<p>The interview is very important. One of my best friends’ brother just graduated from MIT last year- international student. His stats: 1210 SAT (M690+V520), 3.7 UW, and decent ECs. However, his interviewer said he was truly “one in a million”. This person now runs his own solar energy company- a company that was invested in by a well-know billionaire.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m interested to hear what Chris says, but in my experience the interview can be important (if it is extremely positive or negative). But in most cases I suspect that it doesn’t have much effect.</p>
<p>If the interview is really that important then the whole process is unfair because in some cases there is no possibility of interview (some international students do not get one)
Also, if you go through all these reassuring threads about what is <em>not</em> important with admission you might end up thinking that it is not important to score high on the SAT, that there is no difference between a 700 and a 800 on either SAT I or subject test, that taking 5 SAT II and scoring 800 in each does not give you an edge over those taking only 2 subject tests, and that you don’t have to win an Intel prize etc…
But then <em>what</em> is important ? is MIT full of average kids barely scoring 700 on their SATs and playing world of warcraft in HS ?</p>
<p>Silverturtle,
</p>
<p>Post #1.</p>
<p>^ Ah, I hadn’t noticed that. I hope he elaborates, because that sounds a bit unrealistic; I mean, most interview reports have to be pretty generic. Aside from the occasional glowing report and the other extreme (which would probably lead to almost certain rejection), most reports are, I would suspect, just garden-variety positive, thereby negating any advantage from that “positive.”</p>
<p>That, along with the anecdote I posted earlier, should give you a pretty good idea of how MIT considers interviews, bro :D</p>
<p>I would try to strike a balance somewhere between “the interview is the single most important part of the application” and “the interview doesn’t have much of an effect.”</p>
<p>It’s clear that applicants who interview (and applicants whose interview is waived) are admitted at a much higher rate than applicants who don’t interview. I tend to attribute this mostly to selective effects – people who could have an interview but choose not to do so tend not to be the most enthusiastic about their MIT applications. I don’t think it’s having the interview by itself that’s causing the jump in admissions – it’s being the type of person who interviews.</p>
<p>I also think a great interview is tremendously helpful in the admissions process, mostly because a great anything is tremendously helpful. Sure, most interview reports are probably not extremely positive or negative, but most applicants don’t get into MIT, either.</p>
<p>The beauty of the holistic admissions process is that everything matters, and nothing is the only thing that matters.</p>
<p>@Jimmy - </p>
<p>You should definitely interview. That helped your friend without question. The admission rate for students who interview is almost an order of magnitude higher than for those who don’t. And we make it very easy for students to interview - you’re auto-assigned to a nearby one when you apply. </p>
<p>@luceverita - </p>
<p>If students can’t reasonably get an interview then we organize a telephone one or do not hold it against them. However, if you’re a domestic kid who has an alumni interviewer on their street and doesn’t care to interview - doesn’t look good, you know? </p>
<p>@mollie - </p>
<p>Correct, the interview is neither the most important part nor of no importance. As always, you say what I would have said before I even said it.</p>
<p>How are interviewers assigned for kids who are in MIT’s backyard, MITChris? Would you tend to match with the high school or intended major?</p>
<p>High school / geography.</p>
<p>My son and I attended MIT’s information session last Thursday (6/17), and Chris, you were right, we were very lucky to get you. MIT has now officially entered “dream school” status. I also want to put in a (very) good word for our guide, Devin. I was impressed by his knowledge, composure, and willingness to answer questions. After the official tour, he went off with my star-struck kid to try to find Professor Lewin’s door so my son could take a picture in front of it. They didn’t find it, but that’s my best memory of the schools we’ve visited.</p>
<p>I disagree with the title of this thread. Up until a few years ago, MIT owned up to using affirmative action policies to foster a diverse student body. Although this information is no longer posted publicly, the implication of minority students receiving a boost in admissions still stands. As such, a URM student, possibly of Hispanic or African American descent, with a 2100 SAT and a 3.8 GPA would probably have an equal or even better chance at admission than an Asian applicant with a 2400 SAT and a 4.0 GPA. </p>
<p>To clarify any misconceptions that may arise from the preceding paragraph, I understand the college admissions process entails far more than an evaluation of test scores and an academic GPA. Yet this “holistic admissions process” allows MIT to reject superb applicants with enormous potential in favor of less qualified individuals who “won the genetic lottery,” so to speak. Surely an admissions system such as UC Berkeley’s is not appropriate in this case; however, MIT would benefit tremendously from honesty on the part of its admissions staff.</p>
<p>^ MIT still practices affirmative action - which, if I’m recalling Chris’ words correctly, has to do with recruiting policy. They’re not going to take an under-qualified URM. Frankly, MIT gets too many amazing applicants to ever take under-qualified people.</p>
<p>IvanK, the reason UCB’s policies don’t fit in here is a thing I feel should be pointed out - they are relatively numbers-focused, but do not account sufficiently for where numbers come from. That is, take two kids, one with lots of APs and another (perhaps brighter in some focused sense, say math/science and impressive otherwise) with just a few, and the first will basically always get favored. </p>
