Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So let’s tee this up: how does a white boy from NW DC at Jackson-Reed, MacArthur-Thompson, SWW, or Banneker with a 1520 SAT and varsity sports experience (not good enough for DI), some volunteering experience and STEM-centric club membership (not leadership) at school and a 3.9 unweighted get into MIT?

(I ask like this because I don’t think it’s possible.)

Have a good time at RPI.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:they're not just winning their conference, they're winning the entire D3 championship. Sure, Salve Regina, I guess, but also NYU, Tufts, U Chicago, JHU, Wash U, CMU, CWRU, Emory, Washington & Lee, CalTech, all the WASP schools, etc.

they are WINNING those championships.

MIT won't offer a likely letter like some D3 schools, but they'll do an academic pre-read.

A pre-read is when admissions looks at a file and tells a coach whether the student will get in with their support. MIT does not do that. Students apply knowing that it's a 50/50 shot. They do not know at the time of application if they will get in.

On the other hand, many other high academic schools that don't offer scholarship, like DIII's or Ivies, require students to commit 100% by applying ED. So there are pros and cons, from the perspective of the student athlete, to both models.

yeah, that's a pre-read. same as many other schools. is it a guarantee, no. but 50/50 is a huge hook, you have to admit. FWIW, we've had 5 kids from our HS go to MIT in the last 3 years. 4 were athletes.

That’s not a pre-read. A pre-read is when admissions has given feedback to the student before they decide whether to apply. That doesn’t happen at MIT. Admissions doesn’t see the the application till it’s submitted.

Coach support does increase odds, and coaches do make decisions about which kids to support based on the kids’ stats but students don’t get a pre-read from admissions.

Same as at Duke for some non rev-generating sports. Coaches tell recruits if they'll support the application or not. And they'll say, I only support for how many spots I have, but that's not the same as a guarantee.

But no one would say Duke doesn't recruit, they do. MIT recruits. Their coaches travel and see athletes and talk to them. They'll say who is getting support. They won't give support unless athlete applies EA or if they ED elsewhere.

You can say they don't recruit if you like, but they do. can athletes commit in February of junior year - no. But that's true at many many schools. it's still a huge leg up.

My niece is one who will say she wouldn't have gotten in if not for having the support of a coach.

Obviously, also much easier for females at MIT even without coach's support. with coach's support, you can get in with a standard strong application. It's a major, major hook. Some sports more than others. There are indy college counselors who specialize in athletes who lay it all out

Let me put it this way, if you have the support of a Trustee or you're on the Z (donor) list at any college, you won't get a commitment that you can post to instagram in winter of 11th grade. You will get a "I can support two applications as a trustee and I'd feel very confident about your position". If you're a billionaire, you may get something similar - verbally - from one of the heads of school. And if you're an athlete for women's fencing, you'll get "I have two spots, I need your weapon, I like that you have a 1520, and after seeing you at three tournaments, I'm willing to support your application. To be clear, this isn't a commitment, but unlike some other coaches at MIT, I only support the number of applications for the spots I have. Generally, they have a very high chance of acceptance. Last year, I had three spots and the three applications supported got in. Same as year before." There are coaches at MIT and other schools with similar profile who will say to admissions, I have seven spots and any of these 15 will do. That's eases the pressure on their site. Usually younger coaches do this. Hey, this is the team that admissions gave me! Or some older coaches who feel it's either more fair or don't really care about getting to nationals and spending more weekends away from home.

Anonymous wrote:So let’s tee this up: how does a white boy from NW DC at Jackson-Reed, MacArthur-Thompson, SWW, or Banneker with a 1520 SAT and varsity sports experience (not good enough for DI), some volunteering experience and STEM-centric club membership (not leadership) at school and a 3.9 unweighted get into MIT?

(I ask like this because I don’t think it’s possible.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:they're not just winning their conference, they're winning the entire D3 championship. Sure, Salve Regina, I guess, but also NYU, Tufts, U Chicago, JHU, Wash U, CMU, CWRU, Emory, Washington & Lee, CalTech, all the WASP schools, etc.

they are WINNING those championships.

MIT won't offer a likely letter like some D3 schools, but they'll do an academic pre-read.

A pre-read is when admissions looks at a file and tells a coach whether the student will get in with their support. MIT does not do that. Students apply knowing that it's a 50/50 shot. They do not know at the time of application if they will get in.

On the other hand, many other high academic schools that don't offer scholarship, like DIII's or Ivies, require students to commit 100% by applying ED. So there are pros and cons, from the perspective of the student athlete, to both models.

yeah, that's a pre-read. same as many other schools. is it a guarantee, no. but 50/50 is a huge hook, you have to admit. FWIW, we've had 5 kids from our HS go to MIT in the last 3 years. 4 were athletes.

