Why was he rejected?

[mathboy98]

<p>

one also cannot say that ALL of them possess diverse interests.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I definitely agree that one cannot admit tons of people just for qualifying on a difficult math competition, because that does not fulfill what definitively must be the goal of the school – to admit people who really milk all its resources. </p>

<p>This means admitting a diverse class of individuals who represent a broad array of strengths, though each individual should be very interested in taking advantage of some of the school’s precious resources. </p>

<p>All of this stuff should, I think, be heavily grounded in academic interest certainly, just that interest can be allowed to take shape in different senses, as long as they’re no-BS senses.</p>

[HelloColorClear]

<p>My friend, who was 2nd place nat sci bowl, 1st place nat sci bowl, 11th place nat sci olympiad, 2390, 3.96 got rejected. that makes me angry.</p>

[Differ]

<p>Honestly the olympiads that don’t have a M as their middle initial are somewhat less prestigious than the one which does. If a gold medalist from one of those non-M olympiads fails to meet a certain standard (in this case, admission) it should not be exceedingly surprising.</p>

<p>People who do not speak fluent English indeed have a significant disadvantage in English environments. This disadvantage can manifest itself in a misunderstanding of directions, inability to grasp lectures, or maybe some other incident, but it always occurs and is a great source of frustration to everyone involved. English-speaking skills should definitely factor into admissions decisions.</p>

<p>I would argue that the math competitors who do not possess diverse interests are more interesting than those who do. In my experience, many of the math competitors who invest a lot of time in other competitions such as USAPhO, USACO, etc. are those who know that their math ability is lacking, and the best mathematicians usually do not dabble significantly in these other competitions. Of course there are some exceptions but not very many.</p>

<p>Also it is a classical continuum fallacy to say that MIT should not automatically accept “stellar” students because then it would be necessary to draw a distinction between “stellar” and “non-stellar”. If Linus Pauling applied to MIT, they would accept him, and if an undistinguished high school dropout applied to MIT, they would reject him, and somewhere in between the two must be a distinction. That doesn’t mean MIT should reject Linus Pauling or accept the dropout.</p>

<p>I do not understand what you mean by “admission across a broad spectrum”. Could you clarify?</p>

<p>Scoring 800s on the SAT is much less impressive than many people suppose and is very strongly dependent on many non-academic variables such as wealth, tutors, etc. Are people who score 800s intelligent and diligent? The answer is that they are not strongly correlated, because I personally know very many who are not. I strongly support the policy of “SAT scores are irrelevant after a threshold” because they are, and agree that high SAT scores do not mean anything.</p>

<p>To the OP: I don’t see anything exceptional about the application except maybe the Rensselaer medal, which I know nothing about, and the disabilities research. Some of the gaps in the application speak more loudly than the achievements. I highly doubt that the Chinese aspect was the deciding factor.</p>

[collegealum314]

<p>

Every year many people lament the fact that X contestant from Y country who won gold at Z olympiad was not admitted to MIT.

</p>

<p>Well, the admitting of internationals is capped so that it only accounts for 8%, roughly 100-120 people or so. Naturally, some olympiad winners will have to get rejected.</p>

<p>

I agree that this is not so much of a problem with domestic medalists (especially at the IMO level), because I really don’t think US olympiad golds or silvers have a big problem getting into MIT (they should all qualify under the “academic superstar” category), but what about USAMO and MOSP qualifiers? You’ll have to draw the line somewhere of what it means to be “stellar,” right? If we say we’re going to take a IMO person who is not too interesting outside of studying mathematics because of their academic brilliance, what about a USAMO person who is the same way? If this logic keeps going on, the school would always be obliged to take the hundreds and hundreds of seniors that qualify for the USAMO and above every year.

