Is MIT RD decision coming out today?

[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

I didn't say anything about any of those hooks being good or bad. There was no value judgment other than to say schools can rationally and legally want to keep giving a slight edge to athletes and legacies (and that 1600 + 4.0 isn't all they want).
I 100% agree that truly elitist sports like squash and sailing that don't draw spectators or have any large effect on campus life/culture should be made clubs and given no extra admissions help. Sports can bring people together and create a lot of excitement too. The games in a few sports in the Harvard-Yale and Amherst-Williams types of top school rivalries do that in a great way. Alums will also return to events like a Harvard Yale football game in numbers that are only matched by formal reunions. High academic schools recruiting for 30+ sports is a lot though.
On legacies, they are a product of luck, which I don't like; however, I can see how they can be attractive to schools. Making them an all else equal plus only in early rounds would be fine with me I guess. In that case, they really would fully need the scores, leadership, and ECs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Wholeheartedly agree. Us against the profs.

[Anonymous]

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.

My DD (UVA) spent last summer in an internship program with a bunch of MIT students. They all told her they hated it there. No idea why.

Ha ha… they probably meant IHTFP!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Any other MIT acceptances or decisions being shared?

Be careful which boards you follow regarding admissions (for any school), as there exists some strong misinformation out there (in general), both current and not.

[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.

My DD (UVA) spent last summer in an internship program with a bunch of MIT students. They all told her they hated it there. No idea why.

Ha ha… they probably meant IHTFP!

I had to look that up. That's hilarious. So does that mean that they really hated it, or is that just a thing that they tell everybody?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

My DD (UVA) spent last summer in an internship program with a bunch of MIT students. They all told her they hated it there. No idea why.

Ha ha… they probably meant IHTFP!

I had to look that up. That's hilarious. So does that mean that they really hated it, or is that just a thing that they tell everybody?

I know a ton of MIT grads (both undergrad and grad school) and don't believe that they would have really meant it, but that is just my opinion (from a significant sample). MIt has tons of peculiar and entertaining lore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think engineering and comp sci must be the toughest admits.

probably, especially for Asian boys.

Boys have about half the admission rate as girls at MIT regardless of race.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think engineering and comp sci must be the toughest admits.

probably, especially for Asian boys.

Boys have about half the admission rate as girls at MIT regardless of race.

but statistically, MIT has a higher Asian male applicant rate than white girls.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think engineering and comp sci must be the toughest admits.

probably, especially for Asian boys.

Boys have about half the admission rate as girls at MIT regardless of race.

There was a blog about this in MIT website. It is because girls self-limit applying to MIT, so the percentage of strong applicants is higher in girls than boys. You should know the gender ratio is 52:48 for boys:girls..