MIT Regular Decision

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I dont know why MIT gets a pass on "admit only on merit" when their stats clearly show a class that's as hooked as any: female, URM, athletes. I get they dont take legacy into consideration - good for them. But they have plenty of institutional priorities.

my advice: get into MITES, Women's Tech program, or any of their summer programs.

In my child's experience, the kids that make it into MIT are the very good but not necessarily brilliant girls while the non-athlete boys are waitlisted or rejected unless they have made MOP or are simply beyond brilliant. When you have taken classes with these kids, you know the difference. Of course, girls also have an easier time with science and math competitions/awards, so things get very fuzzy.

As an MIT alum with years of exposure to my fellow students there and now interviewing students including many from MIT for PhD admissions (this year and recently), I will say that there were and are both truly brilliant men and women as well as those who might be better described as more motivated, organized, etc and not Putnam scholars. I have no idea about awards etc other than in college because honestly that was not a thing that anyone cared about though of course many many are/were Olympiad/math competition / science competition entrants/winners. so I have no data and had no idea girls had an easier time with science/math competitions and awards.

Also, this thread is kind of funny -- honestly, how hard is it to understand that MIT will not admit someone not academically unqualified under any circumstances, because there is no easy path there, but that of course like any other competitive school they have the luxury to select between numerous qualified kids who will succeed there and sometimes think about how specific skills of applicants will support their existing successful teams? I mean when I was there we all knew oboe was needed and that MIT would go find that sometimes too. This is nothing new and a good lesson for real life. And..MIT doesn't have legacy per se, but you can be sure that they pay attention to VIPS as they should. When I was there the Chinese premier's child was an UG there. Qualified but would really think they ignored that aspect of the application? Don't be stupid. And while I get the stress it causes, it is crazy to overthink this. There are so many fabulous places to study. UCLA has the world's best living mathematician. CS is honestly great at CMU, Stanford, and CS is in unheaval now anyways. And honestly at my highly ranked school I think many things are totally overrated and not worth consideration.

Good luck to everyone and glad to hear that MIT is still an exciting place for many. It is a great experience (among so many possible ones).

I appreciate the perspective. I’d be interested to hear more about what you think is overrated, if you’re willing to elaborate.

As an Asian immigrant (not the over-represented-two), I often feel surrounded by people who seem to exaggerate the school’s prestige to an almost irrational degree. I’m genuinely interested in hearing more thoughtful opinions about the school’s real strengths and weaknesses.

For example, I’ve always found it puzzling that so many Asian students spend years intensely grinding math competitions, only to end up studying CS not math—and then leave software engineering as soon as they realize that quant roles pay better. Financial insecurity is a motivation. However I’m curious why MIT has developed such a strong reputation as the place to go if your goal is to work at companies like FAANG or firms like Citadel/Hedge funds. I personally think the myth of Tx or bust is originated from this insecurity or irrational goals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the discussion about how much of a bump athletics play in admissions depends upon where you are in the recruit pool.

Top recruits have much stronger recommendations from coaches vs mid pool recruits have a more mild recommendations.

And which sport. And whether M or F.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MIT, the fairest, middle classes friendly and true merit based school. Good luck to everyone.

Esp if you're a female or athlete!

-100
Mit athletes get no admissions boost whatsoever from
Coaches. Yeah, admissions gets a notice who the coach supports but 2/3 of those kids still won’t get in. The 1/3 that do are because they are qualified. No one unqualified is getting into MIT no matter what your athletic abilities are.

It's not a huge boost, but it's a tip and with so many ultraqualified applicants, that tip can determine who gets in.

No one gets in unless qualified. No one. Coaches know ther hands are tied and tell athletes that: no guarantees, no true prereads, no commitments, and if you want to get security, we understand but go elsewhere. They also tell students they will want a 1580 sat with a minimum 790 in math.

100% incorrect. My kid is a recruited athlete at MIT, why do you keep posting stuff that you have no clue about?

Recruited? Or
Admitted? This info is directly from a long time coach there who recruited my kid (kid stopped interacting after understanding there was no guarantee). Teammate committed to swim at JHU when the same thing was told to her. Bird in the hand. So this came from swim
Coaches at mit. Who told you differently -
Identify the MIT coaches.

Mine recruited, admitted and currently attending so I’m limiting some things.

