Chances of Acceptance to MIT: International Applicant

[kote]

That's really funny because they are telling a completely different thing to us alumni.
In the case of MIT, the alumni that do admissions are part of something called the Educational Council, and there is a standard form that people fill in for interviews, and people to try to standardize criteria. The other thing to remember is that at the big universities, a lot of funding comes from alumni, which means that the alumni to a large part determine the admissions process.

Which means that the alumni to a large part are told they determine the admissions process.

Fixed it for you .

Actually I have no idea how much or little the interviews mean for undergraduate admissions or for anything at MIT. At the MBA level, I know Stanford at least pays little attention to the alumni interviews. Having alumni do interviews is more something they do to keep alumni involved and feeling important. If you're a big wig with Stanford connections or a big donor, that's when they actually pay a lot of attention. Even at business schools though, it all varies.

It makes sense that schools would want to make alumni feel as important as possible. It also makes sense that they would want to make applicants feel as comfortable as possible. It's hard to figure out what the truth actually is.

 

[twofish-quant]

everyone reading the apps is so fricking variable. someone might discount the interview because "everyone applying to MIT should have good interviews". in which case, its more about keeping people out rather than getting people in.

It really is about keeping people out. The basic problem with MIT is that there are only 1000 freshman places, and far, far, far more than 1000 qualified applicants, so the criterion for who gets in ends up being semi-random. This is something that comes up a lot at alumni meetings since there are so many good applicants that get rejected that most of us alumni wonder that we would have gotten in if we have to apply over again.

There is some talk about increasing the number of spaces, but you can only increase it by about 10-20% which doesn't solve the basic problem. Some interesting things could be done with open courseware, but I personally think that the MIT senior administration has it's head stuck in the ground when it comes to this.

and lastly, i tihnk science programs are more the same than they are different at the undergraduate level. they seem to cover the same topics in about the same order; so for physics: classical and E&M junior year, quantum/thermo senior. etc etc. not to say that they're equal, but more the same than different.

The material is pretty much the same, but the cultures can be wildly different between schools.

 

[twofish-quant]

Which means that the alumni to a large part are told they determine the admissions process.

Yes, and if the administration is lying, then that's yet one more annoyance that alumni will have. One reason that alumni have some input is that the big selling point that MIT has is that if you get out, you will get a job, and alumni tend to be people in industry that hire people so input is useful.

Having alumni do interviews is more something they do to keep alumni involved and feeling important.

If someone goes through the trouble to make you feel important, then you are important. If you aren't that important, then they wouldn't go through the effort of lying to you about how important you are.

Who is "they?" At MIT, the people that run things are the military-industrial complex, and alumni input tends to be important because alumni tend to be people in the military-industrial complex. The people in the undergraduate admissions office actually don't have that much input over deciding the criterion for who gets in.

 

[kote]

Yes, and if the administration is lying, then that's yet one more annoyance that alumni will have. One reason that alumni have some input is that the big selling point that MIT has is that if you get out, you will get a job, and alumni tend to be people in industry that hire people so input is useful.



If someone goes through the trouble to make you feel important, then you are important. If you aren't that important, then they wouldn't go through the effort of lying to you about how important you are.

Who is "they?" At MIT, the people that run things are the military-industrial complex, and alumni input tends to be important because alumni tend to be people in the military-industrial complex. The people in the undergraduate admissions office actually don't have that much input over deciding the criterion for who gets in.

"They" is the Stanford GSB admissions office. I do certainly agree with your points about alumni supplying the jobs and actually being important and worth pleasing. I was just pointing out that it's the perception of importance and influence that gets alumni to donate or hire or whatever else. Creating that perception requires that there's some amount of truth in what is said, but the direct connection is in how alumni feel. How much is truth and how much is pure show can vary and is hard to determine.

Again, I don't actually have any idea where MIT falls on the scale. It's understandable that alumni and applicants would be told different stories though.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I can't find his post regarding alumni interviews right now, but he basically said that it isn't worth much, which is why it's optional anyways.

I think you should find his post and read it carefully. I doubt very much that anyone associated with MIT admissions would say that.