"Why MIT accepts the students it accepts?"

Colleges and Universities A-Z Massachusetts Institute of Technology
161

<p>@stix2400: </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>We don’t admit kids just because they say they’re really passionate on paper :wink: There has to be more there.</p>

162

<p>What makes anyone think SAT/USAMO scores <em>aren’t</em> subjective, or at the very least context dependent? </p>

<p>One person receiving a 2400 and another person a 2100 doesn’t show that the former is “objectively” better than the latter in ANYTHING except for this: that they were better, objectively, on that test, at that time, on that day. That, frankly, says almost nothing in and of itself about the applicant’s strength or fit overall. </p>

<p>I’m a longtime lurker of CC and I’m really tired of this constant haranguing over “objective” vs “subjective”, or the pity party about URMs and the like. It’s really unbecoming to ***** about it like this.</p>

163

<p>stix2400,</p>

<p>You missed Mollie’s point. She didn’t say her husband showed a great passion for academics (although I’m sure he has that too) - she said he had a passion for designing and building things that fly. Being a student is just a means to an end. One goal of admissions is to identify candidates whose entire package leads them to believe the student will benefit most from what the school has to offer and accomplish great things. In this case maybe he could point to out of school activities involving flying. Maybe his physics teacher wrote in a recommendation about having long after class discussions regarding aerodynamics. Maybe he included a design concept drawing in his application. None of those have much to do with SAT scores or contests that his school probably didn’t offer.</p>

<p>In fact, I believe the admissions office at MIT (and virtually all schools) is attempting to accomplish many goals. That’s why, even at the quintessential technology school, MIT hasn’t just developed an algorithm to handle admissions. They want successful graduates in their fields. They want to develop leaders (which may or may not be in their undergraduate fields). They want an interesting student body (to the world, to the faculty, to each other). They want students that have a well-developed sense of self. They want students that will work well together (MIT is very collaborative). I’m sure an adcom could add many additional elements to this list and they can’t be simply quantified for insertion as variables or objective functions.</p>

<p>BTW, two things that really impressed me at CPW were the truly stunning student talent performance and the activities fair (from a parents perspective - I’m sure the students would add something about parties, tunnel tours, hacks, etc.). The talent show featured incredible performing artists that bring a sense of balance to the school. All are undoubtedly outstanding students, but developing those skills requires a commitment of time and energy that might lead to slightly lower test scores but also leads to well-rounded successful graduates and a more interesting campus. The activities fair similarly showed a vast array of interests, some academic and some not. Being around people that are passionate often brings out new passions. Adcoms want and expect their admits to discover new avenues for their intellect and drive over the next four years.</p>

<p>Achieving in the context of one’s environment is also important. You may be familiar with the movie “Akeelah and the Bee” (yes, I know that it is fiction). Leaving aside the stereotypical ethnic elements and the fact that the contest was a spelling bee rather than a technical competition, I suspect that MIT Admissions probably would want Dylan, but they would absolutely want Akeelah. One had been force fed on his way to unquestioned academic success while the other offered far lower academic indices but used passion and aptitude to overcome barriers and accomplish great things. In the real world the contrasts are generally less distinct or hidden (How much do we really know of the history of those we deem “less qualified” based on a few metrics?), but often still there.</p>

<p>Overcoming barriers. Developing other talents. Academic achievement. Success in the post-student world. MIT seems to do a outstanding job of enabling all of those goals, which is precisely the reason so many people want to attend.</p>

164

<p>hmmm…</p>

<p>some good points here. Some that I would argue but it’s probably not worth it at this point :)</p>

<p>I suppose I’m just trying to understand why some people didn’t get in early (i only somewhat include myself) and why some others who would tell you they don’t deserve it did. It’s becoming more clear to me that I’ll never really know, so I should just let MIT do its job and move on (and really hope I get in regular :slight_smile: )</p>

<p>I’m frustrated, but I’m sorry if I’ve come across angry or arrogant or anything like that.</p>

165

<p>

</p>

<p>I have a hard time believing that everyone, or even the majority, of rejected applicants would have hated it at MIT. Maybe I’m just upset because one of my best friends got deferred, but I’ve known people who I know would have loved it at MIT who were rejected outright, despite having the stats.
I just wonder how they know that someone would fit. Almost everyone who knows me best thinks I would not fit at MIT, but I was accepted. And I don’t <em>just know</em> that I want to spend the next 4 years of my life there. Anyone who knows my friend well would say she’d fit, but she was deferred. And, unless she didn’t get sufficient FA, she’d undoubtedly go if she got in.
On the other hand, I do think I “trust” MIT’s admissions people more than I do those at other schools, so they’re doing something, well, a lot of things, right.</p>

166

<p>@Millancad - </p>

<p>Thanks! :)</p>

167

<p>@stix2400 - </p>

<p>Sorry, I didn’t mean to come down so hard on you. But a large part of this thread has essentially been people complaining that they were not URM enough to get into MIT when they were “objecitvely” better. </p>

<p>It’s really absurd. For one thing, “objective characteristics” like test scores and class rank do not occur in a contextual or socioeconomic vacuum. “Meritocracy”, in this sense, is a fiction, because merit, evaluated absent context, is inherently aristocratic, not meritocratic. </p>

