How another top school adcom looks at admissions

<p>This was posted earlier today on a chances thread by MSMom&Dad, and Antarius
suggested that it deserved to be a thread of its own. There’s lots of wisdom here for
people wondering about whether they’ll get in or not – so I copied and moved it
to a roost of its own.</p>

<p>MSMom&Dad wrote: Since this is a long chance thread that may catch the eye of prospective students, I though it might be helpful to post the comments of an MIT adcom. Yes, I know that Rice is not MIT, but highly selective universities all work in similar ways…
Quote:
No one on this forum, not even me, can give you a meaningful chance at MIT.</p>

<p>Why?</p>

<ul>
<li><p>Because the factors of admissions that can be readily apprehended in a forum post (GPA, SAT scores, etc) are in many ways the least important in our process.</p></li>
<li><p>Because listing the school you go to or ECAs you are involved in does not communicate the degree to which you are a vibrant member of the community, does not communicate what your coaches or teachers or mentors will say about you, and those are the things we care about.</p></li>
<li><p>Because it does not include any information about the interview, which is another critical insight into the candidacy of any prospective applicant.</p></li>
<li><p>Because a forums post cannot communicate the complexity of an applicant’s life story, circumstances, and so forth; even if they were to replicate all the answers to their essay questions, we still have additional data external to the application that we consider in understanding an applicant’s context.</p></li>
<li><p>Because of a billion other reasons along the way.</p></li>
</ul>

<p>I understand that chancing may be fun, or a way to blow off steam, or just something to do because we haven’t made the app available yet.</p>

<p>However, from my own time on forums for undergraduate and graduate programs, I know that people can take chancing quite seriously, that it can affect where they apply, that it is ripe for mockery (or can itself be used to degrade the self-esteem of others), and so forth.</p>

<p>I don’t want anyone who isn’t aware of this to be misled into thinking that CC chances are accurate or meaningful in any way (they aren’t and could never be!). I want to be completely transparent and honest with all of you and let folks know this up front.</p>

<p>Here’s what you need to know:</p>

<p>If you:</p>

<ul>
<li><p>Have taken, and continue to take, challenging courses (not necessarily all the hardest), and have done well in them (you don’t need straight As, but you shouldn’t be able to spell anything with your grades either), and;</p></li>
<li><p>Have taken either the ACTs/SATs and two SAT IIs (one math, one science), and have done reasonably well (for us: scoring around the 700 range or higher on each subsection of the SATs or 30 and up on each subsection of the ACTs, though these are guidelines, and every year we accept people with lower and reject people with higher), and;</p></li>
<li><p>Are interested in studying science and technology in conjunction with the liberal arts</p></li>
</ul>

<p>then you should apply to MIT.</p>

<p>Because no matter what your chances are, the only way to have a 0% chance is to not apply.
MSmom&dad is offline</p>

<p>Ottoline - I had nothing to do with this one. Full credit to MSMom&Dad.</p>

<p>I believe there was a similar article posted in USNWR like 4 years ago? (A friend mentioned it to me) It was an interview by the Rice head of admissions.</p>

<p>Think im gonna email USNews and ask them for a copy.</p>

<p>About 10 years ago, TIME interviewed Rice as one of three schools about their admissions process:</p>

<p>[In</a> or Out: Inside College Admissions - TIME](<a href=“http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,57724,00.html]In”>http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,57724,00.html)</p>

<p>There’s nothing earth-shattering in it, but it’s still interesting to hear directly from Rice itself.</p>

<p>Thanks for starting a thread Ottoline. I do think that there’s far too much discussion of SAT and ACT scores on this (and other college threads). I especially dislike chance respondents stating that a 30+ ACT is “too low” or that a 700+ SAT II should be retaken. Hopefully the MIT comments (from this year I should add) may help dispel some of that hysteria:

</p>

<p>No question that the admissions process has gotten extra-stressful – for applicants, parents, and school counselors. Not to mention today’s overloaded adcoms. Much tenser I think than when we knew far less about school rankings, SAT ranges, particulars about our competition…</p>

<p>At the same time, there’s also so much more info available these days for putting together a list after deciding which schools offer the best fit. From College Board to College ******* to Fiske to USNW … and on and on. And don’t forget to look carefully at college websites to see what’s being offered, professor bios, majors, etc.</p>

<p>A few years ago, a Swarthmore psych professor suggested that schools should hold lotteries open to all applicants considered “good enough.” It could do away with
much of the stress. And leave lots more time for summer fun!</p>

<p>Please spend time enjoying the summer – whether you’re applying or getting ready
for freshman year … Good luck to all!</p>

<p>Thanks for posting (or re-posting) the MIT adcomm information. I hope it makes a few students abandon the “chance me” posts they’re working on and instead do their research, apply and hope for the best.</p>

<p>I also really enjoyed that article from Time magazine. I have another daughter applying for college this year and I’m going to pass it along to her. There’s some good information in there, particularly in the list of myths, and besides, it’s a fun read.</p>