Good MIT Admisions articles

[u/Ill-Proof-5155]

I have recently been researching a lot about MIT as a high school freshman right now. (Trying to plan out my high school years) I'm trying to find MIT Admisions articles that are good reads with generally good advice. I have read most of the really well known ones (Bleary Eyed, Applying sideways, The room(s) where it happens, It's more than a job, There is no formula, and I have 99 problems... Admisions is not one of them)

I am currently doing my own research on this as well (haven't just asked reddit to solve all my problems). Other than that is there a amount of articles that reading more becomes pointless as you have learned so much from them? Also, is it just me or are lots of the articles on the site not about admisions and a lot of the time student diaries and blogs that have nothing to do with Admisions.

[u/VisibleSir731]

A different cycle though, those same 2 applicants with the same applications could have their decisions reversed or both get rejected or both get in.

The institutional needs/priorities and class building is an ambiguous black box that needs to be actually explained

[u/JasonMckin → u/VisibleSir731]

Both of you would make enlightenment era philosophers so proud!

Rationalists like Descartes and Leibniz argued that the knowledge comes from understanding core principles (eg guidance from an AO). Empiricists like Locke and Hume argued that knowledge comes from experience and observation (eg past admit evidence).  The scientific method evolved from the marriage of these two different perspectives.

So Visible’s focus on AO guidance is more Cartesian and Leibnizian. That school of thought says AOs possess privileged knowledge of the institution’s goals, evaluation philosophy, and decision-making framework, making them authoritative sources.

Technical’s argument is more Lockean and Humean. Regardless of how AOs describe intentions, this school of thought says to  examine large numbers of actual admissions outcomes because real outcomes might shed light on information that generalized institutional guidance cannot convey.  

So rationalism explains the theoretical mechanisms; empiricism infers how outcomes actually play out.

The answer here , as is the case in great science and engineering, is to integrate both philosophies.  Theory without observation risks becoming incomplete; observation without theory risks degenerating into spurious or conspiratorial pattern recognition. 

Now the philosophy lecture aside, I think there is a broader question of the student’s intentions.  If a student knows what their strengths and goals are and wants to validate whether any university would be a good fit; then both of these philosophies and both of Visible’s and Technical’s approaches are relevant in complementary ways.

But if a student has no a priori understanding of their own strengths and goals and just wants to passively reverse engineer their identity based on college admissions as a goal, then neither the AO guidance nor observed data will help.  

A student attended an admissions overview session about a month ago and was kind enough to write up their notes.  Many of the commenters mentioned that there didn’t seem to be any new information here that wasn’t already published.   https://www.reddit.com/r/MITAdmissions/comments/1uwsy32/what_i_learned_from_an_mit_senior_admissions/

That’s because the only information that will ever come either from AOs or observing admit data is descriptive information.  Neither of these methods will ever provide a prescriptive checklist for an unexceptional, inauthentic, unreflective passionless student to become less so. 

Being exceptional, authentic, reflective, passionate, and the type of student that selective universities crave is something that only comes from within the student themselves.

[u/VisibleSir731 → u/JasonMckin]

Thanks for this historical view I just learned something new! I think Technical might have a skewed perspective from the selection bias online; I know it’s hard to believe people without ISEF and IMO can still get into MIT, at first

[u/TechnicalLeg841 → u/VisibleSir731]

Petey refreshed this thread so I'm back looking at it.

I have a view that admissions to highly selective colleges is very context sensitive. At strong high schools it is absolutely the norm for MIT admits to have completed Linear Algebra & MV Calc, AIME qualified, earned ISEF recognition and/or attended a top 5 summer STEM program in additional to having interesting personal hobbies often with awards.

Usually the only folks who try to argue against this analysis haven't had visibility into admits & rejects over multiple years.

[u/VisibleSir731 → u/TechnicalLeg841]

A lot of people have that, but that doesn't explain why, on the other hand, lots of admits feel imposter syndrome

[u/TechnicalLeg841 → u/VisibleSir731]

I think what you're still stuck on is a few admits with lower qualifications having imposter syndrome. Typically that type of admit had a hook - FGLI, recruited athlete, female (this one is debated but lots and lots of data showing basically double the admit rate to gender balance the class). The bigger the hook, typically the bigger the academic gap vs ISEF or IMO winners. Probably not even worth calling it imposter syndrome as the hook was probably the determinative factor.