Female, her HS team was nationally ranked and she had multiple D1 offers (not Ivy)
780/780 so test scores were fine
4.6 GPA, 12 or so AP classes if I recall correctly mostly 5’s some 4’s

Coach said that they were supposed to tell her 50-65% chance of getting in but the coach also said that they didn’t see many rejected with her academics

Coach started talking seriously only after she gave them her SAT score which was the summer after her sophomore year. Coach asked for her junior schedule at that time and asked if it was the hardest available. Never asked for any additions or changes.

But you are glossing over the fact that they wouldn't even talk until the test scores were in. That tells you exactly what you need to know. Sports do absolutely nothing.

It has been repeated as nauseam that there is no relief on academic requirements. But if you have the academics 65% is a whole lot better than 3%

Gosh people really are dense on here. The reason they won't talk until scores are in is because they have no say in the admissions process.

Dense it what you see in the mirror.

They don’t talk prior because they have a minimum bar set by admissions which they need to meet. Once that bar is met getting on the coaches list takes you from 3% to roughly 50-60% and the coach picks who goes on the list. Any applicant would love that boost.

No it doesn’t- no MIT coach is getting in 50-60% of the applicants that would play a sport there. None.

You might not like it but they do get 50-60% of the kids that they support. That is the way that it works because otherwise they would not be able to field competitive teams and competitive teams are important to MIT. My family has went through the process while you are arguing back because you don't want to accept the reality. Spend a bit of time on CC or just doing some basic research. It won't make you happy but maybe you be better able to accept that MIT recruits hard and that athletic recruits get huge bumps even if they don't get the guaranteed admissions that some schools give.

Name the coach and sport at MIT who said this. Directly contrary to what we were told.

Why would I do that? I will tell you that the coach has been at MIT for a long time, knows the system better than and coaches a program that is among the best at MIT.

If what I have told you is contrary to what you were told what I can tell you is that your child wasn't high on the coaches list relative others in their sport. The coach was just keeping you around in case they lost the people that they actually wanted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the discussion about how much of a bump athletics play in admissions depends upon where you are in the recruit pool.

Top recruits have much stronger recommendations from coaches vs mid pool recruits have a more mild recommendations.

And which sport. And whether M or F.

100% to both of these comments. In the case of the poster arguing so hard that there is no advantage I suspect that their athlete wasn't high on the coaches list and they were being strung along in case they lost the recruits that they really wanted.

As I had mentioned earlier for mine.

Female, her HS team was nationally ranked and she had multiple D1 offers (not Ivy)
780/780 so test scores were fine, actually better than fine because of the strong verbal score.
4.6 GPA, 12 or so AP classes so she had the highest rigor available at her school.

She was also at or very near the top of the coaches list. She checked every box for top support.

[Anonymous]

Coach said that they were supposed to tell her 50-65% chance of getting in but the coach also said that they didn’t see many rejected with her academics

Coach started talking seriously only after she gave them her SAT score which was the summer after her sophomore year. Coach asked for her junior schedule at that time and asked if it was the hardest available. Never asked for any additions or changes.

Just saw this today and as a parent to athletes in a sport who have high stats, I can attest to this. Niche sport. You need to have all the MIT stats in order to talk to the coach. They won't entertain a conversation unless you have a certain SAT and GPA with high rigor. Once you have the stats, then you need the appealing sports record and you can have a conversation. It's 100% a thumb on the scale as we've seen the scenario of who can and cannot talk to MIT. And the rules came from the school rep not our coaches.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the discussion about how much of a bump athletics play in admissions depends upon where you are in the recruit pool.

Top recruits have much stronger recommendations from coaches vs mid pool recruits have a more mild recommendations.

And which sport. And whether M or F.

This this this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MIT, the fairest, middle classes friendly and true merit based school. Good luck to everyone.

Esp if you're a female or athlete!

-100
Mit athletes get no admissions boost whatsoever from
Coaches. Yeah, admissions gets a notice who the coach supports but 2/3 of those kids still won’t get in. The 1/3 that do are because they are qualified. No one unqualified is getting into MIT no matter what your athletic abilities are.

It's not a huge boost, but it's a tip and with so many ultraqualified applicants, that tip can determine who gets in.

No one gets in unless qualified. No one. Coaches know ther hands are tied and tell athletes that: no guarantees, no true prereads, no commitments, and if you want to get security, we understand but go elsewhere. They also tell students they will want a 1580 sat with a minimum 790 in math.

100% incorrect. My kid is a recruited athlete at MIT, why do you keep posting stuff that you have no clue about?

