What kind of kid gets into MIT?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The MIT Admissions Blog used to be pretty interesting. Would take a look there.

The thing about MIT is that they don't do early. One of my kids is very MIT. But he got into his ED school so never applied. But the profile is top stats. A lot of APs with 5s. A 35. He's an athlete. State's and Nike invitational. And his thing is rocketry. Has been doing it since middle school. And winning national awards. I think he would have had a good shot at MIT.

But MIT doesn't do early. So he was scooped up elsewhere. Personally, I think MIT is missing out on a lot of great students because they don't do ED/SCEA in a meaningful way.

I think MIT has done pretty well for itself historically and will probably be okay going forward.

MIT will be totally fine. And so will Stanford and Harvard. But I do believe the schools that aren't taking the smart kids in the ED/SCEA round are missing out on the best and brightest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The MIT Admissions Blog used to be pretty interesting. Would take a look there.

The thing about MIT is that they don't do early. One of my kids is very MIT. But he got into his ED school so never applied. But the profile is top stats. A lot of APs with 5s. A 35. He's an athlete. State's and Nike invitational. And his thing is rocketry. Has been doing it since middle school. And winning national awards. I think he would have had a good shot at MIT.

But MIT doesn't do early. So he was scooped up elsewhere. Personally, I think MIT is missing out on a lot of great students because they don't do ED/SCEA in a meaningful way.

I think MIT has done pretty well for itself historically and will probably be okay going forward.

MIT will be totally fine. And so will Stanford and Harvard. But I do believe the schools that aren't taking the smart kids in the ED/SCEA round are missing out on the best and brightest.

Best and brightest don’t do ED. Just saying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The MIT Admissions Blog used to be pretty interesting. Would take a look there.

The thing about MIT is that they don't do early. One of my kids is very MIT. But he got into his ED school so never applied. But the profile is top stats. A lot of APs with 5s. A 35. He's an athlete. State's and Nike invitational. And his thing is rocketry. Has been doing it since middle school. And winning national awards. I think he would have had a good shot at MIT.

But MIT doesn't do early. So he was scooped up elsewhere. Personally, I think MIT is missing out on a lot of great students because they don't do ED/SCEA in a meaningful way.

I think MIT has done pretty well for itself historically and will probably be okay going forward.

MIT will be totally fine. And so will Stanford and Harvard. But I do believe the schools that aren't taking the smart kids in the ED/SCEA round are missing out on the best and brightest.

Best and brightest don’t do ED. Just saying.

Very true!

[Anonymous]

Scroll about 2/3 the way down this article - literally a cancer survivor working (actively) to find a cure for cancer:

https://www.arlingtonmagazine.com/extraordinary-teen-awards-2024/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The MIT Admissions Blog used to be pretty interesting. Would take a look there.

The thing about MIT is that they don't do early. One of my kids is very MIT. But he got into his ED school so never applied. But the profile is top stats. A lot of APs with 5s. A 35. He's an athlete. State's and Nike invitational. And his thing is rocketry. Has been doing it since middle school. And winning national awards. I think he would have had a good shot at MIT.

But MIT doesn't do early. So he was scooped up elsewhere. Personally, I think MIT is missing out on a lot of great students because they don't do ED/SCEA in a meaningful way.

I think MIT has done pretty well for itself historically and will probably be okay going forward.

MIT will be totally fine. And so will Stanford and Harvard. But I do believe the schools that aren't taking the smart kids in the ED/SCEA round are missing out on the best and brightest.

Best and brightest don’t do ED. Just saying.

That's a pretty luxurious choice today. The RD acceptance rate at T10 schools is less than 5 percent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The MIT Admissions Blog used to be pretty interesting. Would take a look there.

The thing about MIT is that they don't do early. One of my kids is very MIT. But he got into his ED school so never applied. But the profile is top stats. A lot of APs with 5s. A 35. He's an athlete. State's and Nike invitational. And his thing is rocketry. Has been doing it since middle school. And winning national awards. I think he would have had a good shot at MIT.

But MIT doesn't do early. So he was scooped up elsewhere. Personally, I think MIT is missing out on a lot of great students because they don't do ED/SCEA in a meaningful way.

I think MIT has done pretty well for itself historically and will probably be okay going forward.

MIT will be totally fine. And so will Stanford and Harvard. But I do believe the schools that aren't taking the smart kids in the ED/SCEA round are missing out on the best and brightest.

Not missing out on the best and the brightest. The best and the brightest with money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The MIT Admissions Blog used to be pretty interesting. Would take a look there.

The thing about MIT is that they don't do early. One of my kids is very MIT. But he got into his ED school so never applied. But the profile is top stats. A lot of APs with 5s. A 35. He's an athlete. State's and Nike invitational. And his thing is rocketry. Has been doing it since middle school. And winning national awards. I think he would have had a good shot at MIT.

