DC got in. Four year multi-sport athlete (but not a recruit) and worked as a lifeguard summers. That said went to local 4-year university for math starting in 10th grade (Calc AB in 9th) and excelled.

Super nerdy kids. Just get off at the T stop and you see a bunch of kids with giant heads and small bodies.

MV calculus not required for MIT or Harvard. My kid only had Calc BC.

I would not REA/SCEA to any school unless you are ALDC (athlete, legacy, donor, child if faculty/staff).

My kid applied REA somewhere, was rejected. Still applied to a few elite schools RD and was accepted to Harvard and MIT. Totally unexpected. What made the difference for this Asian kid from a public HS that rarely sends kids to H? The interview! Described as a warm, bubbly, intelligent person who would make a great roommate. But for those who want to know — Had an imperfect GPA with a 1600 SAT. 10 APs. Placed in a couple of smaller national competitions. Had typical STEM ECs for the most part — no research as the kids at our school just don’t do that. We are a school of athletes where my kid was the laid-back nerd who never quite fit in, but was still well-liked. Not many leadership positions (did not want them and turned down a big one!) but had led a good project. Not much done for the sake of college apps and only applied as a teacher said to apply to MiT due to awards and SAT. Kid was like well why not try Harvard then? I thought kid should not waste time on Harvard app and asked counselor. I mean no one from our school had been admitted in the past decade at least. He supported applying. So here we are!

My tip — let your kids do what they want. Keep the stress off. If they are smart, they will have the Gpa and SAT without much work. They can use their time to do something that interests them.

I don’t visit here often. Not from DC area. But thought I’d answer if it helps anyone.

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.

MIT does early action with Nov. 1 deadline and releases decisions mid-December (non-binding)

Yes, but to their credit, it doesn't confer advantages when it comes to acceptance rates. So a lot of bright students apply ED elsewhere to try to lock in a desired school. It's an annoying system. Schools are basically asking 18 year olds to apply game theory to their college choices. I respect MIT for not playing, but in the meantime kids are trying to secure spots at really competitive schools. For the STEM students, Rice, Duke, Cornell, Northwestern, and Penn all offer advantages to the ED applicants. And when they get in, they don't apply to MIT.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

100%

b


False in my experience as a college counselor. In recent years I've seen the best SCEA, REA, ED and EA. Very few get in RD because all the slots are taken. Now, if you are URM that is different

MIT RD acceptance rate is 3.9 percent. Duke RD isn't much better at 4.1 percent. And Vanderbilt is the worst at 3.7 percent.

People suggesting that it's easy-peasy to get into these schools in RD provided you went to the right high school are generally going to be wrong. And URM isn't the hook that it used to be - particularly at MIT. The percentage of black students at MIT collapsed this year. It went from 15 percent to 5 percent.

What hooks does MIT pay some amount of attention to? I've heard they like girls. What about low income, first gen, rural, etc?

MIT does strive for gender parity. But those are all smart girls. I don't think it's a huge advantage. But like all highly selective schools, low income and first gen are going to be an advantage. The problem with rural is that they are unlikely to have access to classes like multivariable calculus and the other high level classes that are generally required for an MIT admit. It does no one any good to have an unprepared freshman flunk out. I don't think there are significant hooks like at Harvard. MIT doesn't do legacy. And they don't care if daddy works in private equity. It's probably the closest to a genuine meritocracy there is.

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.

MIT does early action with Nov. 1 deadline and releases decisions mid-December (non-binding)

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.

100%

b


False in my experience as a college counselor. In recent years I've seen the best SCEA, REA, ED and EA. Very few get in RD because all the slots are taken. Now, if you are URM that is different

MIT RD acceptance rate is 3.9 percent. Duke RD isn't much better at 4.1 percent. And Vanderbilt is the worst at 3.7 percent.

People suggesting that it's easy-peasy to get into these schools in RD provided you went to the right high school are generally going to be wrong. And URM isn't the hook that it used to be - particularly at MIT. The percentage of black students at MIT collapsed this year. It went from 15 percent to 5 percent.

What hooks does MIT pay some amount of attention to? I've heard they like girls. What about low income, first gen, rural, etc?

Anonymous wrote:

False in my experience as a college counselor. In recent years I've seen the best SCEA, REA, ED and EA. Very few get in RD because all the slots are taken. Now, if you are URM that is different

How is it different for URM? What are you seeing? My DC is URM and we're trying to figure out our strategy for next year

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.

100%

b


False in my experience as a college counselor. In recent years I've seen the best SCEA, REA, ED and EA. Very few get in RD because all the slots are taken. Now, if you are URM that is different

MIT RD acceptance rate is 3.9 percent. Duke RD isn't much better at 4.1 percent. And Vanderbilt is the worst at 3.7 percent.

People suggesting that it's easy-peasy to get into these schools in RD provided you went to the right high school are generally going to be wrong. And URM isn't the hook that it used to be - particularly at MIT. The percentage of black students at MIT collapsed this year. It went from 15 percent to 5 percent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Specifically MIT. I’ve heard all the stuff that is generally said about top schools- be genuine, be interesting, be unique, have a spike, etc. But are there qualities or aspects to an application that MIT looks for specifically?

No, they are just best of the best.Like at Harvard and Yale

You don't say? 😅

Anonymous wrote:Specifically MIT. I’ve heard all the stuff that is generally said about top schools- be genuine, be interesting, be unique, have a spike, etc. But are there qualities or aspects to an application that MIT looks for specifically?

In a community with functional newspapers, Wash. U., Emory and Rice students have probably been in briefs a few times for getting awards or being in sporting events.

Typical HYPSM students have probably been in small news articles or feature articles focusing on their major awards or interesting projects.

Anonymous wrote:Specifically MIT. I’ve heard all the stuff that is generally said about top schools- be genuine, be interesting, be unique, have a spike, etc. But are there qualities or aspects to an application that MIT looks for specifically?

No, they are just best of the best.Like at Harvard and Yale

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.

100%

b


False in my experience as a college counselor. In recent years I've seen the best SCEA, REA, ED and EA. Very few get in RD because all the slots are taken. Now, if you are URM that is different

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.

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.

And I do think people don't realize that the ED numbers are skewed for the athletes, donor, faculty kids, legacy and 'special interest' kids--so how much an advantage for an 'unhooked' kid--I'm just not sure.