If the OP is a non-Asian minority or a female, he/she will get in, full stop.
Otherwise, it’s a crapshoot.
I worked for a company that did online applications for graduate schools. We took in applications and transcripts that were then sent on to the majority of medical graduate schools. There’s a formula that normalizes GPAs and coursework, and it eliminates a lot of the fluff that schools do around honors courses. No one gets credit for anything over a 4.0 for any course, which is an A/A+.
I have no idea what MIT does with respect to GPAs, but that’s probably the least important thing on your application since it varies so much from school to school. They know enough to not pay much attention to it beyond just a cursory check.
Hyperelastic, I found the following remark from an MIT publication:
http://tech.mit.edu/V119/N13/admissions.13f.html
So, in other words, MIT does turn down non-Asian minorities (and, probably to a greater extent, women). They set some reasonably high cut-off which they consider to be the point that anyone above that level can be reasonably sure of doing O.K. at MIT. They take any non-Asian minority (and perhaps woman, but I can’t find a reference to them) above that level. Some white and Asian men above that level aren’t accepted. No non-Asian minority (and perhaps woman) below that level is accepted.
So you’re exaggerating. Quit doing it. It doesn’t help your case.
An honest question to the OP,
Are you trying to get into MIT just so you can get lots of praise for it? If the answer is yes, you should know you are not doing things for the right reasons.
Not the right answer? Try search our sites
One of my first thoughts on reading this thread, seeing Anonymous User’s desperation and the fact that he was Indian, was that his parents were born in India and have been telling him something like the following all his life, “We expect you to be at the top of whatever you do. You think you are good at math and music? Fine, then you must be perfect at those things. You must spend all your time excelling at the things that get you into a top college. Don’t waste your time on trivialities like dating, since they don’t ask about that on college admissions forms. Join as many clubs as possible, since they do ask about that on college admissions forms. We grew up in families that were barely middle class, but we’ve managed to work our way up into being upper middle class and we emigrated to the U.S. because we think we and our children can make even more money here and can be more respected here. We expect you in turn to make more money than us and gain even more respect than us. So far you’ve done well at this top-notch suburban high school (for which, incidentally, we moved to this expensive area just so you could attend it). We’ve asked around about what the best college to go to in order to study math is. We’re told it’s MIT. You must go there. If you fail to get admitted there, you will have brought shame upon the family. We will have to disown you.”
I say this because Anonymous User’s attitude sounds similar to that of a very ambitious recent immigrant to the U.S. who doesn’t actually know very much about how things work in the U.S. It may be true in some countries that at every stage of childhood and adolescence it’s necessary to get into the best school (or whatever) in order to even have a chance at getting to the best one at the next level. It may be true there that if you don’t get into the best preschool you can’t get into the best kindergarten, which means that you can’t get into the best elementary school, which means that you can’t get into the best high school, which means that you can’t get into the best college, which means that you can’t get into the best graduate or professional school, which means that you can’t get the best job immediately after graduation, which means that you’re doomed never to have a top job.
It doesn’t work that way in the U.S. I’m not sure if it works that way anywhere, but perhaps it’s somewhat like that in certain countries. Sure, on average in the U.S., if you go to a top college you will be somewhat more likely, even when all else on your transcript is equal, to get into a good graduate or professional school than if you went to a lesser known college, but it’s not as though for the rest of your life things are going to be made easy for you just because you went to a top college. Consider the following two students applying to a top grad school: One of them went to a very good public high school with nearly perfect grades. He then went to MIT. At MIT he did O.K. He graduated with a 3.1 average. His recommendations from his professors were O.K. but nothing special. He didn’t publish any papers there or assist any professors with any interesting research. The other student went to a mediocre high school and got very good but not perfect grades. He spent two years at a community college where he finally really got interested in studying. He transferred to a good but not really top state university for the last two years of college. His overall average was 3.9 for all four years. His recommendations from his professors there were ecstatic. He published a paper and worked with a professor on some interesting research. Of these two students, it’s obvious that the grad school is more likely to take the student who studied at the community college and the state university rather than the one who studied at MIT. Doing O.K. at MIT is not better than doing brilliantly at a lesser known college.