</p>

<p>I’m not sure where I would draw the line. I estimate there are about 250 USAMO qualifiers graduating every year (500 qualifiers, usually half are juniors and half are seniors), and MIT admits about 1500 people to account for yield. Not all of these 250 USAMO qualifiers will even apply to MIT. I don’t know, I think there would be room for them. Now personally, I value the USAMO guys more than the equivalent level in other subjects because the math exams are so much harder and more advanced. So I wouldn’t let in all the USAPHO, USACHo guys, etc.</p>

<p>I see where you are going with this, and maybe I would not take all the USAMO people. But if I were to reject some, I would reject them for people that I felt were academically stronger, not for some kind of non-academic EC or because someone else wrote an essay I liked.</p>

[QuantMech]

<p>In response to lola995’s question, I suggest taking a look at the qualifications of piccolojunior and hopelesslydevote (applicants for the class of 2012) and WaitingforGodot (or maybe WaitingForGodot, applicant for the class of 2013).</p>

<p>lola995, I also think that the decision about your son reflects some of the uncontrollable randomness in admissions. Helping to care for someone with a disability is admirable and it is quite challenging–but to understand what it really entails, a person needs to have considerable life experience or truly exceptional empathy. Other readers of the applications might have made different choices.</p>

[Batllo]

<p>lola- Where did he get accepted?</p>

[mathboy98]

<p>

But if I were to reject some, I would reject them for people that I felt were academically stronger, not for some kind of non-academic EC or because someone else wrote an essay I liked.

</p>

<p>Well, of course the qualifiers to these competitions are probably very academically strong, though nevertheless, there can be others genuinely very impressive in different regards, which would take advantage of a different subset of the school’s academic resources.</p>

<p>I’m hoping and assuming MIT generally abides by this logic anyway.</p>

[Inconclusive]

<p>May be he is a genius but better off without MIT?
Like, he enjoys working on his own…
MIT might did a favor for him.</p>

[lola995]

<p>By the way, the applicant is not my son.
Thanks for replying
@ Batillo: He already got into University of Chicago, but is waiting on Columbia and Yale.
I really feel his chances for Yale are extremely small.
What do you think his chances for Columbia are?</p>

[MeSsIaH_1]

<p>OP: that guy really isn’t too great. To MIT, he’s just another “textureless asian math grind” to quote the (before getting fired) MIT admissions director.</p>

<p>Differ: “I would argue that the math competitors who do not possess diverse interests are more interesting than those who do. In my experience, many of the math competitors who invest a lot of time in other competitions such as USAPhO, USACO, etc. are those who know that their math ability is lacking, and the best mathematicians usually do not dabble significantly in these other competitions. Of course there are some exceptions but not very many.”</p>

<p>Conceded. I started training bio bc I can’t make MOP. There’s also a girl I know who got CGMO bronze as a freshman, then switched to physics and ended up with an IPhO gold. She isn’t that great at math, actually. She was struggling with a harvard math class problem set, and my friend (also usamo but not mop) just looked at the axioms and theorems and figured it out in his head.</p>

[LauraN]

<p>I think the problem with asking why a particular applicant was rejected is that you are making the assumption that the reason has something to do with the student rather than the school. The fact is, MIT can only admit a finite number of applicants, no matter how many super geniuses or really cool-well-rounded interesting people or strong academics with fascinating personal stories or people whose favorite color is orange (or whatever other decision making metric you’d like to use) apply. As a result, lots and lots and lots of people get rejected. This totally sucks and is outrageously unfair, but so it goes. And it’s not MIT making it unfair, it’s just reality- everyone in the world can’t go to the same school.</p>

<p>I recently applied to a really cool job I was very excited about. I received personal correspondence from the CEO of the company saying I should expect a callback and did in fact make it through several rounds of the application process until I was told I was being considered as one of the top 8 applicants for the position. Unfortunately that was as far as I made it. This was upsetting and disappointing, to be sure (this position was very close to my perfect “dream job”). And yes, I was sorely tempted to call them up and just beg for an answer, “Why not me? What did the other guy have that I didn’t?” So I understand the desire for a concrete explanation, but I know there isn’t one. I was a great match for this company, loved the work they were doing, and the job description sounded as if it were written ABOUT me. That’s why I made it to the final 8. (Keep in mind this is only slightly less competitive than the MIT applicant pool, which has one spot for every 11-12 applicants or so, and these final 8 had already been winnowed down from an original 250+) Who knows, the person they hired probably “clicked” with them more during the interview or something. (This was an extremely small company, where that kind of thing would really matter.) It sucks and is outrageously unfair.</p>

