<p>How do recruited athletes keep up with MIT’s rigorous course load? or am I being really ignorant and styerotypical and MIT’s athletes are geniuses as well?</p>
<p>My understanding is that we don’t have “recruited athletes.” Being good at a sport is like being president of student government–an EC which shows energy and leadership and thus may boost you admissions chances as a tip factor. I could be wrong, but I don’t think the admissions office is trying to fill spots on each team. It’s more that it’s a plus if someone is well-rounded.</p>
<p>For example, MIT’s only division I sport (and therefore, presumably, the sport it takes the most seriously) only had one freshman who had rowed before back when I enrolled. So that kind of whows how much the admissions office didn’t care about fielding competitive teams. Now probably everybody had some success in a varsity sport in high school, but they weren’t brought in to play on those teams.</p>
<p>Every year DAPER and the Coaches do provide a list of students who they would very much like to see admitted, and every year the director of admissions has “frank and open” discussions with the coaches as to why particular students did not get in. Considering that the Dean of Admissions (Stuart Schmill) was once the MIT Varsity Crew Coach, he has seen it and understands it from both sides.</p>
<p>Being actively desired by DAPER is a stronger benefit than being president of student government or some other not independently verified EC, but it is still not enough to get you in. This is a significant departure from many other schools.</p>
<p>Has athletics become a more important EC in admissions since when you went to MIT? I’m just wondering if there has been a change in philosophy.</p>
<p>Not really, but any special factor that has someone at MIT to provide positive validation counts more strongly than one that does not. For example, music composition samples sent as extras in the application process get sent off to the music faculty for analysis. The music faculty will indicate which students they view as artistic standouts (analogously for art). Similarly, someone saying “I’m quite good at tennis” is a different statement from a DAPER coach saying, “We have checked out his tennis record and we really want him”. </p>
<p>Some EC’s vary dramatically from school to school across the hundred odd countries from which MIT draws its applicant pool. It can be complex to value being head prefect at those schools in the US and abroad that use that title, and compare it to being Student Body President. Both are often elected posts, but it is tricky to compare like with like. Whereas with independently validated EC’s, they do not have to. </p>
<p>MIT does not have to work out who are the artistic stars (the arts faculties do that for them), they do not have to work out who are certain categories of academic stars (say the winners of international competitions), and similarly they do not have to work out how to value all of the students who claim to be good at any particular sport, DAPER does it for them. My impression from talking to admissions officers, is that stuff in which it is easier to have confidence in the value, for good or bad, is often more important than some more fluffy stuff. </p>
<p>That being said, I reiterate that being a recruited athlete, even one at the very top of DAPER’s want list, is not enough to get you in. It serves more to tip edge cases into admission. And to be completely clear, when you consider some of the sterling records of some of the students that MIT rejects, you realise quickly that all of the edge cases are extremely impressive in their own right.</p>