Provided one has the grades and the resume, can running help a person get into an elite tier school like MI? Its DIII, so how fast would one have to run in order for recruting to affect admissions?
Provided one has the grades and the resume, can running help a person get into an elite tier school like MI? Its DIII, so how fast would one have to run in order for recruting to affect admissions?
HS Junior wrote:
Provided one has the grades and the resume, can running help a person get into an elite tier school like MI? Its DIII, so how fast would one have to run in order for recruting to affect admissions?
No.
The Athletic Department of MIT has ZERO pull whatsoever on the admissions decisions.
Every chance you have of getting into the school will be based on the evaluative strength of your grades, SATs, SAT IIs, ACTs, and Extracurriculars
Not only does the coach have no pull whatsoever, but there's no such thing as "the grades and resume" for MIT. You're competing with pretty much everyone who got over 1550 on their SATs for admission, and they've all got perfect grades. Hope you've got something interesting going for you.
This is completely untrue. If you have over a 1550 and a 4.0, you have an excellent chance of getting into MIT, Harvard, Dartmouth, Amherst... just about anywhere. The 1550 is definitely more special than the 4.0 considering most of the high schools in the US suck, and the combination of the two (truly excellent grades and SAT) is still rare. Don't let the people who complain about how hard college admissions is fool you- if you have really excellent stats, you're going to get into someplace really good, and quite probably a lot of places that are really good. Its the people with 3.5s and 1300s who think (or whose parents think) they are getting into Ivy League schools who complain about how hard college admissions are.
man in the know wrote:
This is completely untrue. If you have over a 1550 and a 4.0, you have an excellent chance of getting into MIT, Harvard, Dartmouth, Amherst... just about anywhere. The 1550 is definitely more special than the 4.0 considering most of the high schools in the US suck, and the combination of the two (truly excellent grades and SAT) is still rare. Don't let the people who complain about how hard college admissions is fool you- if you have really excellent stats, you're going to get into someplace really good, and quite probably a lot of places that are really good. Its the people with 3.5s and 1300s who think (or whose parents think) they are getting into Ivy League schools who complain about how hard college admissions are.
not entirely true. I know of a bunch of exceptionally qualified folks who have been denied just about everywhere "good," straight 2400/4.0ers, USAMO qualifiers, the works.
I also know a couple of slightly less qualified, but still really good guys who got into places like MIT and stanford.
I'm convinced it's mostly luck. thus, if you are really good and you apply to many places, you're bound to get into one or two of them at least. however, I think that schools like stanford and MIT are a reach for everybody, no matter the stats.
for what it's worth OP, out of the 15 or so MIT applicants I know, 3 got in. one had legacy and straight 800s on everything (i.e. 2400 and 3 800 subject tests), another was latino and had nearly straight 800s (2300? don't remember the exact SAT score, but 790 and 800 math2/chem), and the last was an athlete with 2300 or so (was a girl, ran a 5:23 mile). I've read somewhere (don't remember where so don't quote me) that recruited athletes have like a 33% acceptance rate. obviously still not super high, but if you are good enough academically and can run, you have a much better shot than otherwise.
I'd say to get support from the coach you probably need 22.0, 51.0, 1:57, 4:25, 9:30. somewhere around there. I could be off but I feel like I read those numbers somewhere as well.
best of luck to you OP. I definitely know that feel.
I'll tell you the secret: Your essays.
man in the know wrote:
This is completely untrue. If you have over a 1550 and a 4.0, you have an excellent chance of getting into MIT, Harvard, Dartmouth, Amherst... just about anywhere. The 1550 is definitely more special than the 4.0 considering most of the high schools in the US suck, and the combination of the two (truly excellent grades and SAT) is still rare. Don't let the people who complain about how hard college admissions is fool you- if you have really excellent stats, you're going to get into someplace really good, and quite probably a lot of places that are really good. Its the people with 3.5s and 1300s who think (or whose parents think) they are getting into Ivy League schools who complain about how hard college admissions are.
I had a 1580 and 96.7% average grade in high school, but the most money I was offered was $10,000/year. Getting in to Princeton, Harvard, MIT, Stanford would've been a crapshoot.
It is really not that easy to get into MIT, since they (rightly) recognize that the standardized tests aren't good at identifying geniuses. I can do simple math quickly, but does that mean I'm the kind of person who can devote myself to a field of study with single-minded focus for 8 years? Nope. I had a 3.3 GPA undergrad.
I've always thought that the switch from 1600 to 2400 SATs was kind of dumb. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the last 800 a writing portion? Which is entirely subjective. Which means mostly luck.
dont go there because you'll get bad acne
That is the reason most schools either give less emphasis to the writing portion, or they just don't count it altogether.