<p>Put more plainly, if somewhat stereotypically: </p>

<p>The valedictorian of a class has a 4.0 and comes from a family situation where they go home every day and can just work on their homework with their parents who are PhDs. The salutatorian has a 3.9 and is a first generation to college student who had to work 20 hours a week to help support the family and do their homework after work. </p>

<p>Has the valedictorian more “merit” than the salutatorian because their GPA is .1 points higher? Of course not. They play on an unequal field. If the salutatorian had the same socioeconomic circumstances as the valedictorian then who is to say they wouldn’t have gotten the same grades? </p>

<p>Now, that’s not to say the valedictorian doesn’t have merit, or that the valedictorian is in any way disadvantaged by their advantage. It is just an example of why “objective” characteristics aren’t objective at all. “Objective” characteristics occur in a context that flavors and influences and affect and impacts them. </p>

<p>That is why schools like MIT (and Harvard, and Yale, etc, etc) read “holistically” or “in context” - not because there is some hidden conspiracy to disadvantage the previously advantaged, but because part of the process is to understand the circumstances within which objective characteristics occur. </p>

<p>There are plenty of people who get into MIT with 2400s and plenty of people who don’t. At schools like MIT the “objective characteristics” matter less because so many people are within the same realm (i.e., very very smart) that frankly there isn’t much of a difference between a 2400 and a 2100. The difference is in the opportunities that one has had, and what one has made of them. </p>

<p>Does this make sense?</p>

168

<p>

</p>

<p>Frankly, that is all nice and sort of clich</p>

169

<p>it makes sense</p>

<p>and I get both sides of the argument. I guess I’m more upset at the fact that the sytem is inherently imperfect than at anyone making the decisions. The students of MIT have made it clear that whatever the admissions people are doing, it’s working and I believe them. I know I certainly would not have a totally “objective” (more or less, number based) system if I was choosing an MIT class, though I would still probably place more emphasis on it where appropriate. </p>

<p>Not that this is important really, but I’d also say that there is a difference betwen a 2100 and a 2400. One is 97th percentile, the other is 99.98th percentile. 300 points is a lot; not something that can be a fluke really, and it is significant. Just from my personal experience, the very smartest people I know have all scored 2250+ without exception. I’d argue that someone who gets a 2400 is going to be smarter than someone who gets a 2100 9 times out of 10. But this is just my experience, again, so if someone wants to argue this I’d be more than happy to listen :)</p>

170

<p>"Admission on academic ability and academic potential alone. </p>

<p>We attract many future leaders to Oxford. Our students run numerous extracurricular clubs and engage in community service. But like most U.K. universities, we do not assess our applicants on those characteristics. We select for academic ability and academic potential, as judged by secondary school results (examination results and/or predicted grades), a personal statement, an academic reference and, if required for the subject, an admissions test or written work."</p>

<p>that’s a quote from the source bruno123 cited, just for easier reference.</p>

171

<p>

</p>

<p>The valedictorian in your example doesn’t deserve to be penalized either because of the privileged background of his/her parents. Your example (0.1 difference in GPA) is actually a little bit extreme, but the privileged kid who got a 4.0 also worked hard for it and, objectively speaking, from an academic point of view, he/she is probably indeed more qualified when compared not so much with the 3.9 salutatorian, but perhaps with the 3.4 underprivileged kid who had to work 20 hours a week and ended up taking a lighter, less rigorous course load in High School. </p>

<p>Note that I am not questioning the relative merits of the kid who had everything cut out for him/her from childbirth vs. another one who had to struggle against terrible odds. I am just saying that college admissions should not be based IMHO on who deserves more to be accepted based on the circumstances of his/her background according to criteria such as those you’ve discussed. Instead, the primary concern in college admissions should be who will the best fit for the school, and is more likely to succeed academically and make the most of what the school has to offer. Ad coms should not turn admissions into a social engineering exercise to redress outside socioeconomic grievances. </p>

<p>To be fair though, I don’t think MIT admissions are that extreme. As Mollie said, I’m pretty sure MIT will never honestly admit a student who the ad coms feel won’t be able to pass his/her GIR classes, just because he/she has a “compelling life story”.</p>

172

<p>

</p>

<p>I applied to Cambridge this year (decisions are coming very soon!) and I’d agree with that. In general, UK schools care a lot less about ECs and leadership, which is what schools are generally looking for in ECs, but it’s always said that Oxbridge cares the least. For UK schools, you just write a Personal Statement, a PS, not a bunch of essays, and you’re advised to keep it almost all academic, especially so for Oxbridge. My Cambridge interviews were almost solely academic (I got one question about one EC) and asked much more of me, intellectually, than I think has been asked before, and certainly much more than has been asked in American interviews. Yes, the two types of interview do have very different purposes, but it goes to what the schools are seeking in their students.</p>

173

<p>@stix2400 - </p>

<p>“Not that this is important really, but I’d also say that there is a difference betwen a 2100 and a 2400. One is 97th percentile, the other is 99.98th percentile. 300 points is a lot; not something that can be a fluke really, and it is significant.” </p>