Furthermore, there is nothing you can do that will ensure you get into MIT. Nothing. Admissions committee decisions are at some high level almost random. And it doesn’t matter to the university that they have to be almost random at some high level. I read something by a member of the admissions committee at some top university several years ago that explains why they themselves don’t think that their choices are that utterly crucial at that high level. The committee member said that they got so many good applicants that, if they really wanted to do this as an experiment, one year they could as usual go through their standard selection process and choose the best 1000 (or whatever) applicants. They could then send rejections to all 1000 of them. They could then go through all the remaining applicants and choose the best 1000 of those. They could then send rejections to all of those 1000 too. They could then go through all the remaining applicants and select the best 1000 of those and send acceptance letters to them. It’s unlikely that most people at the university could tell the difference the next year in the students who matriculated that year if they didn’t know what had happened. The top 1000 applicants, the next 1000 applicants, and the third 1000 are all that good.
You should also realize that the fact that you went to a very good public school isn’t necessarily going to ensure your admission to MIT or any other top university, even if you have good grades, good extracurricular activities, good SAT scores, and whatever else. The following is a fictional example because I don’t know your exact story and it doesn’t matter. Suppose the admissions committee at top university X gets down to their last admission choice. They can pick one of the following two applicants: Applicant A is graduating from a very good high school in Connecticut (where nearly everyone goes to college and many go to top colleges including university X) with a nearly perfect grade point average. He has a number of extracurricular activities. He worked the summer between his junior and senior year with a professor at a local university on some research and also took a course at that university during his senior year in high school. He had a nearly perfect math SAT score and very good verbal and writing SAT scores. He took a number of A.P. and honors courses in high school and did well on the A.P. exams. Applicant B went to a pretty poor high school in Montana (where most people don’t go to college and no one has ever gone to university X or any other top university). He has a number of extracurricular activities. He had nearly perfect math, verbal, and writing SAT scores. He didn’t take any A.P. exams.
As the university admissions committee considers these two applicants, there’s the following discussion between committee member Y and committee member Z:
Y: I suppose we should take A. He has more A.P. exams and some research experience and one university course. The material he learned in high school was almost certainly more advanced than the material that B learned.
Z: Yeah, but B didn’t take honors classes or A.P. exams because his high school didn’t offer them. Not very many students at his high school even go to state universities or local small colleges. Nobody ever goes to a top college. Probably no one has even tried to get into a top college before him. B’s parents didn’t even graduate from high school. A’s father is a college professor and his mother is a doctor. The professor who asked A to work on research with him was a friend of his father. The recommendation that that professor gave for A isn’t particularly impressive. There’s no way that B could have worked with a professor on research or taken a college course because he lives fifty miles from the nearest community college, let alone anything better. He’s probably never met a college professor in his life.
Y: What are the teacher recommendations like?
Z: Those of B are ecstatic. They’ve never met anyone as smart as him. Of course, most of their students don’t go to college and they never go to a top college. A’s recommendations are very good, if a bit generic. We’ve already accepted eight other applicants for his class that live within 30 miles of him. We don’t even have any applications from anybody who lives with 100 miles of B.
Y: What do the alumni interviewers say?
Z: The interviewer for A says that he seems to be a very good student but nothing stuck out about him in his interview. The interviewer for B is extremely positive about him. We were going to consider B’s application without any interview since he would have to drive 200 miles to get to the interviewer, but he insisted on driving that whole distance to be interviewed. The interviewer notes that B is extremely articulate, which is consistent with his slightly higher verbal and writing scores.
Y: So let’s take B. He’ll make the incoming class more interesting, if nothing else. Some other top university will take A, no doubt.
I personally (perhaps more charitably) read Hyperelastic’s comment as, given the OP’s numbers and credentials, if he were a non-Asian minority or female, he is almost guaranteed to get in. Which, judging by the report you linked to, does sound likely, given this: “We do have affirmative action at MIT which means that we will admit every qualified African American, Mexican American, Puerto Rican and Native American student in our pool,” Jones said.” I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that statement or assessment, and I’m fine with universities doing that.
You’re more charitable in interpreting Hyperelastic’s post than I am. I’m tired of posters who think that we’re all too blasè to be properly moved by a simple, accurate statement of the truth, so they have to exaggerate every statement they make so we get their wildly overstated point. (Among other things, it’s a way of cheating in an argument. If no one calls you on the point, you’ve convinced them of the exaggerated point which even you don’t believe. If they do call you on the point, you can then say, “Picky, picky, picky. Don’t you know I’m exaggerating for effect.”) Look, it’s not true that MIT takes every non-Asian minority. It may take every non-Asian minority above a certain level, but that’s not the same thing. MIT turns down a fair amount of non-Asian minorities every year.