<p>But I know it’s not about ME. It’s not that I couldn’t do the job, or even do the job tremendously well. It’s just the reality that they only needed one of us, and this time it wasn’t me. I understand how hard it can be to accept that. Really. (No, really. I’ve been job searching for over a year now, and live with my parents. Some days I spend more time talking to my dog than anybody else. Trust me, getting rejected from yet another job really blows. Dare I say it’s worse than getting rejected from your “reach” school knowing you’ll at least get into your safety?)</p>

<p>In response, I applied to some more jobs, just like high school seniors apply to more schools. Because sitting around asking myself what’s wrong with me is a total waste of my time, and bound to be really depressing on top of it.</p>

[mifune]

<p>

I strongly support the policy of “SAT scores are irrelevant after a threshold” because they are, and agree that high SAT scores do not mean anything.

</p>

<p>Universities clearly don’t regard SAT scores in that fashion. Moreover, it is simply not true that abilities can be considered identical once some arbitrary threshold is met. Many claim that a 2100 is absolutely no different from a 2400, but that is patently false. There are underlying reasons why approximately 50,000 students achieve a 2100 or better on the SAT while less than three hundred actually achieve a perfect score. To rephrase what another member previously stated on this matter, there is a large difference between merely receiving an A in a class and attempting to obtain every single point. Juxtaposing the two cases, one could distinguish a large difference in natural ability and dedication despite the fact that there would be fundamentally no difference in the actual grade received.</p>

[metapod]

<p>

Universities clearly don’t regard SAT scores in that fashion.

MIT says it does. Based on the number of >2300 kids that got rejected, I believe them.</p>

<p>Of course a 2100 is different than a 2400. But at some point the score stops reflecting math or reading ability and starts reflecting pure test-taking ability. So while 2400s are certainly impressive, the skills they indicate maybe aren’t so relevant to an admissions officer.</p>

[mifune]

<p>

MIT says it does. Based on the number of >2300 kids that got rejected, I believe them.

</p>

<p>I find it questionable that scores are primarily evaluated on a threshold-type basis, particularly since standardized testing is a criterion used by numerous ranking systems (i.e. USNWR). The graphs on page eight of the link below do not suggest that of MIT either. If anything, higher SAT scores appear to provide a substantial increase in the probability of admission. Yes, it is safe to assume that students who display more merit in other categories typically achieve better standardized test scores, but that doesn’t account for the escalating increase. Moreover, many of these subjective factors evaluated are virtually independent of SAT scores.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.infogoaround.org/CollegesChinese/RevealRanking.pdf[/url]”>http://www.infogoaround.org/CollegesChinese/RevealRanking.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

But at some point the score stops reflecting math or reading ability and starts reflecting pure test-taking ability. So while 2400s are certainly impressive, the skills they indicate maybe aren’t so relevant to an admissions officer.

</p>

<p>Yes, I do agree that one’s natural affinity for test-taking may influence performance but how can it be assumed that exceeding beyond certain score threshold somehow becomes less indicative of aptitude in that subject area? Likewise, even if it were accurate that test-taking skills distinguished high scorers from those who scored lower (which is often not the case), they should not be recognized as irrelevant to admissions officers. The ability to reason and perform well under highly stressful scenarios often does properly emulate real-life scenarios.</p>

[Pirrup]

<p>

I’m not sure where I would draw the line. I estimate there are about 250 USAMO qualifiers graduating every year (500 qualifiers, usually half are juniors and half are seniors), and MIT admits about 1500 people to account for yield. Not all of these 250 USAMO qualifiers will even apply to MIT. I don’t know, I think there would be room for them. Now personally, I value the USAMO guys more than the equivalent level in other subjects because the math exams are so much harder and more advanced. So I wouldn’t let in all the USAPHO, USACHo guys, etc.

