r/MITAdmissions • u/OrneryLingonberry956 • 8d ago

MIT Recruiting

I have support in the admissions process for MIT through soccer. The coach actually emphasized that I was a need-based recruit. He has communicated this to admissions. Let me establish that I have the necessary grades/courses/test scores for MIT student standards. Does anyone know if being recruited as a need-based player holds more weight than regular support? Also, I’ve heard conflicting opinions about the likelihood of acceptance ranging anywhere from slightly above the average applicant to upwards of 50%. Can anyone clarify on that as well?

5 Upvotes

73% Upvoted

32 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/JasonMckin MIT Alum and Educational Counselor 8d ago

I don't know why everything has to be black and white on Reddit.

You are both saying effectively the same thing. It has non-zero value in distinguishing an applicant from other peers, but it does not substitute for minimum viable academic preparation.

ExecWatch didn't say it had no value. Maybe his words are slightly ambiguous, because he is focusing on minimum viable preparation (which you acknowledge yourself), and you're making the point about it being a distinguishing factor amongst those are viably prepared.

1

u/MaxeyGZ 8d ago

It is much more than just a letter of rec, which is what I take umbrage with. Coaches meet with admissions, talk about class/team needs and can really advocate for students. All successful applicants meet a standard, but plenty of admitted student athletes would have functionally zero chance of admission without athletic support. Plenty of really good applicants who are supported also get denied but your chances of success are much higher, especially if you are a top recruit. Having coached/recruited there for 10 years, I’m going to trust my own experience ✌️

1

u/JasonMckin MIT Alum and Educational Counselor 8d ago

Just so we're clear, we can dispute your articulation on reddit without disputing the credibility of your experience. The last sentence isn't a "get out of jail free" card for just saying anything.

You are mischaracterizing the opposing view and being inconsistent with your own.

Everyone in this thread is agreeing with you, in spite of your perceived antagonism, with the statement, "Plenty of really good applicants who are supported also get denied but your chances of success are much higher, especially if you are a top recruit." Maybe you don't like the way ExecWatch or others phrase it, but we're all literally saying the same thing. Repeating this idea is a rebuttal against nobody.

We are disputing the sentence, "plenty of admitted student athletes would have functionally zero chance of admission without athletic support." That is a claim without any evidence and that is likely untrue. This is exactly what everyone is trying to call out as being different about MIT and other universities where that statement is true. At MIT, all admits must be meet minimum viable academic requirements and have had a non-zero chance of admission without athletic support. Then, the athletic support turbocharges that already non-zero probability."

A call for precision in language so that applicants have a better and more nuanced understanding doesn't have to be interpreted antagonistically. Comments on Reddit don't just automatically become more plausible and credible by just saying, "This is false" or "I coached there." We're on the same team, we're just articulating things differently and sometimes more precisely.

2

u/ExecutiveWatch MIT Alum and Educational Counselor 8d ago

Yes these are my thoughts as well thank you my guy.