<p>Well, as I said, “big-name universities prefer to see a longer list of verifiable achievements from math/science applicants,” which goes double for MIT and Caltech. Basically what I’m saying is that MIT and Caltech accept only the best of the best (of the best) where international students are concerned, and your math and science credentials, while solid, do not strike me as exceptional in the context of those universities’ applicant pools. Especially not if you’re from one of the countries I listed above (and I guess I should add Singapore to that category).</p>
<p>I have known several IMO contestants and one medallist who did not get into MIT or Caltech, but got into Princeton and Stanford. Being very good at math and science is not enough. You need to be the best, and have something extra on top. (Caltech in particular accepts a very very small number of internationals, and so does MIT compared to schools like Stanford and Harvard.)</p>
<p>I can’t really explain what Harvard looks for in applicants, sorry. I just know you don’t sound like any of the people I know who’ve been accepted there, but you do sound like a lot of people I’ve seen get rejected. I know this is harsh, but it’s my impression.</p>
<p>What I meant by EC blurbs and additional notes are all the places in your application, other than the essay, where you’re invited to make a case for your admission in writing. A lot of people don’t realize everything on your application, from the short descriptions of your extracurricular activities to the file name of your supplement, contribute to the impression you make, and need to fit into or complement the larger narrative presented in your essay(s). Many ‘bad’ applications are simply disjointed applications that don’t make sense when viewed as a single text, or reveal a real personality.</p>
<p>I think your chances at Stanford are small, but you might as well apply.</p>