Recruited? Or
Admitted? This info is directly from a long time coach there who recruited my kid (kid stopped interacting after understanding there was no guarantee). Teammate committed to swim at JHU when the same thing was told to her. Bird in the hand. So this came from swim
Coaches at mit. Who told you differently -
Identify the MIT coaches.

women's soccer.

its not a bird in hand. it wasn't during early round. if you wanted a bird in hand you had to go elsewhere. (although "committed to the process" is always the language). but it was a large boost.

anyway, my dd graduated already. but the soccer coach is still there and I'm familiar.

Why does MIT only recruit athletes from here? Are there any students from DMV recruited not as an athlete?

On reddit, there is a dmv kid with 1530/3.88UW who got in with very good research.

I know of at least one admitted from NoVA! STEM major, no athlete/urm/legacy hooks. So it does happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MIT, the fairest, middle classes friendly and true merit based school. Good luck to everyone.

Esp if you're a female or athlete!

-100
Mit athletes get no admissions boost whatsoever from
Coaches. Yeah, admissions gets a notice who the coach supports but 2/3 of those kids still won’t get in. The 1/3 that do are because they are qualified. No one unqualified is getting into MIT no matter what your athletic abilities are.

It's not a huge boost, but it's a tip and with so many ultraqualified applicants, that tip can determine who gets in.

No one gets in unless qualified. No one. Coaches know ther hands are tied and tell athletes that: no guarantees, no true prereads, no commitments, and if you want to get security, we understand but go elsewhere. They also tell students they will want a 1580 sat with a minimum 790 in math.

100% incorrect. My kid is a recruited athlete at MIT, why do you keep posting stuff that you have no clue about?

Recruited? Or
Admitted? This info is directly from a long time coach there who recruited my kid (kid stopped interacting after understanding there was no guarantee). Teammate committed to swim at JHU when the same thing was told to her. Bird in the hand. So this came from swim
Coaches at mit. Who told you differently -
Identify the MIT coaches.

Mine recruited, admitted and currently attending so I’m limiting some things.

Female, her HS team was nationally ranked and she had multiple D1 offers (not Ivy)
780/780 so test scores were fine
4.6 GPA, 12 or so AP classes if I recall correctly mostly 5’s some 4’s

Coach said that they were supposed to tell her 50-65% chance of getting in but the coach also said that they didn’t see many rejected with her academics

Coach started talking seriously only after she gave them her SAT score which was the summer after her sophomore year. Coach asked for her junior schedule at that time and asked if it was the hardest available. Never asked for any additions or changes.

But you are glossing over the fact that they wouldn't even talk until the test scores were in. That tells you exactly what you need to know. Sports do absolutely nothing.

It has been repeated as nauseam that there is no relief on academic requirements. But if you have the academics 65% is a whole lot better than 3%

Gosh people really are dense on here. The reason they won't talk until scores are in is because they have no say in the admissions process.

Dense it what you see in the mirror.

They don’t talk prior because they have a minimum bar set by admissions which they need to meet. Once that bar is met getting on the coaches list takes you from 3% to roughly 50-60% and the coach picks who goes on the list. Any applicant would love that boost.

No it doesn’t- no MIT coach is getting in 50-60% of the applicants that would play a sport there. None.

You might not like it but they do get 50-60% of the kids that they support. That is the way that it works because otherwise they would not be able to field competitive teams and competitive teams are important to MIT. My family has went through the process while you are arguing back because you don't want to accept the reality. Spend a bit of time on CC or just doing some basic research. It won't make you happy but maybe you be better able to accept that MIT recruits hard and that athletic recruits get huge bumps even if they don't get the guaranteed admissions that some schools give.

Name the coach and sport at MIT who said this. Directly contrary to what we were told.

Why would I do that? I will tell you that the coach has been at MIT for a long time, knows the system better than and coaches a program that is among the best at MIT.

If what I have told you is contrary to what you were told what I can tell you is that your child wasn't high on the coaches list relative others in their sport. The coach was just keeping you around in case they lost the people that they actually wanted.

I agree with 50-60% based on numbers I saw when my kid was recruited and later admitted. But it may vary by sport.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the discussion about how much of a bump athletics play in admissions depends upon where you are in the recruit pool.

Top recruits have much stronger recommendations from coaches vs mid pool recruits have a more mild recommendations.

And which sport. And whether M or F.

This this this.

