Is MIT RD decision coming out today?

[Anonymous]

Look the difference for an athlete at MIT is that anything you do besides your sport is gravy. You just need the grades and the scores...but they don't care if you win Math contests or do academic research, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There’s a guy on YouTube who has perfect SAT and got into MIT to play tennis. Ironically he was rejected from 3 ivies, Duke (with sibling legacy) and waitlisted at Harvard. So admissions is extremely random and he could’ve gotten into any school off academics alone

Link?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:any DC kids admitted this year?

Of course TJ will have a handful

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There’s a guy on YouTube who has perfect SAT and got into MIT to play tennis. Ironically he was rejected from 3 ivies, Duke (with sibling legacy) and waitlisted at Harvard. So admissions is extremely random and he could’ve gotten into any school off academics alone

Not random. He was good enough to play tennis at MIT but certainly not at the other schools he applied to

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s a guy on YouTube who has perfect SAT and got into MIT to play tennis. Ironically he was rejected from 3 ivies, Duke (with sibling legacy) and waitlisted at Harvard. So admissions is extremely random and he could’ve gotten into any school off academics alone

Not random. He was good enough to play tennis at MIT but certainly not at the other schools he applied to

Yeah, pretty sure MIT is not known for it's sports.

[Anonymous]

There are more than one discussions like this about MIT but it has multiple people talking about the substantial help being a recruited athlete has:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ApplyingToCollege/comments/z19d4n/mit_coach_stated_that_supported_athletes_have_a/

MIT is much more like Amherst, Swarthmore, Williams, Wash U, Chicago, Hopkins etc. than it is CalTech when it comes to recruiting athletes. I actually don't thing that is a bad thing but it is funny how people think MIT is just "different" in that regard (maybe it is because CalTech has taken such a unique approach). You still have to be a great student and a very good athlete, which aligns with what MIT wants anyway. Most of these top schools are screening out the vast majority of athletes they've looked at by the time their junior years are done.

MIT recognizes that the athletic contributions of a recruited student athlete hold meaningful merit while they don't view the luck of being a legacy in the same way (it isn't considered by the AO).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:also an alum. my kid was rejected - smarter than me by a mile, more accomplished, higher stats, better ECs. I am honestly a bit relieved because kid would have gone and I don't know if I want that life for them.

And what kind of life is that?

It is well known that MIT undergrad is pretty cutthroat...

Other schools' motto: "Friends don't let friends transfer to MIT."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are more than one discussions like this about MIT but it has multiple people talking about the substantial help being a recruited athlete has:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ApplyingToCollege/comments/z19d4n/mit_coach_stated_that_supported_athletes_have_a/

MIT is much more like Amherst, Swarthmore, Williams, Wash U, Chicago, Hopkins etc. than it is CalTech when it comes to recruiting athletes. I actually don't thing that is a bad thing but it is funny how people think MIT is just "different" in that regard (maybe it is because CalTech has taken such a unique approach). You still have to be a great student and a very good athlete, which aligns with what MIT wants anyway. Most of these top schools are screening out the vast majority of athletes they've looked at by the time their junior years are done.

MIT recognizes that the athletic contributions of a recruited student athlete hold meaningful merit while they don't view the luck of being a legacy in the same way (it isn't considered by the AO).

Soccer player at DC's school was recruited by MIT coach. While a very good student, he was not strong enough to pass the pre-read.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s a guy on YouTube who has perfect SAT and got into MIT to play tennis. Ironically he was rejected from 3 ivies, Duke (with sibling legacy) and waitlisted at Harvard. So admissions is extremely random and he could’ve gotten into any school off academics alone

Not random. He was good enough to play tennis at MIT but certainly not at the other schools he applied to

Giving me strong "Infinite Jest" /David Foster Wallace vibes . . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s a guy on YouTube who has perfect SAT and got into MIT to play tennis. Ironically he was rejected from 3 ivies, Duke (with sibling legacy) and waitlisted at Harvard. So admissions is extremely random and he could’ve gotten into any school off academics alone

Not random. He was good enough to play tennis at MIT but certainly not at the other schools he applied to

Giving me strong "Infinite Jest" /David Foster Wallace vibes . . .

Profile sounds perfect for Chicago, a D3 power in tennis. MIT isn't bad either (ranked #30 just behind Swarthmore and Haverford): https://www.wearecollegetennis.com/2023/01/17/division-iii-mens-rankings-jan-17/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MIT is well-known for requiring athletes to meet the same academic standards as everyone else.

MIT athletes are great students too but this comment is just wrong if you are solely talking about test scores and GPA (which I don't think is right to focus on too much anyway but is what I think PP meant).
MIT goes to great length to say they don't provide likely letters to athletes (like the Ivy League, Hopkins, and Chicago will) and that they don't have select athlete slots but being a recruited athlete is part of the review. You should definitely not confuse MIT with CalTech, which treats being a basketball player basically the same as a violinist and hasn't had a winning season in memory.
Being a strong athlete is a great way to get into MIT (and almost any other really high academic D3 school other than CalTech) and if your kids are really recruited, they'll talk quite a bit more with the coach about approaching admissions too.
.

Have to admire CalTech's commitment to not caring about sports. The men's basketball team lost more than 200 straight games over a decade or so. At last, a school that cares about educational achievement. Go Beavers!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s a guy on YouTube who has perfect SAT and got into MIT to play tennis. Ironically he was rejected from 3 ivies, Duke (with sibling legacy) and waitlisted at Harvard. So admissions is extremely random and he could’ve gotten into any school off academics alone

Not random. He was good enough to play tennis at MIT but certainly not at the other schools he applied to

Yeah, pretty sure MIT is not known for it's sports.

MIT is divison III

[Anonymous]

sad that college is about sports.

[Anonymous]

There were a bunch of TJ early admits. Not sure about RD.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It is well known that MIT undergrad is pretty cutthroat...

Quite the opposite, actually. One of the most supportive communities ever.