</p>

<p>As far as the current state of the USAMO is concerned, only 250-270 people are invited to take the USAMO every year. Thus, the number of USAMO qualifiers per graduating class is closer to 80-130. Nonetheless, I agree with all of your other points.</p>

[mathboy98]

<p>

I find it questionable that scores are primarily evaluated on a threshold-type basis, particularly since standardized testing is a criterion used by numerous ranking systems (i.e. USNWR).

</p>

<p>Notice that the fact that average scores of admitted students tend to be high is *not * enough to conclude that the school actually differentiates among scores beyond a certain point. It could just show positive correlation between those who make the effort to do things the school values and studying a little for the SAT and making a pretty good score.</p>

<p>Beyond a certain point, definitely the score on an SAT-like test becomes, while possibly correlated with success in other areas, far from the best indicative measure of those successes. The better and most reliable measures should be relied on.</p>

[siserune]

<p>

It seems that when MIT adcoms see Asian checked on the application, their perspective instantly changes.

</p>

<p>For this (treating Asians worse than whites) there is no evidence in favor and some evidence against. </p>

<p>

when they see hispanic checked off, they lower the standards,

</p>

<p>For this (treating URM preferentially) there is some evidence. </p>

<p>Your story of the hard working but low scoring (in MIT’s pool) Chinese male passed over for a higher-scoring Cuban female may indicate meritocratic admission, or discrimination in favor of females or URM. It is not an apparent case of Chinese qualifications being discounted. After all, how did this kid have 10 APs and #1 class rank without being able to generate upper percentile test scores?</p>

[ExieMITAlum]

<p>Okay people, give it a rest with all this speculation because it will make you crazy and none of you knows what goes on in admissions.</p>

<p>So if trying to dismiss admitted students as “defective” or “unqualified” just because someone with a perfect score didn’t get in is ludicrous.</p>

<p>Yes - there are some reasons why MIT considers students above a certain threshold in the same light:</p>

<ol>
<li>A lot of students are prepped for tests.</li>
<li>Some students study incessantly for college entrance and have little else to show for it in terms of diversity of extracurriculars or personal interests.</li>
<li>Some are just not a personality match</li>
<li>Some have little to offer the student body as a whole</li>
<li>Colleges want a range - not a homogeneous amorphous blog</li>
<li>History tells us that students who don’t have perfect scores - but are above a threshold - may do as well or better than students who do.</li>
<li>Some kids with slightly lower scores write more interesting essays - or have unusual hobbies, or overcame some obstacle or - - - gave the Adcom something interesting to remember in their application beyond the math/science/award/genius/perfect score stuff that gets monotonous and boring after you’ve read 10,000 applications like that.</li>
</ol>

<p>As an interviewer these discussion board speculations about who got in and why - and how someone took a spot they didn’t deserve and how some high score is better than a score that’s 100 points lower…ad naseum just sicken me. Because it’s not true and it sounds like whining - which may indicate why those people didn’t get in in the first place - that whole entitlement issue. I’ve run into students like that and wrote “no” on the interview form.</p>

<p>As they say in dating - if you didn’t get picked at a college it’s because that specific year they “just weren’t that into you.”</p>

<p>Be happy for the ones who got admitted and move on. MIT does not select students who can’t do the work or need remediation. They do pick students who are smart AND interesting. Unfortunately, there isn’t room for them all.</p>

<p>MIT is a privilege, not a right, and they are allowed to choose whomever they want. If that wasn’t you - move on.</p>

<p>Rant over.</p>

[MD_Mom_1]

<p>DD had an acquaintance who was wait-listed and then accepted to MIT last year who hired a counselor to help with applications and in general was a smart kid but not brilliant by anyone’s standards (other than his own). She thought the reason he was accepted was that his family was REALLY rich–by anyone’s standards.</p>

[ExieMITAlum]

<p>Good grief. MIT doesn’t care about wealth - it’s not a factor. That’s why I wish people would stop speculating about what MIT does or does not consider when looking at thousands of applications.</p>

<p>Brilliance is relative and these kinds of speculations might really prevent a truly brilliant kid who doesn’t look as “good” on paper from applying.</p>

<p>There could be a million different reasons why that specific kid came off the waiting list. Wealth is not one of them.</p>