They posted their daughters stats above. Why would they mention the sport when they said that their daughter is still at MIT?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I dont know why MIT gets a pass on "admit only on merit" when their stats clearly show a class that's as hooked as any: female, URM, athletes. I get they dont take legacy into consideration - good for them. But they have plenty of institutional priorities.

my advice: get into MITES, Women's Tech program, or any of their summer programs.

In my child's experience, the kids that make it into MIT are the very good but not necessarily brilliant girls while the non-athlete boys are waitlisted or rejected unless they have made MOP or are simply beyond brilliant. When you have taken classes with these kids, you know the difference. Of course, girls also have an easier time with science and math competitions/awards, so things get very fuzzy.

As an MIT alum with years of exposure to my fellow students there and now interviewing students including many from MIT for PhD admissions (this year and recently), I will say that there were and are both truly brilliant men and women as well as those who might be better described as more motivated, organized, etc and not Putnam scholars. I have no idea about awards etc other than in college because honestly that was not a thing that anyone cared about though of course many many are/were Olympiad/math competition / science competition entrants/winners. so I have no data and had no idea girls had an easier time with science/math competitions and awards.

Also, this thread is kind of funny -- honestly, how hard is it to understand that MIT will not admit someone not academically unqualified under any circumstances, because there is no easy path there, but that of course like any other competitive school they have the luxury to select between numerous qualified kids who will succeed there and sometimes think about how specific skills of applicants will support their existing successful teams? I mean when I was there we all knew oboe was needed and that MIT would go find that sometimes too. This is nothing new and a good lesson for real life. And..MIT doesn't have legacy per se, but you can be sure that they pay attention to VIPS as they should. When I was there the Chinese premier's child was an UG there. Qualified but would really think they ignored that aspect of the application? Don't be stupid. And while I get the stress it causes, it is crazy to overthink this. There are so many fabulous places to study. UCLA has the world's best living mathematician. CS is honestly great at CMU, Stanford, and CS is in unheaval now anyways. And honestly at my highly ranked school I think many things are totally overrated and not worth consideration.

Good luck to everyone and glad to hear that MIT is still an exciting place for many. It is a great experience (among so many possible ones).

I appreciate the perspective. I’d be interested to hear more about what you think is overrated, if you’re willing to elaborate.

As an Asian immigrant (not the over-represented-two), I often feel surrounded by people who seem to exaggerate the school’s prestige to an almost irrational degree. I’m genuinely interested in hearing more thoughtful opinions about the school’s real strengths and weaknesses.

For example, I’ve always found it puzzling that so many Asian students spend years intensely grinding math competitions, only to end up studying CS not math—and then leave software engineering as soon as they realize that quant roles pay better. Financial insecurity is a motivation. However I’m curious why MIT has developed such a strong reputation as the place to go if your goal is to work at companies like FAANG or firms like Citadel/Hedge funds. I personally think the myth of Tx or bust is originated from this insecurity or irrational goals.

I second your question. Obviously, MIT has a stellar reputation. Nevertheless, I have seen admitted students decline to matriculate for various reasons.

In the past, I’ve heard students turn down MIT for Harvard if they have aspirations for medical school because of MIT’s grade deflation. (Harvard may no longer be the destination of choice now that the grading policy has changed.)

I’ve seen math majors choose Harvard over MIT because of Harvard’s Putnam coach.

But the most interesting choice I’ve seen is a student who turned down MIT because of AI. The student’s decision rested on the perception that MIT is known for developing brilliance and work ethic, at the expense of social skills. The student believed that social skills are imperative in a post-AI world. I do not know the merits of his assessment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I dont know why MIT gets a pass on "admit only on merit" when their stats clearly show a class that's as hooked as any: female, URM, athletes. I get they dont take legacy into consideration - good for them. But they have plenty of institutional priorities.

my advice: get into MITES, Women's Tech program, or any of their summer programs.

In my child's experience, the kids that make it into MIT are the very good but not necessarily brilliant girls while the non-athlete boys are waitlisted or rejected unless they have made MOP or are simply beyond brilliant. When you have taken classes with these kids, you know the difference. Of course, girls also have an easier time with science and math competitions/awards, so things get very fuzzy.

