MIT Regular Decision

[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.

This is why info has be taken w/a grain of salt. Deflection and insulting rather than stating a sport and coach. Is there anyway in the world this could out a specific kid? Year? family? No. Literally no way.

[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 agree with this. MIT is for the kids who want to have an impact in science an technology, either in industry or academia. If you want to work in hedge funds, go to some other school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hope everyone is keeping all hopes up. I am hoping in the lord.

Did anyone from DMV get in this year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope everyone is keeping all hopes up. I am hoping in the lord.

Did anyone from DMV get in this year?

One kid from GDS

[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 agree with this. MIT is for the kids who want to have an impact in science a technology, either in industry or academia. If you want to work in hedge funds, go to some other school.

You would be shocked then at how many top MIT CS/math grads end up working in finance.

[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:

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.

This is why info has be taken w/a grain of salt. Deflection and insulting rather than stating a sport and coach. Is there anyway in the world this could out a specific kid? Year? family? No. Literally no way.

That’s ridiculous. So you’d accept what you do. It want to accept if I gave you a random sport and coach? You might want to rethink that stance.

Anyway, since I posted a couple of other parents have corroborated what I told you. It is what it is….you can choose to believe it or not.

[Anonymous]

It's a crap shoot getting into these schools.

Truly smart, hardworking, and creative people will have huge success regardless of where they go to school. The teaching is totally commoditized at this point.

[Anonymous]

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.

They absolutely do get a boost. The acceptance rate among coach supports is substantially higher than even the acceptance rate of similarly qualified students without coach support. That's the whole reason why coach support exists - to get students who could have done fine at MIT but wouldn't necessarily have gotten in to instead get in in order to increase the strength of the athletic team.

The only prestigious school with no special preference for athletes is Caltech, which also recruited students (albeit with less of a boost to recruits than even MIT) until one or two admission cycles ago.

[Anonymous]

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.

How exactly do girls have an easier time with science and math competitions, and how exactly does that advantage work?

[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.

Where did they go instead? Stanford, UCLA, UPenn, Berkeley, UMich?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope everyone is keeping all hopes up. I am hoping in the lord.

Did anyone from DMV get in this year?

DD's classmate did. No hooks or ECs really, just brilliant and has won all sorts of academic competitions. An all around great guy. NOVA public.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope everyone is keeping all hopes up. I am hoping in the lord.

Did anyone from DMV get in this year?

One kid from GDS

Found the IG stalker.

[Anonymous]

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.

They absolutely do get a boost. The acceptance rate among coach supports is substantially higher than even the acceptance rate of similarly qualified students without coach support. That's the whole reason why coach support exists - to get students who could have done fine at MIT but wouldn't necessarily have gotten in to instead get in in order to increase the strength of the athletic team.

The only prestigious school with no special preference for athletes is Caltech, which also recruited students (albeit with less of a boost to recruits than even MIT) until one or two admission cycles ago.

Yes, they 1000% get a boost. Our school has an athlete attending this fall who is outside of the top 20% of the class and never took math beyond AB. They're a solid student at a very challenging high school but never in a million years would have gotten into MIT without being an athlete.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope everyone is keeping all hopes up. I am hoping in the lord.

Did anyone from DMV get in this year?

One kid from GDS

Found the IG stalker.

no, your reply is the weird one. Kids know where their friends get in. Assuming your kid does not have friends I guess.

[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.

What is "Tx"?