collegeguy2k7

There is something to be said for this 'silly' admissions process at MIT. All students admitted to MIT, even the so-called "academically weak", are more than capable of thriving at MIT and going on to do amazing things later in life.

The fact that MIT adcoms make sacrifices by not admitting *every* academic superstar in the interests of enriching the undergraduate experience by building a more diverse student body is yet another reason why MIT is better than Caltech.

GreenDayFan

I think labeling their admissions process as silly based on anecdotes from your school is not very reliable. Two people were accepted from my school last year ( i believe they were numbers 1 and 5 in the class) and they were both THE best math and science students in the school, hands down. they were both also varsity athletes(and involved in the school otherwise as well). i am confident they were admitted because a) they were great math/science students and b) they were the total package. (also, both were white, so no AA taking place either).

molliebatmit

I don't think the average MIT admit in general is intellectually at the level of the Putnam winners, so I think that's a loaded comparison.

I do happen to think that the average URM admit is intellectually at the level of the average non-URM admit, or at least will be after a semester or two of GIRs. That is to say, I think the URM and the non-URM admit pools have approximately the same level of potential, even if not the same level of academic preparation.

bob99975

its true that SATs aren't entirely fair
but still it gives a fairly accurate ballpark indicator of what a student's abilities are

i highly doubt students with 1800 SATs can handle MIT core courses, especially math and science, barring some kind of extreme personal circumstance

"I do happen to think that the average URM admit is intellectually at the level of the average non-URM admit, or at least will be after a semester or two of GIRs"
judging by the stats and extra-curriculars i've seen in the admit threads, i also doubt this

pebbles

"judging by the stats and extra-curriculars i've seen in the admit threads, i also doubt this"

well, judging by the people that I spend every day of my life with at school, I think what mollie said is true.

poxpox

Actually, the very best top math superstars are NOT at MIT, there are more Putham math winners from MIT simply bacause there are more math students from MIT ( MIT math is about 10 times bigger than Harvard, Princeton, Caltech)

The very best top math student usually go to Harvard, Caltech, Caltech. That is why 1st place winning team is usually Harvard or Caltech or Princeton. That is why no one from MIT has ever won Fields Medal even though there are more MIT math graduates than Harvard, Caltech, Princeton, Yale , Columbia and Stanford combined. Most of the Fields medal winner are graduates of Harvard, Princeton & Caltech.

Master0fBalances

The problem I have with this system is that the MIT admissions office keeps claiming they're trying to "demystify the application process," "take the pressure off students in their senior year," etc. This is the opposite of the truth. I would really like to know exactly what MIT is looking for when they read an application; saying "the match" is one of the most deliberately vague statements I've ever seen.

I submitted my application in October for Early Action and was deferred. I updated my application before regular decisions were made with an essay-length letter describing my activities, awards, etc. since I had first submitted. I'm now on the waitlist, and probably won't receive a decision until late May. That's a seven-month turnover for my application. I would really like to know how that is supposed to relieve my anxiety and help me relax during my senior year.

As I've stated in other threads: I am still in love with MIT as a school, but I have no good feelings left for their admissions office.

cghen

In terms of 'capable of thriving at MIT', I wonder if that could have more to do with easing the graduation requirements than all students equally thriving regardless of academic background: the reason, for example, that Caltech can't do it's admissions like MIT is because if people, on average, had any less academic preparation, the curriculum would need to be dumbed down quite a bit so that a large fraction wouldn't fail out.

collegeguy2k7

Oh please, that tired old line is the same thing you people keep coming here with. Yes there are ways to get through with less difficult classes, yet I think you'd find most of our engineering classes have not been "dumbed down". I believe the only people saying otherwise have not actually attended MIT.

The fact that all those "academic superstars sweeping the Putnam" *chose* to come to MIT over Caltech says a LOT.

pebbles

Caltech's graduation rate is still abysmal, so perhaps the admissions office should raise the bar even higher.

p.s. I dont think the admissions department has much sway in changing graduation requirements.

cghen

Then you should be all the more able to refute it if it didn't have some validity!

I have no doubt that's quite true as I'm a physics major. I also doubt that you're at all familiar with Caltech's engineering classes to be able to assess the level of difficulty between them and MIT's (I'm not saying Caltech's are more difficult, just that you saying that your classes are hard doesn't really provide any insight into the comparison.)

collegeguy2k7

I don't think the comparison is valid if you make it too general. Are you comparing general institute reqs, or all majors? I don't believe there is really an 'easy' way through course VI, or its equivalent at Caltech.

Other majors may have ways to get them by taking easy classes. Is that not at all true for any major at Caltech?

orbis_somnio

Are you sure? Most are actually graduates of international universities. There are 48 recipients total. 16 of which got a degree in the U.S. Here's a list of them:

2006: Terence Tao Ph.D '96 Princeton University
2002: Vladimir Voevodsky Ph.D '92 Harvard University
1998: Curtis T. McMullen Ph.D '85 Harvard University
1990: Edward Written Ph.D '76 Princeton University
1986: Michael Freedman Ph.D '73 Princeton University
1982: William Thurston Ph.D '72 University of California, Berkeley, Shing-Tung Yau Ph.D '71 University of California, Berkeley
1978: Charles Fefferman Ph.D '69 Princeton Univeristy, Daniel Quillen Ph.D '64 Harvard University
1974: David Mumford Ph.D '61 Harvard University
1970: Heisuke Hironaka Ph.D '70 Harvard University, John G. Thompson Ph.D '59 University of Chicago
1966: Paul Cohen Ph.D '58 University of Chicago, Stephen Smale Ph.D '57 University of Michigan
1962: John Milnor Ph.D '54 Princeton University
1936: Jesse Douglas Ph.D '20 Columbia University

There're 5 from Harvard, 5 from Princeton, 2 from Berkeley, 2 from Chicago, 1 from Michigan, and 1 from Columbia.

That's hardly most.

As for Putnam, 3 of the top 5 scorers are from MIT. Only one of which was on the MIT team.

pebbles

look, if i were doing theoretical math and harvard accepted me, hell, I'd go, too. I dont see how that has to do with the MIT undergrad admissions policies though :/



just sayin'

Sklog_W

this is a silly thread. I'm glad all of you are so concerned about the academic merits of the students you go to school with, but I'll take MIT admissions over Caltech admissions any day.