<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, I agree. The difference never magically disappears, and having a good background better allows you to race ahead. I just noted that it does fade over time as MIT in itself is a very great opportunity to those who haven’t had much opportunity before.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Is that what they told you about your kid? I know they told my parents that.</p>
<p>By third grade my class had reading level tests and the grade levels were all over the place.</p>
<p>“Is that what they told you about your kid?”</p>
<p>Actually no. My kid didn’t start reading until he was 7 and then was reading at a 12th grade level by 3rd grade. Which supports Piper’s point that rapid progress can be made by a bright kid.</p>
<p>For his friends that were reading when they were 4, though… yes, that’s what the teachers would tell them. I always wondered how teachers could say that with a straight face.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The thing is that not everyone has the same opportunities as other people. Most schools don’t even offer 9+ AP’s, most people haven’t even heard of an Olympiad, and they aren’t offered in most schools either. I think like, one-third of the the Intel semifinalists come from New York State, while there was no one from Montana - does that mean that people who live in New York have a better aptitude for math and science than people from Montana? Are people from Northern Virginia or the San Francisco Bay Area just better at math (they seem to have a lot of USAMO qualifiers) that people from Wyoming (which doesn’t even have USAMO qualifiers some years because no one takes the AIME)? Or is it just that some people have better and more opportunities than others over factors which they don’t really have control over? It really depends on what you were able to do with what you were given, and that means different things for different people.</p>
<p>
I’m not arguing that MIT admits solely based on pure academic merit*. </p>
<p>Just noting that the example given in the post above mine (“we actually see kids with perfect 800 SAT/SAT II scores, 9+ AP’s, tons of scientific awards, etc. being rejected or deferred, while other applicants who are much weaker academically are accepted”) doesn’t actually mean much – an applicant with a perfect SAT score is not automatically academically stronger than one with a 2390, particularly because we have access to very little information about applicants compared to what’s in the application.</p>
<p>*but, incidentally, I don’t think there’s a pure “academic merit” admissions process at work anywhere. Sure, admissions can be predicated solely on the results of high-stakes standardized tests, but I don’t think that actually allows perfect discrimination of actual academic merit/promise/potential, or anything really close to it. And I would second everything shravas says in post #145.</p>
<p>Incidentally, geomom, would you indulge me for a second? I have always wondered if your username is “geo” as in “geography” or as in “geoduck”. Or is it something else? :)</p>
<p>Yes geo as in earth.
But not like geoduck (ick!):
[Geoduck</a> - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoduck]Geoduck”>Geoduck - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>Maybe more like geo-mom = earth-mother,
or maybe like geo as in geophysics, like seismology.
Maybe both, like a hippie scientist type.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Quite possibly, you are a genius. In this case, you are generally going to do better than most other people, privileged or not.</p>
<p>Even if you are not a genius, you have to admit that you at least were in an environment where the opportunity for learning beyond what was taught in the classroom was both possible and encouraged. What would you have done, for example, if you’d grown up in a household where your parents were technophobes? They wouldn’t let you online without supervision, and they had NO idea of what you were doing, or who you were doing it with. Would you have been able to do everything you are able to do now, if you had been restricted, perhaps even prevented, from doing the very things that enabled your success?</p>
<p>Now, I’m not saying that the vast majority of students who struggle at MIT come from this type of background, but it is possible that MIT might admit such students if they had performed stellarly based on what was taught in the classroom, SATs, etc. Such students might struggle at MIT, if success in the classes they take depends heavily on the type of deep immersion you were able to do.</p>
<p>To me, Geo mean Geometry XD</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’d like to agree, plus add my views on how vague “pure academic merit” is as a term. I’m a strong believer that the whole application should be viewed carefully. </p>
