cghen

It's hard to convey anything more than just stereotypes on CC, and so I think both Caltech and MIT are portrayed a bit unfairly on these boards in terms of student interests and social life.

To echo what others have said of MIT, at Caltech, while most everyone is interested in studying/persuing science, that doesn't mean that this is the only interest by any means. Beyond classes and work (which granted, is less than at other schools), students still do normal college things: sports (though in a pretty relaxed way, sort of like MIT), music, some art, hanging out, partying, dating, etc. Many, many people, for example, are more than happy to talk about sports and music, and things like that are more likely to be discussed at dinner than say the last quantum problem set.

You definitely shouldn't take my word for it, though. For Caltech, especially, you really have to visit and spend some time in the houses to make the right decision.

For both schools, if your son is generally interested in the schools themselves (the academics, the size, locations, course offerings, etc.), I would have him apply and see how things pan out in terms of acceptances and financial aid. If those things turn out well, an in-depth visit would really help to answer your questions about social fit.

crazy mom

Thanks for the information. I'm hoping we can squeeze out both the time and money to visit both places, since we live in the middle of the country.

collegealum314

Wait until he gets in before you spend money on trips. I'd say your son definitely has a great chance for MIT, though. CalTech will be more difficult without at least state-level awards in math/science. If his recs are phenomenal then he might have a chance.

btw, in my opinion the environment at mit would be fine for your son. (I don't have personal experience at caltech so I can't say.) There are plenty of people with outside interests there like playing in a band or something.

crazy mom

Thanks collegealum 314. He has won our state math contest three years. so maybe that will help.

collegealum314

Well, in that case he sounds like he would be a great addition to the student body of either place.

CalTech is really looking for hardcore students, so I would emphasize that on your son's application. They don't expect people to necessarily have done research, but an applicant should project an image that you are someone headed toward the top levels of science, math, or engineering.

MIT actually has a question where they ask about what you do for fun... After the rash of suicides in the 90's, they are trying more for people who lead balanced lives. This doesn't mean you should choose MIT over CalTech though. The California environment may seem more relaxing to your son.

zoogies

But we're totally unbalanced :P

GimmeShelter3

Two years later, its still a joke.
I saw on last years thread, they rejected a guy who got 2350, 12 on AIME, USACO, and USNCO. He was also math club president, FBCLA president, and tennis team captain (so he obviously had other things). They also deferred a guy who was 2350, Siemens Reg. Finalist, 8 on AIME, and USNCO.

Why? Who knows. Obviously one reason is the mega AA for R and G. But obviously, MIT is trying to change their policy. It seems like they are looking to accept more "normal" kids. It seems like getting a 2350 is better than 2400, making AIME only is better than passing it, and so on. Its also beneficial to get lesser awards...too bad they dont realize just beucase you can get 2400 doesnt mean you arent normal.

I guess they want to fix their sterotypical nature, and also dont want to be labeled as the "suicide" school.

Of course I am saying this because two people (both Asian males, similar income) applied to MIT, and one was accepted and the other defered. The one who was accepted said his essays were junk so that was not deciding factor, and he got like 2300 SAT and had basic leadership positions/ECs like research. The one who was deferred got like 2350 SAT, president of math club, orchetra section leader, and thats both really impressive for our school, and was also 2 time math oly qualifier and a arml regional champ.

GimmeShelter3

HAHA!!! was marliee jones (the one mentioned in the first post on this thread) the one who got fired for lying on her resume!!?

Rofl, I wonder how a school can choose the right students if they chose a person who would be the dean of admins who lied on her resume!!!

sonicexx

MIT is a school for visioners, not for people who simply manage to assimilate knowledge. Look, you have the internet, you can find every information in few seconds. The problem is how to use them in the creative way.

I can't even imagine that "perfect" guy you mentioned in the future. Trying to make everything perfect?

Creativity is very imperfect, it is abnormal, odd, and stinks of unfairness. But it is in my opinion the most important factor in MIT's admissions.

molliebatmit

Before anybody unsheaths their flamethrowers for what I'm sure will be another fascinating round of old, tired arguments, could you please go back and read through the thread?

I have very little interest in having to copy and paste arguments from two years ago to another part of this thread.

Millerl1te

Mollie, I love how you effectively shut down all flamers by asking them to read 35 pages of this thread. MIT education paid off :P

#theorymom

I was surprised to see this raise its ugly head again. Oh well.
Sonicexx said it well. You can't "rate" creativity. Sure the ad com can make a mistake here and there and overlook someone who might have done well there, but for my tastes, I find it encouraging that they will give some of the less stellar (stats wise) apps a look. There are diamonds in the rough out there. I should think places like MIT would like to find them and take the credit for polishing them up :-)

mathboy98

Mollie, I have not read all 35 pages....but I'm not a flamer in any way. =]

"Well clearly there are still lots of brilliant kids at MIT. But there could be a lot more. Maybe that's not the school's ideal of a "well-balanced class," but it certainly is not fair to the kids that deserve to be there.

