What should I do to get into MIT, CalTech, etc?

[Mépris]

You get talented young students, brainwash them for four years, let them go become rich and powerful and then every now and then they get a call from the school asking them do donate cash money. This money let's them recruit the next generation of young students.

Not that there is anything wrong with this.

Did you get one of these schools?

Harvard is a little different from MIT since Harvard tries a bit harder to mold its students into a particularly personality type. Again, nothing wrong with this, but it's a different system. MIT is two subway stops from Harvard, and I took classes there.

Whenever I've seen the mention of Harvard, you often have this MIT v/s Harvard thing going on and I never really got that. Maybe I got the wrong impression. In any event, the culture of both schools seem appealing.

Also, I think it's a little weird that I tend to see lots of people from MIT talk about MIT in these sorts of groups. I don't see that many people from Harvard, Stanford, or Yale talk about Harvard, Stanford, or Yale.

I don't know what I'm supposed to make out of this... haha

The problem boils down to the low admissions rate. There are just too many good applicants, and not enough places, so any sort of admissions criterion is going to be semi-bogus and irrational. I think everyone at MIT realizes that this is a problem, and things like Open Courseware are ways of getting around the problem.

You do what you can.

I love 6.01 and I don't think I've ever been "taught" a physics class better than this. But that's the one course. Not all of them are taught by competent teachers. I'm not certain if it was 18.01 (multivariable calc, I think) or another Maths course, but it bored me to death and I switched to Berkeley's offering of the same course, which I enjoyed more.

I don't think going to any of the "big schools" for the teaching alone is a good reason. Stanford, Berkeley and MIT all have numerous courses freely available online! If one is interested enough, figuring out which books to use and how to find solutions to certain problems is achievable.

Also, there are things that people don't talk about. One thing that scares the daylights out of everyone that is involved with admissions is that they'll admit someone that has a mental or medical crisis at MIT.

Talk about (potential) bad publicity. "MIT freshman found dead in dorm room." Okay, maybe I'm pushing this a bit too far...

 

[mheslep]

...
The other social problem is that we are in a "winner take all" society. People believe if they don't make it into the right schools and meet the right people, that they are doomed. The problem is that I can't say that this belief is incorrect.

Doomed? Do you really remain open to the belief that people are doomed if they don't get into the right schools and meet the right people? Can you not consider instead that the problem is an obsession with notoriety and fame and the life depicted by reality TV shows? Failure to become famous or notorious is hardly synonymous with being doomed?

 

[twofish-quant]

Did you get one of these schools?

MIT class of 1991.

Whenever I've seen the mention of Harvard, you often have this MIT v/s Harvard thing going on and I never really got that. Maybe I got the wrong impression. In any event, the culture of both schools seem appealing.

It's like Canada. One important part of the Canadian identity is that Canada is not the United States. One important part of the MIT identity is that it is not Harvard. Also, I ended up very, very strongly disliking the culture of Harvard. It's "elitist in a bad way."

I don't think going to any of the "big schools" for the teaching alone is a good reason. Stanford, Berkeley and MIT all have numerous courses freely available online!

For MIT, it's a particularly bad reason. Going to MIT for the classroom teaching is like going to NYC for the peace and quiet or to the Grand Canyon for fine Italian dining. The professors at MIT are generally not particularly good at classroom teaching.

You go to get brainwashed into thinking in a certain way. Also, one reason for going to MIT is that everyone is "serious." One of my fun stories happened sophomore year, with a class that I fortunately didn't take, but some of my friends did. The professor ended up being totally incompetent. So the students and faculty "worked around" the professor.

This has some consequences. If you go to a major state university, and the students think that you stink as a professor, then maybe the students are just lazy or unprepared. If you have a class at MIT, and the students think you stink as a professor, then there is a good likelihood that you really do stink as a professor. Anyone that is lazy or unprepared is just not getting into MIT, which means that if you get in, people believe that your opinions really matter.

If one is interested enough, figuring out which books to use and how to find solutions to certain problems is achievable.

But education is more than books and classes.

Talk about (potential) bad publicity. "MIT freshman found dead in dorm room." Okay, maybe I'm pushing this a bit too far...