But MIT doesn't do early. So he was scooped up elsewhere. Personally, I think MIT is missing out on a lot of great students because they don't do ED/SCEA in a meaningful way.

I think MIT has done pretty well for itself historically and will probably be okay going forward.

MIT will be totally fine. And so will Stanford and Harvard. But I do believe the schools that aren't taking the smart kids in the ED/SCEA round are missing out on the best and brightest.

Best and brightest don’t do ED. Just saying.

I so agree with this statement. The kids who are really good are not looking to settle or lock in a school via ED. MIT is not losing anything by not offering ED/SCEA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The MIT Admissions Blog used to be pretty interesting. Would take a look there.

The thing about MIT is that they don't do early. One of my kids is very MIT. But he got into his ED school so never applied. But the profile is top stats. A lot of APs with 5s. A 35. He's an athlete. State's and Nike invitational. And his thing is rocketry. Has been doing it since middle school. And winning national awards. I think he would have had a good shot at MIT.

But MIT doesn't do early. So he was scooped up elsewhere. Personally, I think MIT is missing out on a lot of great students because they don't do ED/SCEA in a meaningful way.

I think MIT has done pretty well for itself historically and will probably be okay going forward.

MIT will be totally fine. And so will Stanford and Harvard. But I do believe the schools that aren't taking the smart kids in the ED/SCEA round are missing out on the best and brightest.

Best and brightest don’t do ED. Just saying.

I so agree with this statement. The kids who are really good are not looking to settle or lock in a school via ED. MIT is not losing anything by not offering ED/SCEA.

I so disagree. People who know where they want to go...know where they want to go, whether or not they are the best and brightest. Getting done with the college search early is, frankly, a good thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The MIT Admissions Blog used to be pretty interesting. Would take a look there.

The thing about MIT is that they don't do early. One of my kids is very MIT. But he got into his ED school so never applied. But the profile is top stats. A lot of APs with 5s. A 35. He's an athlete. State's and Nike invitational. And his thing is rocketry. Has been doing it since middle school. And winning national awards. I think he would have had a good shot at MIT.

But MIT doesn't do early. So he was scooped up elsewhere. Personally, I think MIT is missing out on a lot of great students because they don't do ED/SCEA in a meaningful way.

I think MIT has done pretty well for itself historically and will probably be okay going forward.

MIT will be totally fine. And so will Stanford and Harvard. But I do believe the schools that aren't taking the smart kids in the ED/SCEA round are missing out on the best and brightest.

Best and brightest don’t do ED. Just saying.

I so agree with this statement. The kids who are really good are not looking to settle or lock in a school via ED. MIT is not losing anything by not offering ED/SCEA.

the bright kids

I disagree. I think it's a little delusional to think all the bright and accomplished students are getting acceptances to MIT, Stanford, and Harvard in RD. And they are just picking and choosing like they are appetizers on a menu. That rarely happens in the real world.

A good percentage of top students go ED/SCEA. And MIT, Stanford, and Harvard are missing out on those students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The MIT Admissions Blog used to be pretty interesting. Would take a look there.

The thing about MIT is that they don't do early. One of my kids is very MIT. But he got into his ED school so never applied. But the profile is top stats. A lot of APs with 5s. A 35. He's an athlete. State's and Nike invitational. And his thing is rocketry. Has been doing it since middle school. And winning national awards. I think he would have had a good shot at MIT.

But MIT doesn't do early. So he was scooped up elsewhere. Personally, I think MIT is missing out on a lot of great students because they don't do ED/SCEA in a meaningful way.

I think MIT has done pretty well for itself historically and will probably be okay going forward.

MIT will be totally fine. And so will Stanford and Harvard. But I do believe the schools that aren't taking the smart kids in the ED/SCEA round are missing out on the best and brightest.

Best and brightest don’t do ED. Just saying.

100%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The MIT Admissions Blog used to be pretty interesting. Would take a look there.

The thing about MIT is that they don't do early. One of my kids is very MIT. But he got into his ED school so never applied. But the profile is top stats. A lot of APs with 5s. A 35. He's an athlete. State's and Nike invitational. And his thing is rocketry. Has been doing it since middle school. And winning national awards. I think he would have had a good shot at MIT.

But MIT doesn't do early. So he was scooped up elsewhere. Personally, I think MIT is missing out on a lot of great students because they don't do ED/SCEA in a meaningful way.

I think MIT has done pretty well for itself historically and will probably be okay going forward.

MIT will be totally fine. And so will Stanford and Harvard. But I do believe the schools that aren't taking the smart kids in the ED/SCEA round are missing out on the best and brightest.

Best and brightest don’t do ED. Just saying.

I so agree with this statement. The kids who are really good are not looking to settle or lock in a school via ED. MIT is not losing anything by not offering ED/SCEA.

the bright kids

I disagree. I think it's a little delusional to think all the bright and accomplished students are getting acceptances to MIT, Stanford, and Harvard in RD. And they are just picking and choosing like they are appetizers on a menu. That rarely happens in the real world.

