Is MIT RD decision coming out today?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:sad that college is about sports.

Don’t hate the player hate the game boo boo

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!!!

This would be a big plus for me.

[Anonymous]

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

not many in RD

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What do you mean by proper stats? It is an advantage to be a recruited athlete period. A recruited football player can get in with lower stats than my engineering applicant who is not being recruited to play football. Which is kind of ridiculous considering how bad the team is - compared to Harvard, for example. Why should there be a prefernce at all? Like no one is donating money because of MIT football

Because sports are an institutional priority. Like all IP's, it may not be important to you, but it's something the university values and feels adds to the student experience.

I hope you don’t complain about legacies or other hooks then.

Why? Legacies have no control over their status, excellent athletes and musicians actually work long and hard and have talent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What do you mean by proper stats? It is an advantage to be a recruited athlete period. A recruited football player can get in with lower stats than my engineering applicant who is not being recruited to play football. Which is kind of ridiculous considering how bad the team is - compared to Harvard, for example. Why should there be a prefernce at all? Like no one is donating money because of MIT football

Because sports are an institutional priority. Like all IP's, it may not be important to you, but it's something the university values and feels adds to the student experience.

I hope you don’t complain about legacies or other hooks then.

Why? Legacies have no control over their status, excellent athletes and musicians actually work long and hard and have talent.

Except that "excellent athletes and musicians" have helicopter moms, and the schools know that - so they don't generally want to reward that helicopter mom behavior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rejected. DD 1580 SAT 4.0 UW MCPS. Varsity athlete in 2 sports

same stats here FCPS. same varsity athlete in 2 sports. also rejected.

MIT doesn’t care about the “two sports,” people. This isn’t flagship State U.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What do you mean by proper stats? It is an advantage to be a recruited athlete period. A recruited football player can get in with lower stats than my engineering applicant who is not being recruited to play football. Which is kind of ridiculous considering how bad the team is - compared to Harvard, for example. Why should there be a prefernce at all? Like no one is donating money because of MIT football

Because sports are an institutional priority. Like all IP's, it may not be important to you, but it's something the university values and feels adds to the student experience.

I hope you don’t complain about legacies or other hooks then.

Why? Legacies have no control over their status, excellent athletes and musicians actually work long and hard and have talent.

That’s not the justification. The justification is institutional priority. They’re choosing to prioritize athletic “ability” (albeit at a D3 level) as part of an academic institution’s admission criteria.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Holy smokes nobody got in. Should’ve got your kids into fencing!

Fencing or rowing or diving FTW

Or football!
That's a great way in.

At MIT? I would appreciate if people who know nothing about certain schools would stop posting. You are embarrassing yourselves.

J
O
K
E

[Anonymous]

John Urschel is a great read on the intersection of a really smart athlete (football) and college. He has a PhD from MIT in mathematics.

Urschel turned down ugrad admission at MIT because he wanted to play big time football. During his years at Penn State, he earned an undergraduate and masters degree in mathematics. While at Penn State, he was awarded the Campbell Trophy, also known as the “Academic Heisman."

After (and actually during) playing for the Ravens, he returned to school, this time for a PhD in mathematics at MIT.

https://news.mit.edu/2019/student-john-urschel-math-football-0515

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What do you mean by proper stats? It is an advantage to be a recruited athlete period. A recruited football player can get in with lower stats than my engineering applicant who is not being recruited to play football. Which is kind of ridiculous considering how bad the team is - compared to Harvard, for example. Why should there be a prefernce at all? Like no one is donating money because of MIT football

Because sports are an institutional priority. Like all IP's, it may not be important to you, but it's something the university values and feels adds to the student experience.

I hope you don’t complain about legacies or other hooks then.

Why? Legacies have no control over their status, excellent athletes and musicians actually work long and hard and have talent.

Yeah, the only hook I think is ridiculous is the legacy hook. They bring literally nothing extra to the school community.

[Anonymous]

Legacies can strengthen the bonds alums feel (in more than a $ way, though that matters too). They can also have a sincere interest and respect for school traditions and maintaining them and are not a bad thing for a school's yield either.
Legacies may not add a ton beyond any other student to the community while a student is there but the bond of families who have attended schools across generations is real.
That being said, I don't think legacies should be considered in admissions like athletes, who are bringing an in-demand skill that the college.

[Anonymous]

Legacies and athletes not "taking" some predestined spot either. We need to get it out of our heads that there will ever be some clear meritocracy in admissions that anyone could even agree on. Schools have also never just wanted kids with perfect scores and GPAs. The most selective schools could have enrolled nothing but those students for decades. The earlier part of this thread where people thought MIT didn't factor in being a recruited athlete made me chuckle.
Many of you on DCUM must be directly or indirectly involved in hiring people and should know that it isn't easy to just figure out who the "best" person is for a job, almost certainly not just by looking at a resume, cover letter, and transcript without even putting them through multiple interviews. It is also hard to think about which job applicant might have the best skillset, work ethic, and ability to learn to grow into the best manager or director for your company.
All of this merit and x should be admitted while y shouldn't seems crazy. Yes, admissions offices shouldn't illegally discriminate against groups of people (which it looks like they did in some cases) but if they want to take the best football player and then take the person whose dad and grandfather attended the school, they are 100% free to choose to do that.

[Anonymous]

Any other MIT acceptances or decisions being shared?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Legacies and athletes not "taking" some predestined spot either. We need to get it out of our heads that there will ever be some clear meritocracy in admissions that anyone could even agree on. Schools have also never just wanted kids with perfect scores and GPAs. The most selective schools could have enrolled nothing but those students for decades. The earlier part of this thread where people thought MIT didn't factor in being a recruited athlete made me chuckle.
Many of you on DCUM must be directly or indirectly involved in hiring people and should know that it isn't easy to just figure out who the "best" person is for a job, almost certainly not just by looking at a resume, cover letter, and transcript without even putting them through multiple interviews. It is also hard to think about which job applicant might have the best skillset, work ethic, and ability to learn to grow into the best manager or director for your company.
All of this merit and x should be admitted while y shouldn't seems crazy. Yes, admissions offices shouldn't illegally discriminate against groups of people (which it looks like they did in some cases) but if they want to take the best football player and then take the person whose dad and grandfather attended the school, they are 100% free to choose to do that.

To summarize - hooks that favor white people = good. Hook that doesn’t= bad

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legacies and athletes not "taking" some predestined spot either. We need to get it out of our heads that there will ever be some clear meritocracy in admissions that anyone could even agree on. Schools have also never just wanted kids with perfect scores and GPAs. The most selective schools could have enrolled nothing but those students for decades. The earlier part of this thread where people thought MIT didn't factor in being a recruited athlete made me chuckle.
Many of you on DCUM must be directly or indirectly involved in hiring people and should know that it isn't easy to just figure out who the "best" person is for a job, almost certainly not just by looking at a resume, cover letter, and transcript without even putting them through multiple interviews. It is also hard to think about which job applicant might have the best skillset, work ethic, and ability to learn to grow into the best manager or director for your company.
All of this merit and x should be admitted while y shouldn't seems crazy. Yes, admissions offices shouldn't illegally discriminate against groups of people (which it looks like they did in some cases) but if they want to take the best football player and then take the person whose dad and grandfather attended the school, they are 100% free to choose to do that.

To summarize - hooks that favor white people = good. Hook that doesn’t= bad

Schools can't do something illegal. You have to admit that the follow through of some admissions policies that may have had good intent was poor, which is part of how we got here.