Google for "Elizabeth Shin"

The good thing about MIT is that it is a high pressure/high stress environment in which you can push yourself to your limits. The dark side of this which everyone worries about is what happens when you hit your limits.

 

[twofish-quant]

Doomed? Do you really remain open to the belief that people are doomed if they don't get into the right schools and meet the right people?

Yup. One problem with life is that there isn't a reset button. I'd be curious to see what would have happened had I gone to big state school, or if I had focused a bit more and gotten myself in the Harvard grad school.

Can you not consider instead that the problem is an obsession with notoriety and fame and the life depicted by reality TV shows? Failure to become famous or notorious is hardly synonymous with being doomed?

No that's not the problem.

The problem is that I've been unemployed and I know people have been in worse employment situations than me. It stinks. Also, even when you are employed, you are just keeping your head above water, with no savings which stinks when something bad happens.

One writer that I read that made a lot of sense to me is Karl Marx. His basic idea was that in a unfettered social system, the rich will get richer, the poor will get poorer. I think he is right about that, and I've spend a non-trivial amount of my time getting into the "rich getting richer" rather than the "poor getting poorer" group. I managed to get into that group, but there was a lot of luck involved, and one thing that helped was my MIT degree.

Now that I'm definitely in the "rich getting richer" group, I'm trying to figure out what to do next.

 

[Mépris]

MIT class of 1991.

Typo! I meant "call". Did you donate anything to them?

Was it just a "Hey, how you doin' Fish? Yeah, we wondering if you could..." :D

It's like Canada. One important part of the Canadian identity is that Canada is not the United States. One important part of the MIT identity is that it is not Harvard. Also, I ended up very, very strongly disliking the culture of Harvard. It's "elitist in a bad way."

I've been among people of this sort. Pompous rich kids. Maybe they don't do it on purpose...Some of them were cool enough but in general, I didn't like them. They had their little cliques at school.

For MIT, it's a particularly bad reason. Going to MIT for the classroom teaching is like going to NYC for the peace and quiet or to the Grand Canyon for fine Italian dining. The professors at MIT are generally not particularly good at classroom teaching.

Haha! I wonder how the people who expected it to be this way turn out when they go in. If they get in.

You go to get brainwashed into thinking in a certain way. Also, one reason for going to MIT is that everyone is "serious." One of my fun stories happened sophomore year, with a class that I fortunately didn't take, but some of my friends did. The professor ended up being totally incompetent. So the students and faculty "worked around" the professor.

This has some consequences. If you go to a major state university, and the students think that you stink as a professor, then maybe the students are just lazy or unprepared. If you have a class at MIT, and the students think you stink as a professor, then there is a good likelihood that you really do stink as a professor. Anyone that is lazy or unprepared is just not getting into MIT, which means that if you get in, people believe that your opinions really matter.

"Early signs" of power? If when you get in there, you start developing that kind of mindset, once you get outside...?

But education is more than books and classes.

Yes. That's why I'm applying.

Google for "Elizabeth Shin"

The good thing about MIT is that it is a high pressure/high stress environment in which you can push yourself to your limits. The dark side of this which everyone worries about is what happens when you hit your limits.

Do you know the English word of Shin? Oh, the irony.

Sucks to be her. Or not be her. In any event, her wiki page mentions that she had attempted to kill herself before even going to MIT. Because she wasn't valedictorian of her class. If it wasn't going to happen at college, it would've happened elsewhere. Maybe her work place or home. Honestly, I don't think that kind of mentality is going to get anyone *too* far. There is more humility and more to learn in accepting failure.

I failed Physics. Two or three times. I reconsidered my approach, stopped slacking and found other teaching material and teachers. Now I love it more than I used to.

 

[Cuauhtemoc]

Yup. One problem with life is that there isn't a reset button. I'd be curious to see what would have happened had I gone to big state school, or if I had focused a bit more and gotten myself in the Harvard grad school.

Really?
I know tons of totally ignorant people that tend to richer than PhD's, a lot richer in fact.
You have a MIT degree and are unemployed, it didn't help much I think.
To be wealthy in modern society you need a lot more than good grades and a college diploma.
Many vastly sucessful businessman dropped out of college and are still billionaires. They may be exceptions but there are tons of not so extreme cases of average achievers getting a good amount of money.