<p>Nevertheless, I do see one trend in several schools which I do not like (I’m not sure about MIT to be very honest, but to be honest to my beliefs, I would rather mention this point here), which is that * almost any admissions decision can be justified* using the following two slick statements: (1) we can’t judge, as we didn’t see the whole application + (2) schools do not reject applicants, they choose applicants to accept. </p>
<p>Perhaps this is “OK” since there is a very good talented applicant pool, but I’m a believer in understanding more when possible. And in a sense, the fact is that the less understanding that goes around, the more very qualified “URMs” and other admitted students may be looked upon with that suspicious attitude, which as someone (I think Jessie posted) is damaging to some of them. </p>
<p>One of the issues is that the goal in admitting someone to an undergraduate institution is somewhat vaguer than that of admitting them to a more specialized line of study. But I think we can all agree that for any decision to be made at all, some goals have to be picked. How amorphous they are is really what is to be questioned.</p>
<p>Ah, but geo in geometry means earth, too. Geometry was developed to measure the earth, that is, to survey property.</p>
<p>On the question of whether it is easier to get into MIT from schools like TJ…</p>
<p>15 kids from TJ are MIT freshman this year, and about 8 from the rest of Northern Virginia. Now, that would seem to be a much improved chance to be admitted - 15/class of 450 vs 8/12,000 seniors in the county. So a 3.3% chance vs. a .067% chance. However, consider that TJ has roughly 2/3 of the high scorers in the county each year - 2/3 of the presidential scholar candidates (M+V SAT=1580 or above), 2/3-3/4 the national merit semi-finalists, 2/3 the AIME qualifiers. In that light, the 8/15 ratio makes sense.</p>
<p>On the other hand, when one gets to truly national awards TJ dominates:
90% of the USAMO qualifiers, and all the Intel Talent search semifinalists from the county attend TJ. The other high schools in northern Virginia besides TJ don’t offer the bio, chem and physics olympiad tests. So it seems being a TJ student gives one an advantage in those endeavors. </p>
<p>None of these awards, however, guarantee admission to MIT. In fact, only roughly 5% of the presidential scholar candidates, national merit semifinalists, etc. in the county will become MIT students. But we don’t know if the students didn’t select MIT, or MIT didn’t select them.</p>
<p>Also, MOST of the students attending MIT from Northern Virginia weren’t national merit semifinalists. They pretty much all have plentiful Google hits, though, so you definitely need to stand out in some way to be admitted. (note: standing out is necessary, but not sufficient.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are misreading what I wrote. I am not saying an application should be judged on SAT scores alone. However, SAT scores, when seen together with GPA, class rank, and schedule of courses taken in High School (e.g. number and syllabus of AP classes/exams taken) do provide a pretty clear picture of one’s academic preparation for undergraduate college studies.</p>
<p>Note that “academic preparation” is not the same as “aptitude”, even though the two overlap somewhat. What I mean is that there are indeed students from disadvantaged backgrounds (URMs, etc.) who might have considerable intellectual aptitude to study at MIT, but, because they didn’t take the necessary coursework in High School, do not actually have sufficient academic background (necessary prerequisites) to enroll for example in freshman GIR courses.</p>
<p>Based on a subjective judgment about “potential”/aptitude or based on purely non-academic factors (e.g. “diversity”), MIT adcoms nowadays sometimes pick a less “prepared” candidate over someone who clearly has a stronger academic background, provided they feel the not-so-stellar candidate (relatively speaking of course) meets a minimum set of qualifications.</p>
<p>It is of course debatable whether that kind of admission policy is right or wrong. In any case, that doesn’t happen as often in peer institutions like Caltech, nor would it happen e.g. at Oxbridge (UK), where admissions are actually handled by college tutors (i.e professors) rather than non-academic ad coms.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are misreading what I wrote. I am not saying an application should be judged on SAT scores alone. However, SAT scores, when seen together with GPA, class rank, and schedule of courses taken in High School (e.g. number and syllabus of AP classes/exams taken) give a pretty clear picture of one’s academic preparation for undergraduate college studies.</p>
