, I don't think MIT is more selective than Brown or Columbia or Dartmouth. I don't have the data to prove this one or another, just a hunch.</p>
<p>But, at this level, does it really make a difference whether you graduated from US News School no 1 or no 10?</p>
<p>MIT may be sci/tech, but the jobs that people end up in are very similar to the ivy league. Besides science and engineering, law and medicine are popular professions. Also, financial jobs (Wall street) and business are also popular.</p>
<p>Why don't you create an entrance exam like Asian schools do, but allow multiple retakes so as to prevent an off day destroying an applicant's chances? The problems should range from AMC difficulty to USAMO and even IMO difficulty if need be. That way you'll truly be able to differentiate between even the smartest applicants. One of my Indian friends told me they had a test like this for the most competitive Indian colleges. I think they're called IIts.</p>
<p>GPA?? It is extemely easy to get a high GPA from certain schools and extremely hard to get a decent GPA from other schools (Exeter??)
I am not saying that colleges should reject an entire school record. I think I forgot to mention, but I also favor teacher recs. Teachers have an unusual knack to filter out a student's character.
Why are interviews bad? Actually, interviews can judge how an applicant can talk and interact with a random person. By actually hearing what an applicant has to say, universities can get a better picture about an applicant than just putting thoughts on paper. I mean we can actually know if Person A is sociable and friendly as opposed to Person B who is supposedly an antisocial dip**** (Athough both have the potential to write up good essays).
Anyway, speaking is an important skill.
Why doesn't research play an important factor? It shows the innitiative taken by a student. Research isn't offered to people. They are sought by those who are interested. I think it's quite important.</p>
<h2>"As I said earlier, it is clear HYP is somewhat, slightly, more selective than lower ivies, I don't think MIT is more selective than Brown or Columbia or Dartmouth. I don't have the data to prove this one or another, just a hunch."</h2>
<p>MIT is more selective than Brown (barely) and Dartmouth (significant difference) and less selective than Columbia.</p>
<p>Columbia (0.926)
MIT (0.877)
Brown (0.835)
Dartmouth (0.776)</p>
<p>Yale is actually slightly less selective than Columbia. </p>
<p>"Selectivity: Selectivity measures the quality of schools' admitted candidates. Selectivity is based on the percent of applicants admitted, SAT scores, and the percent of admitted applicants in the top 10% of their high school classes. An institution's composite selectivity comprises 45% of its overall score."</p>
<p>Yes, my dad got into IIT. The test was called JEE.</p>
<p>My dad knew this uber smart guy who didn't get into IIT because he ended up with Typhoid on the day of the test.</p>