That’s not a pre-read. A pre-read is when admissions has given feedback to the student before they decide whether to apply. That doesn’t happen at MIT. Admissions doesn’t see the the application till it’s submitted.

Coach support does increase odds, and coaches do make decisions about which kids to support based on the kids’ stats but students don’t get a pre-read from admissions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure, tons of recruited athletes with that profile at MIT.

DD"s friend got in for rowing. Basic high stats. Nothing else really.

This, know a girl last year for rowing.

Rowing is DI at MIT. DI is an entirely different thing. You can't generalize from rowing, which is the only DI sport at MIT to their DIII sports.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure, tons of recruited athletes with that profile at MIT.

DD"s friend got in for rowing. Basic high stats. Nothing else really.

This, know a girl last year for rowing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:they're not just winning their conference, they're winning the entire D3 championship. Sure, Salve Regina, I guess, but also NYU, Tufts, U Chicago, JHU, Wash U, CMU, CWRU, Emory, Washington & Lee, CalTech, all the WASP schools, etc.

they are WINNING those championships.

MIT won't offer a likely letter like some D3 schools, but they'll do an academic pre-read.

I don't understand why you are still arguing with me. I have actual, deep knowledge of the MIT athletic department, lack of recruiting process and admissions process.

You’re telling us that MIT admissions is 100% blind to athletic skill, the coaches do zero scouting and never talk to a high school student-athlete, and yet each team is filled by competent athletes, year after year, by complete and total coincidence.

Can you figure out why no one believes you?

Did I say any of that? No.

To answer your questions (that you never asked): Coaches don't do scouting, no. That's pointless at a school like MIT.

They do talk to athletes and they do put in their support for athletes depending on their skill. However, my coach that is a professor of 30+ years finds it super frustrating because very rarely does his support matter. By his own words, their academic profile matters way, way more than the athlete profile / support.

Any other questions that you didn't ask?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure, tons of recruited athletes with that profile at MIT.

DD"s friend got in for rowing. Basic high stats. Nothing else really.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:they're not just winning their conference, they're winning the entire D3 championship. Sure, Salve Regina, I guess, but also NYU, Tufts, U Chicago, JHU, Wash U, CMU, CWRU, Emory, Washington & Lee, CalTech, all the WASP schools, etc.

they are WINNING those championships.

MIT won't offer a likely letter like some D3 schools, but they'll do an academic pre-read.

I don't understand why you are still arguing with me. I have actual, deep knowledge of the MIT athletic department, lack of recruiting process and admissions process.

You’re telling us that MIT admissions is 100% blind to athletic skill, the coaches do zero scouting and never talk to a high school student-athlete, and yet each team is filled by competent athletes, year after year, by complete and total coincidence.

Can you figure out why no one believes you?

Did I say any of that? No.

To answer your questions (that you never asked): Coaches don't do scouting, no. That's pointless at a school like MIT.

They do talk to athletes and they do put in their support for athletes depending on their skill. However, my coach that is a professor of 30+ years finds it super frustrating because very rarely does his support matter. By his own words, their academic profile matters way, way more than the athlete profile / support.

Any other questions that you didn't ask?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:they're not just winning their conference, they're winning the entire D3 championship. Sure, Salve Regina, I guess, but also NYU, Tufts, U Chicago, JHU, Wash U, CMU, CWRU, Emory, Washington & Lee, CalTech, all the WASP schools, etc.

they are WINNING those championships.

MIT won't offer a likely letter like some D3 schools, but they'll do an academic pre-read.

A pre-read is when admissions looks at a file and tells a coach whether the student will get in with their support. MIT does not do that. Students apply knowing that it's a 50/50 shot. They do not know at the time of application if they will get in.

On the other hand, many other high academic schools that don't offer scholarship, like DIII's or Ivies, require students to commit 100% by applying ED. So there are pros and cons, from the perspective of the student athlete, to both models.

yeah, that's a pre-read. same as many other schools. is it a guarantee, no. but 50/50 is a huge hook, you have to admit. FWIW, we've had 5 kids from our HS go to MIT in the last 3 years. 4 were athletes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. But chose to attend the school across town instead

Got into Harvard with OP stats?

Similar stats. 1580 SAT. Not athlete. Not FGLI. Attended well known public with just under 4.0 unweighted. Didn’t have published research. No olympiads or awards.

Girl?

Boy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure, tons of recruited athletes with that profile at MIT.

DD"s friend got in for rowing. Basic high stats. Nothing else really.

2 years ago, DS did not get in nor get rowing coach support- 1580 SAT, 4.0 mcps, all 5s on APs, highest course rigor, 4 years rowing and various other extracurriculars.

Anonymous wrote:Women’s soccer is also very strong at MIT I think.