<p>Note that “academic preparation” is not the same as “aptitude”, even though the two overlap somewhat. What I mean is that there are indeed students from disadvantaged backgrounds (URMs, etc.) who might have considerable intellectual aptitude to study at MIT, but, because they didn’t take the necessary coursework in High School, do not actually have sufficient academic background (necessary prerequisites) to enroll for example in freshman GIR courses.</p>
<p>Based on a subjective judgment about “potential”/aptitude or based on purely non-academic factors (e.g. “diversity”), MIT adcoms nowadays sometimes pick a less “prepared” candidate over someone who clearly has a stronger academic background, provided they feel the not-so-stellar candidate (relatively speaking of course) meets a minimum set of qualifications.</p>
<p>It is of course debatable whether that kind of admission policy is right or wrong. In any case, that doesn’t happen as often in peer institutions like Caltech, nor would it happen e.g. at Oxbridge (UK), where admissions are actually handled by college tutors (i.e professors) rather than non-academic ad coms.</p>
<p>
There are very few of those students – basically everybody is able to start out taking the GIRs. For the handful of students who don’t feel they’re well-enough-prepared, there are programs within MIT to get them up to speed (e.g. Interphase over the summer before freshman year).</p>
<p>I think selecting people with high academic aptitude, not just high academic preparation, is an important institutional priority for MIT. MIT isn’t like the historical picture of the Ivies: restricted only to a certain social set who knows the ground rules and does the right things in advance. MIT’s goal is not to stick the most high-achieving students in a box for four years and let them out at graduation, but to train some of the people with the most potential in the country to do awesome stuff.</p>
<p>I will tell a story, if that’s okay, about my husband. He was the (white, male) valedictorian of a not-very-impressive public high school in Massachusetts, with a 1410 on the SAT. His total SAT score by the new system would have been 1860, because he got a 450 on the old writing SAT II. He had taken a few AP classes. If he’d had a stats post on CC, he’d be one of these lamentable “much weaker” candidates who’d be pulling MIT down.</p>
<p>He is now one of a very small handful of top young aerospace engineers in the country – one of the most talented aircraft designers to come out of MIT or anywhere else, according to his professors, in the past ten years. MIT made the right choice on him, probably because somewhere in his application, he talked about his obsession for designing and building things that fly. But that’s not the kind of thing that would have showed up clearly in a CC stats post.</p>
<p>Anyway, even though I take the position as chief apologist for the admissions office around here, I don’t think every decision they make is perfect. But I think they do the best they can with the limited information available in an application, and the limited information about a candidate’s potential that’s even available at age 17/18.</p>
<p>A must say that I agree with bruno123 here, mostly at least, from first hand experience.</p>
<p>In my area, MIT has rejected (well, so far deferred for this year) a sizeable number of more qualified applicants in favor of ones who would admit if you asked them that they were academically weaker. Sometimes, the discrepancy is far from subtle. 200 point SAT differences and class rank differences that approach ONE HUNDRED, and certainly lighter course loads. Did I mention that the majority of these admitted applicants are URMs?</p>
<p>Now, I see where MIT can make the argument that they “do the best they can with the limited information available in an application, and the limited information about a candidate’s potential that’s even available at age 17/18.” And, as molliebatmit suggested, some of these applicants may have shown significant passion that would make them seem like a match for MIT. Yet again, if MIT thought that those admitted students mentioned earlier were a better fit for MIT for these reasons (and why else would they have been admitted?), they were certainly wrong. </p>
<p>Does MIT really expect to learn that much about you on the essays? To be honest, I could simply find out what MIT is looking for, and write a completely untrue essay about my life that makes the admissions officers think I’m a great fit for MIT despite an academic record that is below that of many rejected applicants. You can’t fake a 4 year academic record (or test scores for that matter). You certainly CAN write essays that exaggerate your level of passion for something at which point whoever is a better writer has an advantage (how many English majors are there at MIT again?)</p>