As a black female who is neither stupid or shabby in the work ethic department, I have been rejected from schools. I’ve had schools roll out the red carpet for me, this is true. But I’ve received my share of rejection letters, just like everyone else.
I have also been turned down for jobs.
Reasonable people wouldn’t be surprised by this. Yet, on multiple occasions, I’ve been sucked into arguments about how easy my success must have come and how I am in denial about it. It’s tiring to hear, especially when all I see around me in my workplace are white guys and just about all the “big shots” are white guys. And the person arguing with me is a white guy.
But that’s slightly different. MIT has a stated policy that they will admit every qualified student from that minority list. Like I said, I have no problem with that; in fact, I actively support it.
Now, yes, I understand a lot of people think affirmative action means they picked less qualified candidates, because there’s no way a black person can get there on the basis of their merits and shit like that, so every job, every school placement, every accomplishment you make can never be taken at face value. That’s obviously the downside of affirmative action.
But I’m just trying to address Hyperelastic’s point factually. Given MIT’s written words on the matter, it does appear that a qualified candidate like the OP would be admitted were they from at least a minority ethnic group. The woman part might be an exaggeration. And perhaps Wendell is right, and I am being too charitable with a straight non-agenda reading of Hyperelastic’s post.
There’s another point to be made about Anonymous User’s posts. He wants to major in math, and he wants money and power. Now, on average, that might make a tiny bit of sense:
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-Degrees_that_Pay_you_Back-sort.html
You’ll probably make more money on average with a degree in math than a degree in English or art history or drama or psychology or any of a number of any other things. There are, incidentally, other majors that will make more on average than a math major. You should note that these are only averages though. Nothing - nothing whatsoever - is for sure. Let me tell you a story. There was a woman who grew up in a middle-class family. She went to an O.K. but not great university, where she majored in French and classics. She took a job just out of college working for a charity and then moved to another country to take a job teaching English to adults. She married a resident of that country and had a daughter. Her husband was abusive and the marriage fell apart almost immediately. She moved back to her home country and spent some time on welfare. She enrolled in a year-long course to get a teaching certificate. She spent much of her time working on a novel, which twelve publishers rejected. This is starting to sound like she’s going to have a pretty miserable life, right? Well, she finally sold the novel and because of it she is now worth a billion dollars.
This is of course the story of J. K. Rowling. So you can get lots of money and power while majoring in French and classics. You’re now going to say that there’s only been one J. K. Rowling, so this proves nothing. Yeah, and there’s only been one Bill Gates too. The point is that there are no guarantees in life. Choosing your major on the basis of how much money and power you want is a lousy idea.
Today I talked to my guidance counselor, and just to give you a little update, I have around a 96.65 GPA Unweighted, and if you really want to know what it is on a 4.0 scale, it’s a 4.0. She says it’s okay that I didn’t take Honors for English 100 and Spanish III as long as I get straight A’s in those classes, and that next year I have to take Honors in it. The reason like I said for not taking Honors English 100 is because English is my weakest subject so I wanted to take it easy for the next year, and from next year on I’m taking English Honors. Same with Spanish III except in that class the reason I didn’t take honors is because I would lose all my friends if I did (my lunch would have to change). So she said it’s okay and that in her recommendation she will explain this to the colleges and that should keep me set.
The problem now is again, no clear ANSWER as for how to get in to a top college. She said the biggest mistake I’m making is trying to show off to the colleges. Caring about what THEY want and she said that colleges don’t like that. They want students that take one thing that they really love and really take it to the next level kind of idea. Now that would be violin for me. Because I am in science-related clubs/activities, and I’m also taking Taekwondo, but violin is my biggest “talent” so she said the best thing for me to do would be to go to nursing homes, hospitals, etc. and play for people with disabilities/problems. Even form a quartet and do so.
The problem with this is that I still cannot get my mind off what “WHAT DO I HAVE TO DO TO GET INTO …” I still have that mindset. And I can’t stop thinking that. I mean I thought that’s what you have to do, you have to look at what the colleges want and then match their expectations. But it doesn’t work that way and it gets me agitated.
As for as grades go, do you think it’s okay to have 96/7 unweighted average/4.0 gpa? Is that enough for the grades part? What SAT score should I aim for? My biggest question is am I doing “fine” for applying to a top college assuming that I took all Honors/AP classes Sophomore year on and took many AP classes, can keep my unweighted GPA up in the mid to high 90’s, while playing the violin and really making accomplishments and good deeds in it, participating in science related activities, and becoming a leader in one of them.
