Pls share your MIT acceptance stories?

[Anonymous]

Given their purpose and applicant pool why the F would MIT even have sports, let alone recruit for it?

As in, if I found out that somebody was an MIT student/graduate AND that they were a recruited athlete, in my mind I would realize "oh, they don't ACTUALLY have the brass ring, they were just picked up to give the smart kids something fun to watch when they aren't working."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Every one of these threads should request posters to specify whether the applicant is an athlete or not. I feel very annoyed by recruited athletes getting a boost.

Cry me a river. You need to get familiar with the term "institutional priority".

Why? Because MIT is a business. They get to decide what is important to them and what is deserving per, their interests. They care about their brands, stakeholders, revenue, alumni donations, etc. and their priorities are in service to that. No seats are ‘taken away’ as they were never anyone’s to begin with. No one is entitled to a seat. One has to be a okay with system or look elsewhere. I get the frustration, but it is what it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Given their purpose and applicant pool why the F would MIT even have sports, let alone recruit for it?

As in, if I found out that somebody was an MIT student/graduate AND that they were a recruited athlete, in my mind I would realize "oh, they don't ACTUALLY have the brass ring, they were just picked up to give the smart kids something fun to watch when they aren't working."

No one cares what idiots like you think, who can't even bear to make a informed opinion and judge people based on secondhand hearsay from when the person was 17 years old

The brass rat ("brass ring" is something else, genius) is for MIT graduates, not admissions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Given their purpose and applicant pool why the F would MIT even have sports, let alone recruit for it?

As in, if I found out that somebody was an MIT student/graduate AND that they were a recruited athlete, in my mind I would realize "oh, they don't ACTUALLY have the brass ring, they were just picked up to give the smart kids something fun to watch when they aren't working."

And if you thought that you would be an idiot. MIT supports the largest D3 athletics program of any school in the nation so obviously it is important to the only ones that matter which is MIT.

I know a kid who was a starter and the captain of the 8th ranked team in the country in their sport. They turned down multiple D1 offers as well as MIT for another school. I'm pretty sure that they were just fine in their sport.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Given their purpose and applicant pool why the F would MIT even have sports, let alone recruit for it?

As in, if I found out that somebody was an MIT student/graduate AND that they were a recruited athlete, in my mind I would realize "oh, they don't ACTUALLY have the brass ring, they were just picked up to give the smart kids something fun to watch when they aren't working."

If someone only gets into MIT because they have to study double time to keep up and can't maintain physical fitness, I think they are desperately incompetent tryhards who make bad long-term decisions for short term superficial gain, and I don't want them anywhere near my important business.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every one of these threads should request posters to specify whether the applicant is an athlete or not. I feel very annoyed by recruited athletes getting a boost.

Cry me a river. You need to get familiar with the term "institutional priority".

Why? Because MIT is a business. They get to decide what is important to them and what is deserving per, their interests. They care about their brands, stakeholders, revenue, alumni donations, etc. and their priorities are in service to that. No seats are ‘taken away’ as they were never anyone’s to begin with. No one is entitled to a seat. One has to be a okay with system or look elsewhere. I get the frustration, but it is what it is.

PP is telling you that promoting sports or academics hurts their brand.

Caltech dabbled in this idea and then rejected it. Someone looking for an top-flight engineer knows that a Caltech grad is a safer bet than MIT.

https://tech.caltech.edu/2024/10/08/ug-admissions-athletics/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My oldest DD’s best friend is a current junior. She didn’t have any ECs or awards of note, just a very high GPA with a very advanced course-load in math and science and 1580 SAT.

Is she URM or first generation college? Low income?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My oldest DD’s best friend is a current junior. She didn’t have any ECs or awards of note, just a very high GPA with a very advanced course-load in math and science and 1580 SAT.

Gender is a huge hook at MIT.

No it's not. Being an athlete isn't either. I know, I was an athlete at MIT in one of the Division I sports. My coach has been there for decades and laments all the time about good athletes not having the academic record to get in.

DP, it is. This is from my observation of a large enough sample.

and the common data set.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given their purpose and applicant pool why the F would MIT even have sports, let alone recruit for it?

As in, if I found out that somebody was an MIT student/graduate AND that they were a recruited athlete, in my mind I would realize "oh, they don't ACTUALLY have the brass ring, they were just picked up to give the smart kids something fun to watch when they aren't working."

No one cares what idiots like you think, who can't even bear to make a informed opinion and judge people based on secondhand hearsay from when the person was 17 years old

The brass rat ("brass ring" is something else, genius) is for MIT graduates, not admissions.

You get the brass rat your second year so not really about admissions or graduation, genius.

[Anonymous]

Females used to have higher scores because dorm capacity limited admits. My class had 63 F out of around 900 total.

[Anonymous]

I only know one boy who is from an under resourced public school in Ohio who got in. He stood first in his very large public school. Very few APs offered but he took what was available to him. No national awards. Two varsity sports (not recruited) and summer job at fast food restaurant.

[Anonymous]

MIT doesn't admit students that don't meet admissions requirements. Institutional priorities may make them a more likely admit but they have to pass muster first. You cannot attend MIT if you are an amazing athlete that is a dunce. They won't let you in. There is no degree dilution because of athletes.

They also do plenty of recruiting from new students - crew, pistol, ice hockey, anything that needs folks!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Females used to have higher scores because dorm capacity limited admits. My class had 63 F out of around 900 total.

How did males respect women who were in the same course? 837ish M out of 900 total sounds like a class from the 1970s.

[Anonymous]

Isn't it almost certainly true that any MIT athlete would not have been admitted without athletics hook? With significantly lower testing and grade achievement? Then why is it appropriate for me to think of them as peers to the non-athlete MIT student or graduate?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Isn't it almost certainly true that any MIT athlete would not have been admitted without athletics hook? With significantly lower testing and grade achievement? Then why is it appropriate for me to think of them as peers to the non-athlete MIT student or graduate?

If your presumption is that people who are good at math all have poor hand eye coordination then there is no conversion to be had here.