<p>I dislike the amount of subjectivity because, in all honesty, someone could (and people certainly have) manipulate all of the open ended questions to put themselves at an advantage over those who answer the questions honestly. Academics and test scores and awards seem to me like a much better indicator of potential success than most of the subjective questions found throughout the admissions process. Which is more convincing, someone who has worked hard to achieve a 4.0 in the toughest classes with a 2350, or someone who worked not quite as hard to get a 3.7 in less difficult classes with a 2000, yet claims that they REALLY have a passion for academics (of some sort). Doesn’t the former’s academic record show a more convincing passion for academics? </p>
<p>I say, let actions speak louder than words and admit people based on what they’ve done rather than what they claim they might do.</p>
<p>“To be honest, I could simply find out what MIT is looking for, and write a completely untrue essay about my life that makes the admissions officers think I’m a great fit for MIT despite an academic record that is below that of many rejected applicants.”</p>
<p>Except then you’d be lying, and if you went to MIT you’d probably be miserable. Without naming names, I was flat-out rejected from another top school early action. My stats and objective stuff are all more than qualified to warrant at least a deferral. Except I really don’t mind - I know the school wasn’t a good fit for me anyway. I, too, have a sneaking suspicion that if I’d tried harder to mold my essays to fit the school, I’d have gotten in or at least deferred. I got lazy in the end and didn’t do it, and I’m glad. I would have been miserable there. For MIT, on the other hand, I knew I loved the school and I made sure my essays showed it.</p>
<p>Then again, I’m an optimist, and I like to think life works out the way it’s supposed to.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Heh, good luck with that.</p>
<p>Believe it or not, the admissions office is pretty good at what they do - sure, I’m sure that there are people who had better statistics than my friends, and I’m sure there were people who were more well-rounded or whatnot, but if there are students who faked passion, I definitely don’t know any of them. I wake up every day surrounded by awesome people who I really relate to, and my social group works on not only on a person-to-person level, but on the group level as well. I think it’s pretty difficult to assemble a group of 35 people or so (just going from my hall) who mesh extremely well and work as one group to get things done, but the admissions office has managed to do that ten times over just in my dorm. Sure, a lot of it is personal choice and freedom once you get here, but the admissions office does a pretty excellent job of picking students who will not only fit in, but who will be dynamic and engaging.</p>
<p>A lot of you seem to be making the argument that MIT is turning away more qualified applicants - well, that’s always going to be an issue when you receive ~10 times as many applications as you have spots. And somehow, once you get admitted to MIT, it’s pretty easy to look around you and say ‘oh, I know why Jack or Suzy wasn’t admitted - they honestly just would’ve hated it here’. But I know that the in-between, waiting bit is the hardest part.</p>
<p>In my case at least, I had to hold back from gushing my love for MIT over every page of my application, but that’s the sort of thing that you can’t really fake. I’ve said before that I think that MIT is unique in that pretty much everyone I knew <em>just knew</em> that this was the place that they wanted to spend the next four years of their lives - if that’s true, and your statistics are good enough, and MIT thinks that you’d have a place here, then I’m confident that you’ll be admitted. And if any of these things aren’t true, well, would you really want to be admitted to a place that you hate just because your statistics are good?</p>
<p>“For MIT, on the other hand, I knew I loved the school and I made sure my essays showed it.”</p>
<p>And you got, at least somewhat, lucky. I’m pretty sure <em>most</em> people with high stats would make this statement (*raises hand), but most will not get in. Some will inevitably be rejected in favor of people who would admit that they are less deserving. All I have to do is look at the applicants in my area to see this.</p>
<p>I’ll admit, I’m jealous and perhaps bitter (though, all I’ve gotten is a deferral so far) but I feel I have every reason to be upset.</p>
<p>" I’ve said before that I think that MIT is unique in that pretty much everyone I knew <em>just knew</em> that this was the place that they wanted to spend the next four years of their lives - if that’s true, and your statistics are good enough, and MIT thinks that you’d have a place here, then I’m confident that you’ll be admitted. "</p>
<p>if it were not for the highly subjective “MIT thinks you have a place here” I’d easily say this is false. Just ask the number of people in my area who fit this description, none of whom were accepted. Apparently MIT thought none of us have a place there?</p>