A good percentage of top students go ED/SCEA. And MIT, Stanford, and Harvard are missing out on those students.

Depends on HS. We’re at a NYC private where 25% of the class ends up at HYPSM. They use SCEA, but the top kids are not tempted by UChicago ED stats. They have naviance and will take their chances.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The MIT Admissions Blog used to be pretty interesting. Would take a look there.

The thing about MIT is that they don't do early. One of my kids is very MIT. But he got into his ED school so never applied. But the profile is top stats. A lot of APs with 5s. A 35. He's an athlete. State's and Nike invitational. And his thing is rocketry. Has been doing it since middle school. And winning national awards. I think he would have had a good shot at MIT.

But MIT doesn't do early. So he was scooped up elsewhere. Personally, I think MIT is missing out on a lot of great students because they don't do ED/SCEA in a meaningful way.

I think MIT has done pretty well for itself historically and will probably be okay going forward.

MIT will be totally fine. And so will Stanford and Harvard. But I do believe the schools that aren't taking the smart kids in the ED/SCEA round are missing out on the best and brightest.

Best and brightest don’t do ED. Just saying.

I so agree with this statement. The kids who are really good are not looking to settle or lock in a school via ED. MIT is not losing anything by not offering ED/SCEA.

the bright kids

I disagree. I think it's a little delusional to think all the bright and accomplished students are getting acceptances to MIT, Stanford, and Harvard in RD. And they are just picking and choosing like they are appetizers on a menu. That rarely happens in the real world.

A good percentage of top students go ED/SCEA. And MIT, Stanford, and Harvard are missing out on those students.

Best and the brightest who wants to go to MIT, will 100% apply EA to MIT only and not ED/SCEA to any other school. They just cannot make up their mind to do ED/SCEA. True, they might be deferred and eventually rejected by MIT, but they won't ED/SCEA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The MIT Admissions Blog used to be pretty interesting. Would take a look there.

The thing about MIT is that they don't do early. One of my kids is very MIT. But he got into his ED school so never applied. But the profile is top stats. A lot of APs with 5s. A 35. He's an athlete. State's and Nike invitational. And his thing is rocketry. Has been doing it since middle school. And winning national awards. I think he would have had a good shot at MIT.

But MIT doesn't do early. So he was scooped up elsewhere. Personally, I think MIT is missing out on a lot of great students because they don't do ED/SCEA in a meaningful way.

I think MIT has done pretty well for itself historically and will probably be okay going forward.

MIT will be totally fine. And so will Stanford and Harvard. But I do believe the schools that aren't taking the smart kids in the ED/SCEA round are missing out on the best and brightest.

Best and brightest don’t do ED. Just saying.

I so agree with this statement. The kids who are really good are not looking to settle or lock in a school via ED. MIT is not losing anything by not offering ED/SCEA.

the bright kids

I disagree. I think it's a little delusional to think all the bright and accomplished students are getting acceptances to MIT, Stanford, and Harvard in RD. And they are just picking and choosing like they are appetizers on a menu. That rarely happens in the real world.

A good percentage of top students go ED/SCEA. And MIT, Stanford, and Harvard are missing out on those students.

Depends on HS. We’re at a NYC private where 25% of the class ends up at HYPSM. They use SCEA, but the top kids are not tempted by UChicago ED stats. They have naviance and will take their chances.

There are more than 25,000 high schools in America. The students going to NYC privates are not "better." But they are different level rich and that confers all sorts of benefits. DC privates can't compete with NY money. But I'd be surprised if the private school Manhattan kids are getting into MIT at higher rates than Stuyvesant, Bronx high school, and Brooklyn Latin.

[Anonymous]

Extremely good at math and science to the degree that they have set themselves apart from the pack, entrepreneurial, charismatic

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The MIT Admissions Blog used to be pretty interesting. Would take a look there.

The thing about MIT is that they don't do early. One of my kids is very MIT. But he got into his ED school so never applied. But the profile is top stats. A lot of APs with 5s. A 35. He's an athlete. State's and Nike invitational. And his thing is rocketry. Has been doing it since middle school. And winning national awards. I think he would have had a good shot at MIT.

But MIT doesn't do early. So he was scooped up elsewhere. Personally, I think MIT is missing out on a lot of great students because they don't do ED/SCEA in a meaningful way.

I think MIT has done pretty well for itself historically and will probably be okay going forward.

MIT will be totally fine. And so will Stanford and Harvard. But I do believe the schools that aren't taking the smart kids in the ED/SCEA round are missing out on the best and brightest.

Best and brightest don’t do ED. Just saying.

That's a pretty luxurious choice today. The RD acceptance rate at T10 schools is less than 5 percent.

My kid didn't ED anywhere . And last year got in too a few Ivies (when RD was 3% or less), Hopkins and some T15s. Everyone told him he was stupid for not doing ED somewhere--but there was no clear front runner. He cleaned up RD.