As an MIT alum with years of exposure to my fellow students there and now interviewing students including many from MIT for PhD admissions (this year and recently), I will say that there were and are both truly brilliant men and women as well as those who might be better described as more motivated, organized, etc and not Putnam scholars. I have no idea about awards etc other than in college because honestly that was not a thing that anyone cared about though of course many many are/were Olympiad/math competition / science competition entrants/winners. so I have no data and had no idea girls had an easier time with science/math competitions and awards.

Also, this thread is kind of funny -- honestly, how hard is it to understand that MIT will not admit someone not academically unqualified under any circumstances, because there is no easy path there, but that of course like any other competitive school they have the luxury to select between numerous qualified kids who will succeed there and sometimes think about how specific skills of applicants will support their existing successful teams? I mean when I was there we all knew oboe was needed and that MIT would go find that sometimes too. This is nothing new and a good lesson for real life. And..MIT doesn't have legacy per se, but you can be sure that they pay attention to VIPS as they should. When I was there the Chinese premier's child was an UG there. Qualified but would really think they ignored that aspect of the application? Don't be stupid. And while I get the stress it causes, it is crazy to overthink this. There are so many fabulous places to study. UCLA has the world's best living mathematician. CS is honestly great at CMU, Stanford, and CS is in unheaval now anyways. And honestly at my highly ranked school I think many things are totally overrated and not worth consideration.

Good luck to everyone and glad to hear that MIT is still an exciting place for many. It is a great experience (among so many possible ones).

I appreciate the perspective. I’d be interested to hear more about what you think is overrated, if you’re willing to elaborate.

As an Asian immigrant (not the over-represented-two), I often feel surrounded by people who seem to exaggerate the school’s prestige to an almost irrational degree. I’m genuinely interested in hearing more thoughtful opinions about the school’s real strengths and weaknesses.

For example, I’ve always found it puzzling that so many Asian students spend years intensely grinding math competitions, only to end up studying CS not math—and then leave software engineering as soon as they realize that quant roles pay better. Financial insecurity is a motivation. However I’m curious why MIT has developed such a strong reputation as the place to go if your goal is to work at companies like FAANG or firms like Citadel/Hedge funds. I personally think the myth of Tx or bust is originated from this insecurity or irrational goals.

I second your question. Obviously, MIT has a stellar reputation. Nevertheless, I have seen admitted students decline to matriculate for various reasons.

In the past, I’ve heard students turn down MIT for Harvard if they have aspirations for medical school because of MIT’s grade deflation. (Harvard may no longer be the destination of choice now that the grading policy has changed.)

I’ve seen math majors choose Harvard over MIT because of Harvard’s Putnam coach.

But the most interesting choice I’ve seen is a student who turned down MIT because of AI. The student’s decision rested on the perception that MIT is known for developing brilliance and work ethic, at the expense of social skills. The student believed that social skills are imperative in a post-AI world. I do not know the merits of his assessment.

That must have been three decades ago. Have you not seen MIT dominate Putnam for last two decades? Harvard is nowhere to be found.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I dont know why MIT gets a pass on "admit only on merit" when their stats clearly show a class that's as hooked as any: female, URM, athletes. I get they dont take legacy into consideration - good for them. But they have plenty of institutional priorities.

my advice: get into MITES, Women's Tech program, or any of their summer programs.

In my child's experience, the kids that make it into MIT are the very good but not necessarily brilliant girls while the non-athlete boys are waitlisted or rejected unless they have made MOP or are simply beyond brilliant. When you have taken classes with these kids, you know the difference. Of course, girls also have an easier time with science and math competitions/awards, so things get very fuzzy.

As an MIT alum with years of exposure to my fellow students there and now interviewing students including many from MIT for PhD admissions (this year and recently), I will say that there were and are both truly brilliant men and women as well as those who might be better described as more motivated, organized, etc and not Putnam scholars. I have no idea about awards etc other than in college because honestly that was not a thing that anyone cared about though of course many many are/were Olympiad/math competition / science competition entrants/winners. so I have no data and had no idea girls had an easier time with science/math competitions and awards.

Also, this thread is kind of funny -- honestly, how hard is it to understand that MIT will not admit someone not academically unqualified under any circumstances, because there is no easy path there, but that of course like any other competitive school they have the luxury to select between numerous qualified kids who will succeed there and sometimes think about how specific skills of applicants will support their existing successful teams? I mean when I was there we all knew oboe was needed and that MIT would go find that sometimes too. This is nothing new and a good lesson for real life. And..MIT doesn't have legacy per se, but you can be sure that they pay attention to VIPS as they should. When I was there the Chinese premier's child was an UG there. Qualified but would really think they ignored that aspect of the application? Don't be stupid. And while I get the stress it causes, it is crazy to overthink this. There are so many fabulous places to study. UCLA has the world's best living mathematician. CS is honestly great at CMU, Stanford, and CS is in unheaval now anyways. And honestly at my highly ranked school I think many things are totally overrated and not worth consideration.