<p>Maybe you, as I, favor relative (let’s say not formulaic) transparency in terms of admissions. For this to happen, baseline educational standards have to be higher in high schools, which very likely only happens if the standardized testing is of better quality. Because realistically, a school’s baseline standards probably cannot be set to involve “achieve well at certain science/math contests” since contests are meant to be an external source of additional achievement, not bread and butter stuff.</p>
<p>
And yet, applicants of all stripes with great SATs and GPAs are rejected each year. </p>
<p>The fact that MIT practices affirmative action doesn’t conflict with the idea that no one, not even an MIT admissions officer, can accurately predict who will be admitted on the basis of CC-type stats posts alone.</p>
<p>Molliebamit: Have you seen a 2400 SAT and two 800 subject tests African American applicant rejected from MIT? I never see one.</p>
<p>@ IvanKaramozov and straighttalk. When MIT admissions officers are selecting a class, they will look to scores, gpa, race, special talents like athleticism, artistic talents, great musicians, future scientists, theater lovers, poetry passionate, physics crazy and so forth who has the same VISION as MIT, same INTERESTS and GOALS as MIT. They will look for a match, a great match with MIT. If you happen to be an african american, with 2400 SAT, and share the same values and vision as MIT does, you have a better chance to get in. I know a guy this year who got in, SAT 2300, ACT 35, MATH II subject test 760, CHEM 800, amazing athlete, asian. His friend, with higher scores, also asian, did not do a lot outside of classroom, guess what? he did not get in. So I think there is a lot about fit and talents that you will bring to campus after you reach a good and acceptable test scores. that is my two cents.</p>
<p>
I don’t make a habit of associating the race of applicants with their SAT scores.</p>
<p>@scoutsmom - </p>
<p>I’m glad you enjoyed my info session, and I’ll make sure to pass those comments on to Devin! </p>
<p>@IvanKaramozov - </p>
<p>I apologize if I sound curt but - you should read this forum more often. You may be interested, for example, in the thread I posted about admissions statistics for the class of 2014, where I posted breakdowns of applicants and admits by all sorts of groups, including ethnic groups. </p>
<p>Those data did show that URM students were accepted at a slightly higher rate than they applied. It also showed that Asian students were accepted at a slightly higher rate than they applied. Since we all know that affirmative action (of the sort you describe) is not practiced for Asian students, these data suggest that perhaps our process is a bit more complex than just the numbers would suggest. It has quite literally nothing to do with a “genetic lottery” of any kind. (I would like to note that it is somewhat interesting you view URM students as having won the “genetic lottery”, and that will be the extent of my comment on that matter). </p>
<p>Quite frankly, posts like yours frustrate me. I have spent a great deal of time on this forum trying to be honest and transparent with prospective students. We have quite a bit of information on our website (including the text of our affirmative action philosophy, which we quite proudly “own up to”) in an attempt to be honest and transparent with our prospective students. I do not feel that we have dodged or avoided anything, and though you are entitled to disagree with the title of the thread, I don’t think your disagreement is reflective of reality. </p>
<p>@straighttalk - </p>
<p>That’s immaterial. Standardized test scores are not qualifiers. They are not important achievements in and of themselves. There is no difference, for our process, between someone with a 750 and an 800 on the Math SAT II. Literally no difference. Once your standardized scores are sufficient to predict success at MIT - to show that you are academically qualified for MIT - they have reached the limit of usefulness, and we move on to other things. </p>
<p>What you should be asking is, “have you ever seen an academically qualified URM student turned away from MIT.” And to answer it - yes! For a variety of reasons. Because they aren’t a good match. Because they don’t stand out otherwise. </p>
<p>Yes, MIT practices affirmative action as part of our holistic admissions process. We also are sensitive to socioeconomic, geographic, or personal factors; we care about your teacher recs and how you contribute to your community; etc. There is no golden ticket to MIT, no matter what your race, education, occupation, income, location, or anything else.</p>
1 Like
<p>My comment reading all this is that it’s silly to disagree with the title of this thread on the basis of AA - I don’t even see how that relates, let alone being willing to disagree or agree with anything.</p>
<p>The point of this thread seems to be to say it’s impossible to use simple stats to give a good chance to an individual. It may be the case that students of certain backgrounds are statistically more likely to have certain results than others, but if a school explicitly “owns up” to affirmative action, then the real question this thread answers for them is: in context of your background, given raw, simple stats, can you “chance” them for MIT. And the answer, it would appear, is “no” unless data significantly favor that in the pool of URMs, SAT scores and GPA can win you a lot more brownie points.</p>
<p>I love the effort MITChris puts into making things transparent, even for an admissions process that looks at plenty of “soft” factors. The biggest criticism I ever have of admissions at the great schools out there usually is that their decisions can appear random, and they can use questionable means (e.g. strange essay questions, etc). From an outsider’s point of view, the transparency here is to be respected deeply, even if people disagree with the actual policies implemented (which I know too little about to comment on).</p>
2 Likes