Combined with the Admit weekend statistics, today's chat provided some interesting data points. 1) it was stated that admission is offered to 60% of interviewees and 2) they interview 800 people (roughly). Now, considering that Admit weekend told us 325 applicants have been admitted in R1, at a 60% interview-to-admission rate, that means they interviewed ~542 applicants in R1. If they truly stay at 800 interviews in total, they would only interview ~258 in R2.
542 x 60% = 325 R1 admits
800 interviews - 542 = 258 R2 interviews
258 x 60% = 155 R2 admits
325 R1 admits + 155 R2 admits = 480 total admits
480 x 70% yield = 336 enrolled.
We know the class size is 400, so something in these #s has to "break"...but, the variations to get to 400 students does make it appear R2 this year is substantially more competitive. Someone asked a question about the admit weekend figures and they said they offer an equal number of admissions in each round. So, perhaps those 800 and 60% figures are off and they are increasing their interviews or a much higher interview-to-admission ratio is seen in R1.
Another item of note. Someone asked how MIT looks at the reputation of the undergrad program. I've read the Poets & Quants article on Wharton & HBS, so I've had this worry too. They say they compare your choice of rigor to the pool. I found this off-putting as if it's to say "if you didn't go to a top school you did it because you wanted something easy" which ignores all the reasons a person chooses a program (ie full ride elsewhere).
Posted from my mobile device They also stated that they were aiming to have as many admits in round 2 as round 1. something doesn't add up in the numbers...
Nov 20
09 Mar 2012, 09:36
Damn you ETs 