Good luck to everyone and glad to hear that MIT is still an exciting place for many. It is a great experience (among so many possible ones).

I appreciate the perspective. I’d be interested to hear more about what you think is overrated, if you’re willing to elaborate.

As an Asian immigrant (not the over-represented-two), I often feel surrounded by people who seem to exaggerate the school’s prestige to an almost irrational degree. I’m genuinely interested in hearing more thoughtful opinions about the school’s real strengths and weaknesses.

For example, I’ve always found it puzzling that so many Asian students spend years intensely grinding math competitions, only to end up studying CS not math—and then leave software engineering as soon as they realize that quant roles pay better. Financial insecurity is a motivation. However I’m curious why MIT has developed such a strong reputation as the place to go if your goal is to work at companies like FAANG or firms like Citadel/Hedge funds. I personally think the myth of Tx or bust is originated from this insecurity or irrational goals.

The only insecure person is you and you know exactly why: because everything you were talking about in your post was wayyy out of your league. It’s okay to cope and bad mouth about people whose brilliance is beyond your imagination. But it doesn’t make you look like a less jealous sorry ass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I dont know why MIT gets a pass on "admit only on merit" when their stats clearly show a class that's as hooked as any: female, URM, athletes. I get they dont take legacy into consideration - good for them. But they have plenty of institutional priorities.

my advice: get into MITES, Women's Tech program, or any of their summer programs.

In my child's experience, the kids that make it into MIT are the very good but not necessarily brilliant girls while the non-athlete boys are waitlisted or rejected unless they have made MOP or are simply beyond brilliant. When you have taken classes with these kids, you know the difference. Of course, girls also have an easier time with science and math competitions/awards, so things get very fuzzy.

As an MIT alum with years of exposure to my fellow students there and now interviewing students including many from MIT for PhD admissions (this year and recently), I will say that there were and are both truly brilliant men and women as well as those who might be better described as more motivated, organized, etc and not Putnam scholars. I have no idea about awards etc other than in college because honestly that was not a thing that anyone cared about though of course many many are/were Olympiad/math competition / science competition entrants/winners. so I have no data and had no idea girls had an easier time with science/math competitions and awards.

Also, this thread is kind of funny -- honestly, how hard is it to understand that MIT will not admit someone not academically unqualified under any circumstances, because there is no easy path there, but that of course like any other competitive school they have the luxury to select between numerous qualified kids who will succeed there and sometimes think about how specific skills of applicants will support their existing successful teams? I mean when I was there we all knew oboe was needed and that MIT would go find that sometimes too. This is nothing new and a good lesson for real life. And..MIT doesn't have legacy per se, but you can be sure that they pay attention to VIPS as they should. When I was there the Chinese premier's child was an UG there. Qualified but would really think they ignored that aspect of the application? Don't be stupid. And while I get the stress it causes, it is crazy to overthink this. There are so many fabulous places to study. UCLA has the world's best living mathematician. CS is honestly great at CMU, Stanford, and CS is in unheaval now anyways. And honestly at my highly ranked school I think many things are totally overrated and not worth consideration.

Good luck to everyone and glad to hear that MIT is still an exciting place for many. It is a great experience (among so many possible ones).

I appreciate the perspective. I’d be interested to hear more about what you think is overrated, if you’re willing to elaborate.

As an Asian immigrant (not the over-represented-two), I often feel surrounded by people who seem to exaggerate the school’s prestige to an almost irrational degree. I’m genuinely interested in hearing more thoughtful opinions about the school’s real strengths and weaknesses.

For example, I’ve always found it puzzling that so many Asian students spend years intensely grinding math competitions, only to end up studying CS not math—and then leave software engineering as soon as they realize that quant roles pay better. Financial insecurity is a motivation. However I’m curious why MIT has developed such a strong reputation as the place to go if your goal is to work at companies like FAANG or firms like Citadel/Hedge funds. I personally think the myth of Tx or bust is originated from this insecurity or irrational goals.