And the URM's and girls I know that got in from my school over the last few years, honestly had NOTHING over the much more qualified, non-URM non-female (mostly males ) candidates who were rejected.

Caltech has a much fairer admissions process, which is probably why it's risen tremendously relative to MIT over the past years in terms of the public's awareness."

--From the OP, very much at the beginning

I don't know, in all honesty, as much as I think most private schools are somewhat mysterious in how they really ultimately select students, I think the biggest problem with this thread and similar ones is that quite a large percentage of those here will not try to understand the goal of MIT's *undergrad* admissions process. I think it's safe to say the graduate school processes at schools are, though not entirely predictable, quite a bit more so -- it's ALL about proving your academic worth in a special area, EC's are thrown out the window.

Different schools run by different philosophies, and the bottom line is that these "perfect applicants" rejected from MIT may very well be accepted at Caltech, and then go to MIT for grad school. I don't know if there are students admitted to MIT who really do not do great things once they get there...maybe. I think there are probably some of those at any undergrad school. But my general point is that while it may seem "obvious" to some of us that a perfect math or engineering applicant should be accepted to MIT's undergrad, well it may just be that MIT has accepted too many of those, and doesn't see it fit to admit 100% of those, which it SURELY could, given how likely it is these students would accept the admissions offers if received.

The question basically is -- is it OK for such amazing students to go elsewhere for undergrad, and then head to a no doubt top graduate school, or is it CRIMINAL to leave them out of MIT's undergrad program. I think it would be criminal only if there weren't other top schools waiting to accept these people. Hopefully the given student will make it to MIT for grad school...where it really counts more.

I doubt people will EVER stop quarreling about such a topic, though. It's just a reality =]

"Its also beneficial to get lesser awards...too bad they dont realize just beucase you can get 2400 doesnt mean you arent normal."

This, I think they do. I think the main issue with your post is that it is full of guesses, although I am not bashing your worries entirely at all. I have made long posts before, which you're free to look at some day, about how an issue with the common population [NOT necessarily with any undergrad school's admissions office] is to think "Oh, another perfect little 2400 kid..." -- they come as a diverse lot. Anywhere from my friend who doesn't give a damn about his grades, and slacks off entirely, but is actually one of those naturally brilliant Russians, to the workaholics. There is no way to neatly package someone's personality like that, and someone with no school EC's or anything can be MORE interesting as an individual than half the rest of the population. I recognize this. But I think, so do the admissions guys. They've easily heard all the criticism you all are offering, I imagine...

I don't think everyone uniformly wants MIT to become like the IIT's of India necessarily [where there's a big, enormous, challenging admissions test that basically determines your entry to the undergrad program]. I've discussed this on another thread. There are huge flaws with that process too.

I think people aren't upset so much by the fact that MIT rejects some insanely talented applicants, as they are by how TOUGH it is to tell, with ANY certainty, the outcome of an application. You can't even begin to guess, it seems. It's a little annoying when you can only say "OK, just a shot in the dark" even for the most insanely talented applicants. Part of the issue is that the admissions office doesn't want to prescribe something, because everyone will start doing it, and yet when they make it a more fluid [though well thought out] process, so many complain.

If this were graduate school admissions, there's a clear answer on what to do...but this isn't. I think people need to talk about what they believe the philosophy of undergrad admissions should be, in order to make meaningful comments on this subject.

mathboy98

By the way, just a little other tidbit -- if you purely want to predict who's going to do great academic work in the future..well the sad thing is, it's *quite* hard to based on a high school application, I imagine. Once one gets to college, and the opportunities are far more boundless than they were in high school, one can change drastically, and start taking advantage of them ferociously. Some of the students accepted to MIT with less perfect profiles may actually take advantage of MIT and do insane things.

Is it UTTERLY clear that the more standard perfect applicants would do better things in MIT, and would the overall student dynamic be more conducive to an academically charged atmosphere of good work? The talented applicants whom you speak of can do well at almost any top school, and I think the only certain issue arises when things get so haphazard that such a student could not get into *any* top school.

So again, if MIT 100% rejected the very high scoring, super talented applicants, I'd say there's something fishy...but it doesn't. We then have to evaluate its goals carefully, and weigh this philosophy against our own about undergrad admissions.

kryptonsa36

Why would anyone have to do that? I have yet to see an instance where someone I personally know to be an "insanely talented applicant" did not have a clear shot at acceptance.

I would think any otherwise "insanely talented applicant" had in fact some negative attribute that ended up legitimately edging that one particular "insanely talented" rejectee behind all the also "insanely talented" acceptees.