<p>Which talent does MIT usually prefer more, an athlete who’s recruited or a decent musician with a good supplement?</p>
<p>Either/or questions are always impossible to resolve – MIT, after all, may take both, or neither. The application process isn’t set up in such a way that it pits people in direct one-on-one competition.</p>
<p>Athletic recruitment at MIT isn’t a very strong tip, but decent musicians are a dime a dozen in MIT’s applicant pool. I’m not sure there’s a clear answer here.</p>
<p>I thought the answer would be the athlete who is in a rock band that submitted an art portfolio :0 (joking)</p>
<p>molliebatmit- I think you’re probably right. </p>
<p>bluebird- If only that were true, I would have submitted an art portfolio (I’m an athlete, in a rock band, and I’m in IB Visual Arts, for which I have to produce a portfolio eventually).</p>
<p>Well, just in terms of the number of people that apply, I’m sure that there are many more world-class musicians than recruited athletes in MIT’s applicant pool.</p>
<p>^But the question was posed as a “decent” musician vs. a recruited athlete.</p>
<p>^True. From your knowledge and experience would you think that it’s too audacious to hypothesize that more decent musicians apply to MIT than recruited athletes?</p>
<p>Well, I think there are a lot of decent musicians in MIT’s applicant pool. On the athletics side, about 20% of the student body plays a varsity sport, but certainly not all of those athletes were recruits, and not all recruits are admitted.</p>
<p>If I were a betting person, I’d bet there are more decent musicians than recruited athletes in MIT’s applicant pool, though of course those groups aren’t mutually exclusive.</p>
<p>thanks for the comments. well…hooray for us musicians? ugh. i should probably stop thinking about this topic since i have no control over this.</p>
<p>I would say athletes just because you could get support from a coach, unless you are also talking about support from the music director; then, it would be the same I guess.</p>
<p>A quick count of teams on MIT’s athletic website shows 38 varsity teams including football. They play in NCAA D3.</p>
<p>
But the support from a coach isn’t a huge tip at MIT. It’s helpful, but so is being a musician who sends a supplement that the music department likes.</p>
<p>Neither scenario is a huge hook at MIT.</p>
<p>I don’t know how much MIT recruits athletes because the bottom line is you have to have the rest of the package, sports alone will not get you in. I think being an athlete (depending on the sport) helps in the admissions process because that would be a less common EC for applicants to MIT. I am sure music is a very common one. </p>
<p>Molliegym - what instrument do you play in your rock band? Did you apply early? I pretty much did have all three and got in early although I did not contact the coach until after I was accepted and my art was not in the form of a supplement just addressed in an essay.</p>
<p>A school that is committed to fielding a full complement of sports teams (even a DIII school like MIT) cant depend solely on walk-ons, particularly in sports like football, basketball, baseball, waterpolo, tennis, and even rowing, track and swimming, all of which require a more or less developed skill set, in addition to the necessary athletic aptitude. MIT is not going to field a basketball team of guys who have never dribbled a ball. And, the school cant merely assume that 15 or so of its admittees in the ordinary course will be DIII caliber basketball players who intend to play in college. These sports teams have to be filled somehow. Do the math.</p>
<p>mia:</p>
<p>That’s what makes the difference between DIII and D I or DII schools. DIII schools can stick with student/athletes while Div I schools need to recruit a certain number of athlete/students. The effect of recruiting is nominal on the overall student body of a big div I school. Most D I schools have 10/12 varsity teams. MIT has 41!. At a typical Div I school 2 to 3% of the student body are varsity athletes. The average at Div III schools is 15%. MIT has 20% varsity athletes. (Wililams has nearly 40%!). </p>
<p>MIT therefore cannot conceivably expect to be competitive in football, baseball or basketball (and they are not). They have done very well in the “pirate” sports which involve either a weapon (pistol, fencing…) or water (swimming, crew, sailing…). Ironically, most of the varsity athletes in the sports where MIT does well are walk-ons. Even among those applicants that are recommended by a coach and admitted, a big percentage either never joins the team or drops out after a year or two. There is no expected commitment either way. The coaches can’t really get you recruited and you really don’t owe them anything if you do. </p>
<p>Unlike Harvard or Stanford for instance, MIT doesn’t need to dip far from the right edge of the academic bell curve among its applicants. There are simply no easy majors at MIT for low scoring athletes to hide. According to admissions varsity athletes at MIT actually have a higher than average GPA upon graduation. </p>
<p>As Mollie has stated athletics is just not that big a tip. It helps but no more than being a chess player, dancer, cheerleader, painter, violonist or juggler.</p>
<p>cellardweller: With all due respect, it appears that you dont know much about sports. To reiterate, you cannot field a full complement of DIII teams by relying solely on walk-ons. What if no kids enroll who have and can play quaterback, running back, point guard, second base, hockey goalie, etc? You cant compete even on the DIII level by fielding a team of people who have never played the sport. In DIII you can fill in with unskilled people in some instances, sure. But you need to have your key positions covered through recruiting. That’s alot of people. Obviously, at MIT these recruits have to be academically qualified. it’s not like D1, or even some Ivies, where there is a great disparity between the stats of the athletes viz the non-athletes. and there is a separate admissions tract. However, the point remains that MIT takes a great deal of pride in the number of teams it fields and has to fill them. It certainly helps in admissions if your application is being supported by the athletic department. There is a tendency by some to diminish the importance of sport at a school as a way of establishing the school’s academic credentials. That is misguided. MIT manages to do both.</p>
<p>I think we’re all really arguing the same point here.</p>
<p>Nobody has said that support from a coach doesn’t help an application at MIT. We have merely said that it doesn’t help as much as it would at other schools, and that it’s not a “hook” in the sense that people talk about hooks, but rather a tip.</p>
<p>What if you play and succeed at a sport in which MIT is lacking in body-wise (ie their teamis small and needs people)? Will that have any more of a tip than playing a sport that they already have a full team in?</p>
<p>is there a way to be “recruited” by a musical group at MIT before an applicant is accepted?</p>
<p>According to admissions the music faculty evaluates sample performances sent by applicants, just as the art faculty will evaluate art portfolios. The various musical groups and orchestras on campus formally audition potential new players after students enroll in the fall. So, I don’t believe that one can actually be “recruited” before admission but a very strong performance could certainly be a tip.</p>