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