Quote:
|
Originally Posted by simfish Quote: |
Originally Posted by me Even if the standards have changed, I think it's pretty clear that the classes admitted now are academically stronger than those admitted in the past. There's a paradox for you. | It may be a product of more people applying to MIT than ever before (thus a higher calibre applicant pool out of the top X% that MIT has to then select from), more so than MIT admissions policies per se. |
Well, no doubt. And it's a consequence of there being a larger number of qualified people in MIT's applicant pool -- twenty years ago, MIT might have had to make more sacrifices to get a class hailing from diverse parts of the country. Now more smart kids across the country are aware that they have options other than a scholarship to State U, and MIT's applicant pool and admit pool benefit.
But if the students today are more qualified on average than students twenty years ago, which they appear to be in terms of SAT scores (modestly) and graduation rates (less modestly), then what of all of those "unqualified" people who were let in twenty years ago under the more "meritocratic" policies? Perhaps we ought to take away their diplomas.
EDIT: And as for criticizing admissions officers for being friendly and trying to explain what they do, give me a
break. The reality is that there are a lot of really qualified kids in the applicant pool, and decisions are not ultimately made because Applicant X is 0.001% smarter than Applicant Y. There aren't firm criteria; that's the nature of holistic admissions. Just wait until you have to start fretting about graduate school -- graduate school admissions criteria are even less clear. (And yet nobody complains.)