MIT might claim that coaches have "no" pull but I doubt a 9:00 two-miler with the requisite SATs would have a hard time getting in.
There is some pull but you need to close.
The reason the track and field team has a 90% yield for admitted student/athletes is that those who visit see that the rumors of thick glasses held together with tape, and pocket protectors in sight are not at all accurate.
I didn't run at MIT but was a top athlete in another sport. The coaches have almost no ability to influence admissions, but athletics can certainly help you get in. MIT admissions are competitive, so very few students are admitted who haven't shown that they're "well-rounded" by achieving something other than good test scores.
Coaches are much more influential at other top schools
You don't need to run fast, just have your daddy make a few calls to a few other trustees along with a healthy additional donation.
daesdxsf wrote:
MIT might claim that coaches have "no" pull but I doubt a 9:00 two-miler with the requisite SATs would have a hard time getting in.
It's not a claim, it's true.
Take Patrick Juras for instance, a runner for Lake Zurich high school in Illinois.
A current student at my old high school told me that he had applied and was rejected by MIT a few weeks ago.
http://dyestat.rise.espn.go.com/search.jsp?athID=165991As you can see, he has a 9:33 3200m, a 4:17 1600m, and has been All-State in Cross Country 2 years running
He applied with a 35 composite ACT and a 2330 SAT, along with a 4.0 unweighted GPA, a 4.65 weighted GPA, and was projected to graduate with 11 AP Tests.
He actually HAD backing from the coach, and was flat out rejected.
And why?
Because compared to the other members of the white-male demographic who applied. The fact that he was a great runner didn't help in the slightest.
MIT specifically I'm not sure
There are so many kids with 4.0's and 1600s that no one even cares (at the good schools anymore). got plenty of friends that were turned down from the harvards with 4.0s and perfect sats.
Got a female friend admitted to harvard with a 3.5 14xx cause she was a good hockey player.
Four members of our family attended MIT, all within the last decade or so. Admissions are a bit of a mystery, as others in the family applied and did not get in. Two of the four that did attend had lower test scores and grades than some of those not admitted. As far as we can tell, in an applicant pool loaded with people with high grades and test scores, a demonstrable intellectual curiosity and depth of understanding or achievement in a field are more important. For example, having done useful work in a research lab carries a lot more weight than aerobic fitness, or being captain of your cross country team that won a state championship.
If you work in a university hospital research lab as a high schooler and the director regards your work as superior to his undergraduate researchers and similar to his graduate researchers, then that is something of interest to MIT. It could be patents actually used in an industry, or an economic theory that is published and cited. Not many kids do that, but they are the ones that end up at MIT, whether from the US or one of many other countries. A 17 year old from India or China, from a strong science family, may have been doing pretty sophisticated lab work by age 13 or 14. By 17 they have independent accomplishments and a ticket to MIT. No one cares if they played cricket or soccer. It's an assessment of whether they will be contributors in their chosen field.
Part of why so many MIT students are from other countries is that so few US kids actually tackle professional mathematical or scientific tasks. Even for a 17 year old or 18 year old, we often have their best indicators of ability as high test scores and school grades. In other countries, that's a measure you do at about age 13, then the best scorers begin doing actual reasearch and experimentation. US kids who go beyond grades and test scores and actually do the work or analysis of an economist, or historian, or chemist, or physicist, have an advantage in MIT admissions.
HRM...... wrote:
MIT specifically I'm not sure
There are so many kids with 4.0's and 1600s that no one even cares (at the good schools anymore). got plenty of friends that were turned down from the harvards with 4.0s and perfect sats.
Got a female friend admitted to harvard with a 3.5 14xx cause she was a good hockey player.
Lol the year I got a perfect 1600 I was one of about 150 in the country with approximately one million test takers. Trust me if you literally get a perfect SAT your mailbox will fill up with personal letters and you'll get phone calls from tons of schools.
agreed wrote:
Lol the year I got a perfect 1600 I was one of about 150 in the country with approximately one million test takers. Trust me if you literally get a perfect SAT your mailbox will fill up with personal letters and you'll get phone calls from tons of schools.
What if he figuratively got a perfect score?
Though the above somewhat makes me doubt you got a 1600, what you said simply isn't true. Ivy League schools reject dozens, if not hundreds of applicants every year with perfect scores. While SAT is important, at the end of the day it's just one of very many factors that determines college admissions. Having a great score won't guarantee admission if it is unaccompanied by good grades/references/extracurriculars/etc just as these parts of an application can compensate for a poor score.
That being said, if you got a perfect score before the mid-90s (whenever they recentered the test curve) you were unquestionably elite just because it was so much harder to get a high score. However, this is no longer the case.
apply to mit, write really good essays, contact the coaches immediately, get good grades in hard classes, and run faster
most importantly APPLY and TALK TO COACHES