I’m coming back to my old self. The reason I keep on asking this is because I need to know if what I’m doing is okay or if I need to do more. What am I lacking? Please, someone at least give me an answer with SOME clarity in it.
As has been covered many, many times: an baseball player can excel in his sport, be fast, agile and strong, swing a mean bat, be in the best physical shape, devote himself to knowing the nuances of the game, be a perfect gentleman and a generous person… and still never play on the New York Yankees. Nobody could advise a baseball player who is doing his best how to do something more if he wants to be a Yankee. Not everyone who is excellent can be a Yankee. That’s just the way things work.
Now, if the baseball player was very talented, but sat on the couch during the offseason eating pizza and playing XBox, it’s easy to tell that person why they won’t be a Yankee. You aren’t that kind of ballplayer, clearly.
It sounds like you’re a great student. It sounds like you’re headed to a very good college, provided that you don’t blow the interview by coming off the wrong way. You have put yourself in the spot where you can legitimately compete for admissions to great colleges, and that’s all you can do. There’s no magic accomplishment or phrase that will guarantee you your wish, and that’s how life is. Better get used to it, and find success and validation from your own sense of self-worth, rather than trying to make yourself happy by depending on external validation.
What’s your definition of “great colleges”?
All right, here’s my advice: don’t change anything. Keep over-achieving, keep working towards arbitrary goals - and I’m not being cynical. As with most in this thread, I’ve been there. I was the valedictorian, president of everything high-school student with amazing test scores. In the 11th grade I taught myself second year college calculus by reading a book and got the highest grade possible on the AP test. I interviewed at MIT, was waitlisted at Columbia, went to GaTech on scholarship - because I wanted to do something “vaguely” related to engineering.
Five years later, I’m a filmmaker. But we’ll hold off on that.
Hubris is absolutely healthy in youth. The best time for it. You’re obviously self-conscious, which means that when you don’t get into MIT (or whatever your first earth-shattering setback) hopefully it knocks you on your ass so swift and so fast that when you get the courage to stand back up again, you’ll be a stronger person.
All these people telling you that it doesn’t matter - they’re right, but what they don’t realize is that you can never fully understand their position until you have something in your life that does matter. Some people are either blessed or cursed and learn this lesson early. They have either an incredible passion - mathematical proofs, financial policy of banana republics, etc - or an incredible misfortune - losing both parents in a boating accident, being from an impoverished/war-torn country, etc - which puts everything else in their lives into perspective.
Including, of course, getting into MIT. They’re grounded enough to know that it would be a really nice thing, but it won’t make or break their future. It’s not the end all, be all to their entire universe.
And the viscous thing is that the MIT admissions know this, and like any girl that’s been around the way, they don’t want to associate themselves with desperate people. If your only goal in life is to get into MIT, they don’t want you, because what do you provide for them? Whereas people with an extraordinary passion for something unrelated to college admissions can carry over that passion once admitted - making their campus a more unique, diverse place - people like yourself will get admitted and do what, exactly?
I went to GaTech and washed out, because, like you, I had a vague sense of what I wanted to do. I mean, I had excellent grades while there, but I wasn’t happy. So I gathered my pride, went to an unknown state school, and figured out just what I wanted to do: make films.
At the state school, I had all right grades, didn’t join any clubs, didn’t distinguish myself in anyway - except I developed and nurtured my passion for films, in pretty specific detail, and did anything I could to further this interest.
So when I graduated, guess what? I got into one of the most exclusive film schools in the world, harder to get into then Harvard law, definitely harder to get into then MIT undergrad. And since there are only a couple elite MFA film programs - unlike the dozen or so elite engineering programs - I really honestly could get a job on practically any set in the industry.
The thing, though? I didn’t go. I realized that it wasn’t the be all, end all to my universe - that the type of films I could make with them I could make without them, perhaps even easier. I decided to live life, and gain life experience. A life well lived is the only thing that makes dying easier, not a nice resume or a laundry list of accolades you’re indifferent to.