<p>It really isn’t though. That’s what I’m trying to communicate. There are broad swaths of knowledge that can be garnered from an SAT score - generally speaking, someone who is dialing toll free (all 800s) has reasoning abilities that exceed that of someone who scores straight 500s - but they’re very basic. SAT scores differ tremendously from ACT scores for instance - students (with similar profiles) who score in the 600s on the SATs in some parts of the country score perfectly on the ACTs, for instance. And that’s for students with similar profiles. Nevermind students from other countries, disadvantaged backgrounds, etc…</p>

174

<p>@bruno - </p>

<p>I agree that the valedictorian doesn’t deserve to be penalized - and they’re not! That’s the point! The point is not to penalize them, but to understand that apparently “objective” criteria like class rank, GPA, and SAT scores are not “objective” but occur within a socioeconomic context that imparts profound meaning. You can’t understand these “objective” criteria without understanding their circumstances. </p>

<p>My point is extreme, and a caricature. I’m trying to illustrate why the fixation with “objective” criteria is missing the point. And it’s not about who ‘deserves’ to be accepted more - it’s about reading their initiative and potential in context. Compared two people with a 3.8. One of them works a lot / has a lot of ECAs / etc; the other doesn’t do anything, just dicks around at home all day. The former is probably a better candidate for admission, even though they are “objectively” equal, because you can understand why the GPA isn’t perfect - “oh, they’re working 20 hours a week” - whereas for the latter you don’t. </p>

<p>And mollie can confirm this but I’m pretty sure MIT doesn’t accept students who won’t pass the GIRs. They don’t want them to fail out either. But there are plenty of students who are not valedictorians/2400s who can pass the GIRs, so that’s why the “objective” distinctions matter less (because if someone with a 2400 and a 2200 will do equally well in classes, you look at other factors to determine admission).</p>

175

<p>@macmate - </p>

<p>Without commenting on any other parts of our process…I can confirm that the first, and arguably most important, qualifier for consideration for MIT is whether or not you can do the work here. That takes precedence. We don’t want to admit students who we think would be unsuccessful. It doesn’t help anyone - us or them!</p>

176

<p>One can also come up with examples of kids that were admitted to major universities with 2400s and did nothing while kids with 1800s (or less) were amazing success stories. </p>

<p>The point being missed is that the overwhelming majority of students that apply are “qualified” based on the standards specified above. We are not talking about admitting unqualified students - the issue is creating granular distinctions among a vast pool of qualified candidates. Note that even at schools like Cambridge they are asking for inputs that will be evaluated subjectively (e.g. a personal statement). Even if they are academically-related the admissions readers are clearly interpreting rather than just plugging in numbers.</p>

<p>Just to understand another piece of context let me cite my personal experience. I work in the computer industry. One of the few advantages we have in our “I can do it cheaper” world is the creativity of the American engineer (hardware or software). In many countries the engineers are almost robotic - outstanding at executing repeated procedures but not showing any out of the box thinking. Frankly I think a lot of that is due to the way they are selected and taught - gathering a lot of kids that perform well on tests and then putting them through a rigid curriculum. </p>

<p>MIT and other leading U.S. technological universities, by contrast, are looking for those with outstanding abilities (the basic qualifications of any MIT admit put them in the top 1-2% of the population) combined with a spark. Then they provide a large degree of independence to enable the creativity and drive that allow that spark to flourish (cliche, yes, but that’s what they are trying to do). Are the necessary attributes hard to measure? Absolutely. Will they assess wrong sometimes? Undoubtedly. However, I would argue it has also worked to our advantage. I didn’t go to MIT (as it should be my daughter has outperformed dear old dad), but the most successful engineers and business people among my classmates were not those that would have been selected based on purely objective criteria either at the point of college admission or graduation.</p>

177

<p>"There are broad swaths of knowledge that can be garnered from an SAT score - generally speaking, someone who is dialing toll free (all 800s) has reasoning abilities that exceed that of someone who scores straight 500s - but they’re very basic. "</p>

<p>very basic? I don’t think so at all. It’s like the difference between a 150 iq and a 100 iq (I really don’t want to get into iq, but im sure you get my point). </p>

<p>I guarantee you that if you compared the iqs of 2400 scorers to 2100 scorers, there would be a significant enough difference to justify paying attention to the 300 point gap that separates them. It isn’t simply chance; barring a few factors which are irrelevant a majority of the time, I think the difference is significant. The ACT is a different story.</p>

178

<p>@stix2400 - </p>

<p>Forget everything else. Why is the ACT a different story?</p>

179

<p>Because I think the SAT/ACT discrepancy is actually a very good example of the ultimate meaninglessness of standardized test scores as anything other than a very, very broad (we’re talking 5-10 percentile points here) swaths of abilities. Someone who scores well on the ACT and not so well on the SAT (or vice versa) is living proof of the circumstantial, contextual nature of “objective” criteria that aren’t actually objective at all!</p>

180

<p>I think the point in my last post is still valid. Forget the ACT/SAT thing (for just a sec :slight_smile: )</p>

<p>What would you say to that?</p>