The only insecure person is you and you know exactly why: because everything you were talking about in your post was wayyy out of your league. It’s okay to cope and bad mouth about people whose brilliance is beyond your imagination. But it doesn’t make you look like a less jealous sorry ass.

Are you an MIT alum?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I dont know why MIT gets a pass on "admit only on merit" when their stats clearly show a class that's as hooked as any: female, URM, athletes. I get they dont take legacy into consideration - good for them. But they have plenty of institutional priorities.

my advice: get into MITES, Women's Tech program, or any of their summer programs.

In my child's experience, the kids that make it into MIT are the very good but not necessarily brilliant girls while the non-athlete boys are waitlisted or rejected unless they have made MOP or are simply beyond brilliant. When you have taken classes with these kids, you know the difference. Of course, girls also have an easier time with science and math competitions/awards, so things get very fuzzy.

As an MIT alum with years of exposure to my fellow students there and now interviewing students including many from MIT for PhD admissions (this year and recently), I will say that there were and are both truly brilliant men and women as well as those who might be better described as more motivated, organized, etc and not Putnam scholars. I have no idea about awards etc other than in college because honestly that was not a thing that anyone cared about though of course many many are/were Olympiad/math competition / science competition entrants/winners. so I have no data and had no idea girls had an easier time with science/math competitions and awards.

Also, this thread is kind of funny -- honestly, how hard is it to understand that MIT will not admit someone not academically unqualified under any circumstances, because there is no easy path there, but that of course like any other competitive school they have the luxury to select between numerous qualified kids who will succeed there and sometimes think about how specific skills of applicants will support their existing successful teams? I mean when I was there we all knew oboe was needed and that MIT would go find that sometimes too. This is nothing new and a good lesson for real life. And..MIT doesn't have legacy per se, but you can be sure that they pay attention to VIPS as they should. When I was there the Chinese premier's child was an UG there. Qualified but would really think they ignored that aspect of the application? Don't be stupid. And while I get the stress it causes, it is crazy to overthink this. There are so many fabulous places to study. UCLA has the world's best living mathematician. CS is honestly great at CMU, Stanford, and CS is in unheaval now anyways. And honestly at my highly ranked school I think many things are totally overrated and not worth consideration.

Good luck to everyone and glad to hear that MIT is still an exciting place for many. It is a great experience (among so many possible ones).

I appreciate the perspective. I’d be interested to hear more about what you think is overrated, if you’re willing to elaborate.

As an Asian immigrant (not the over-represented-two), I often feel surrounded by people who seem to exaggerate the school’s prestige to an almost irrational degree. I’m genuinely interested in hearing more thoughtful opinions about the school’s real strengths and weaknesses.

For example, I’ve always found it puzzling that so many Asian students spend years intensely grinding math competitions, only to end up studying CS not math—and then leave software engineering as soon as they realize that quant roles pay better. Financial insecurity is a motivation. However I’m curious why MIT has developed such a strong reputation as the place to go if your goal is to work at companies like FAANG or firms like Citadel/Hedge funds. I personally think the myth of Tx or bust is originated from this insecurity or irrational goals.

The only insecure person is you and you know exactly why: because everything you were talking about in your post was wayyy out of your league. It’s okay to cope and bad mouth about people whose brilliance is beyond your imagination. But it doesn’t make you look like a less jealous sorry ass.

haha exactly! Poor bastard thinks the only way to get to that level is to grind. If it were white people who were making the money, this low self esteem scumbag would be down on her knees worshipping. Stockholm syndrome really got her good, I hope her children will be raised better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Coach said that they were supposed to tell her 50-65% chance of getting in but the coach also said that they didn’t see many rejected with her academics

Coach started talking seriously only after she gave them her SAT score which was the summer after her sophomore year. Coach asked for her junior schedule at that time and asked if it was the hardest available. Never asked for any additions or changes.

Just saw this today and as a parent to athletes in a sport who have high stats, I can attest to this. Niche sport. You need to have all the MIT stats in order to talk to the coach. They won't entertain a conversation unless you have a certain SAT and GPA with high rigor. Once you have the stats, then you need the appealing sports record and you can have a conversation. It's 100% a thumb on the scale as we've seen the scenario of who can and cannot talk to MIT. And the rules came from the school rep not our coaches.

to be clear, 80% of MIT applicants have the scores and rigor. it's athletics that push (some) into the admit pile. my daughter had a 1550. which isn't that crazy unusual at her high school. and she got in bcs of that and her 3.94? I doubt it.