MIT Regular Decision

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Found the troll.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Mit isn’t about teaching. All top 50 university tenure line faculty are excellent and many run state of the art labs and research groups, and yes teaching can be very standard. MIT is about the peer group.

[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

Only one from regular decision? Entire DMV?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

A very small % of MIT is brilliant. The rest could easily be at any other school and have a boring career.

[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

Only one from regular decision? Entire DMV?

This link shows the geographic distribution of MIT undergrads for 2025-2026.

https://registrar.mit.edu/statistics-reports/geographic-distribution

Only 6 undergrads from DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Only one from regular decision? Entire DMV?

This link shows the geographic distribution of MIT undergrads for 2025-2026.

https://registrar.mit.edu/statistics-reports/geographic-distribution

Only 6 undergrads from DC.

Maryland 120!

[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 an technology, either in industry or academia. If you want to work in hedge funds, go to some other school.

Obviously, you should dictate how MIT admits students, how MIT students decide their careers and how employers hire people. Get a life, clown!

[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

Only one from regular decision? Entire DMV?

There are definitely other kids who got in but are waiting until May 1 to compare options. Breathe

[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.

Hedge funds these days are actually about both science and technology. But you probably want to define impact your own way, which doesn’t really matter because you’re a nobody.

[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.

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

In math competitions, just as an example, girls with lower competition performance are invited for the MOP. There are also competitions like the Math Olympiad for Girls and major prizes open only to girls. In less quantitative areas, it will often be obvious that there is a preference for girls. Like a local science competition, 4 times as many girls as boys amongst the finalists, and the winners all girls. The messaging starts very early, take a look at the First Lego League website - almost all girls in the advertisements.

[Anonymous]

You are nuts, pp. Look at the IMO teams. Look at the collegiate competitions. There are like no girls/women.
BTW, I know two girls from Holton who went/will go to MIT. Yes both are also athletes FWIW.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I assume you are asking about the student focused on social skills. He chose Stanford. But the other options would have given him similar opportunities, I would think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Only one from regular decision? Entire DMV?

This link shows the geographic distribution of MIT undergrads for 2025-2026.

https://registrar.mit.edu/statistics-reports/geographic-distribution

Only 6 undergrads from DC.

Maryland has 120!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Only one from regular decision? Entire DMV?

This link shows the geographic distribution of MIT undergrads for 2025-2026.

https://registrar.mit.edu/statistics-reports/geographic-distribution

Only 6 undergrads from DC.

Maryland has 120!

3 from Gaza!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You are nuts, pp. Look at the IMO teams. Look at the collegiate competitions. There are like no girls/women.
BTW, I know two girls from Holton who went/will go to MIT. Yes both are also athletes FWIW.

NCS has 2 MITs this year. One is an athlete.