…
Anyway, if you want actual advice on getting into MIT, try some of the following:
[ul]
[li]Volunteer for hospice, or some kind of end-of-life care[/li][li]Volunteer at a homeless shelter or soup kitchen[/li][li]Volunteer at a retirement home[/li][/ul]
The trick is that you can’t tell anyone. You can’t use them as accolades. You can’t put them on a resume, or use them as bragging points, or use them as social currency. You should spend time with the sick, dying, or socially ignored and consider their existence, then contemplate their suffering. Are they happy, despite everything? Mad? Angry? Lonely? In what ways are you different, in what ways are you the same?
If you did this half-hardheartedly already knowing what to expect, you’d fail miserably and get nothing out of it. But if you went in with an open mind and really connected to some people, it could change everything for you. It would put your life into perspective, put MIT into perspective, and all that.
(Or, if that seems like too much work, I guess the classic way to self-discovery is to fall madly in love, then have her rip your heart out for some irrational reason.)
After all this you may end up not wanting to go to MIT at all, which is a valid response. However if you want to be a poet - we’ll need to talk a little further.
What’s your definition of “great student”?
Listen, you’ve already gotten plenty of advice with “clarity” in this thread. You’ve just chosen to ignore it, and repeatedly ask us to assure you that you will get in by being very good at violin.
“I got really good grades, I’m president of the Science Club, and I’m really good at violin” is not an outstanding resume. It might be enough to get you in, if there are not many other kids with outstanding resumes that year, but it is weak.
To maximize your chances of getting in, you need to do something that no one else in the country is doing. Something unique, that requires initiative, leadership and organizational skills on your part to accomplish.
I will repeat an excerpt from the article linked above, from MIT’s former admissions director:
MIT wants people who will contribute to MIT in new, unique, and creative ways. You need to demonstrate to them that you are that kind of person.
I agree. The admissions person at MIT said basically all the same things we have been saying here yet it still isn’t sinking in somehow. It is like beating your your head against a wall after a while.
Almost no individual person can be assured of admission to that exact school for the reasons given but we also said that shouldn’t be the goal in the first place. The OP will get into some great school somewhere.
He is young though and can’t quite fully grasp all this but will with time. Right now it is all about filling in the right test answers and giving good responses to the check boxes and essays. Later life doesn’t work that way and MIT knows that so they pick people that don’t quite fit a particular mold over those that are obsessed with cracking their non-existent secret code and doing everything 'right’to get in.
I don’t need an exact school. I just want to make it into a prestigious, impressive school. Harvard/Princeton/Yale level is what I define good. Anything that is not of that much prestige is not good enough for me.
The problem is that you guys keep saying, “He’ll get into some great school somewhere,” and that doesn’t mean a lot to me. What KIND of great school. At least mention some names so that I can go research them and see if they’re actually “great”. Like I said, “great” for me are only schools that are at the top level. Only top level schools are “great”. The rest are above average/average/below average and I don’t want that. I want top. Not first place top, but top as in “one of the best schools”.
It wouldn’t let me edit my post so here’s the complete post:
I don’t need an exact school. I just want to make it into a prestigious, impressive school. Harvard/Princeton/Yale level is what I define good. Anything that is not of that much prestige is not good enough for me.
The problem is that you guys keep saying, “He’ll get into some great school somewhere,” and that doesn’t mean a lot to me. What KIND of great school. At least mention some names so that I can go research them and see if they’re actually “great”. Like I said, “great” for me are only schools that are at the top level. Only top level schools are “great”. The rest are above average/average/below average and I don’t want that. I want top. Not first place top, but top as in “one of the best schools”. And please recommend schools that are in the North East. Thanks!
And also, I know it’s frustrating you guys but like you guys said it’s just not sinking in. I still just don’t get it. Are you guys trying to tell me that all I can really do is get good grades/good SATs/be well rounded have lot’s of activities/have a talent/do something that stands out, but other than that there’s not much I can really do? Is that what you’re trying to tell me? That even if I do have all those things (I’m still missing the something stands out part), I have a chance of being rejected?
I guess that’s what it is. But that’s so agitating. I was just wondering just out of curiosity, why don’t the top schools actually have the “secret code”, why don’t they exist? And even if they did have one, why wouldn’t they tell us. Is it because it would make applying too easy?
I just really want to get in to a top school, and if I don’t…
(Those dots mean despair.)
The other problem is that I’m having trouble figuring out what I can do that stands out and is creative. I’m not a creative person but an analytic person so this is going to be really tough.
Is it okay if you’re not creative? Can you still get in? Because I’M NOT (and this is why I don’t do art).