 

[mheslep]

Doomed? Do you really remain open to the belief that people are doomed if they don't get into the right schools and meet the right people?

Yup

Well I hope that sentiment doesn't stem from living in NYC and reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bright_Lights,_Big_City_(novel)" novels.

The problem is that I've been unemployed

So have I. Though the 'doomed' sentiment took hold for a moment when important relationships crumbled or tragedy struck those near and dear to me, I never felt so because of my employment situation or the particular graduate school I did or did not attend.

and I know people have been in worse employment situations than me. It stinks.

Yes, it can be hard.

Also, even when you are employed, you are just keeping your head above water, with no savings which stinks when something bad happens.

One writer that I read that made a lot of sense to me is Karl Marx. His basic idea was that in a unfettered social system, the rich will get richer, the poor will get poorer.

Making common cause with criticism of an 'unfettered social system' suggests a preference for the so called 'third way' of European social democracy. It is called the 'third way' because Marx's proscriptions would not allow a market system to exist at all, not even mildly unfettered. Anyway, aside from periods of revolution/war/economic depression, it is not the case that the poor get poorer over time in the US, not in any objective manner.

 

[twofish-quant]

I know tons of totally ignorant people that tend to richer than PhD's, a lot richer in fact.

Curiously I don't. Most of the Ph.D.'s I know of are loaded, and the people that I know that are richer than Ph.D.'s aren't stupid.

You have a MIT degree and are unemployed, it didn't help much I think.

I have an MIT degree and I was unemployed. I'm rolling in money right now. But a lot of that was just getting lucky and meeting the right people.

 

[twofish-quant]

Well I hope that sentiment doesn't stem from living in NYC

No it comes from living in NYC and working in Wall Street, and seeing scary amounts of money going around.

Making common cause with criticism of an 'unfettered social system' suggests a preference for the so called 'third way' of European social democracy.

There are about thirty different ways of running an economy. The thing that I think will work is pretty heavy taxation of people like me to support basic science and technology. Curiously, I happen to be a big fan of Ronald Reagan since he increased the defense budget and shot the budget deficit to heck which is what the country needed.

It is called the 'third way' because Marx's proscriptions would not allow a market system to exist at all, not even mildly unfettered.

Marx argued that capitalism was inherently unstable, and a lot of the what people were trying to figure out in the early 20th century was to use socialism to save capitalism. Curiously, one big problem with Marx is that he was insufficiently cynical. What would happen once you have a revolution is that you'd end up with a new ruling class that was worse than the old one.

Anyway, aside from periods of revolution/war/economic depression, it is not the case that the poor get poorer over time in the US, not in any objective manner.

I'm terribly, terribly worried that the US has just entered a period of Japanese economic stagnation. The problem with Japan is that it wasn't dramatic, and after a while, people just accepted what was going on as normal. One thing about Japan is that there are few desperately poor people in Japan. It's just that the country has ended up "stuck."

The trouble is that it feels as if the middle class is disappearing, and that's a bad thing. Something that is interesting is that you are looking at the career choices of Ph.D.'s, and either you are making totally insane amounts of money on Wall Street or you are waiting tables in restaurants. There's nothing in the middle, which scares the living daylights out of me because this is what Marx said would happen.

 

[mheslep]

...There are about thirty different ways of running an economy. The thing that I think will work is pretty heavy taxation of people like me to support basic science and technology.

Unless you keep your money under the matress, I think what will work is what you (and I) are doing now - investing in securities which in turn finances investment. Higher taxation must reduce that investment. More importantly, and as my sig suggests, growing the government's scope and influence makes it more of a mandatory influence target for finance firms (Fannie/Freddie/Wall St). Of course if one wants to finance new science and technology directly, there are VC funds on every corner.

Curiously, I happen to be a big fan of Ronald Reagan since he increased the defense budget and shot the budget deficit to heck which is what the country needed...

Eh, with the help of Tip O'Neil et al and their invention of the 'take it or leave it Mr President' omnibus budget, hence Reagan's campaign for the line item budget veto ...

 

[jtbell]

Please take political/economic arguments to another forum: P&WA or maybe Social Sciences.

 

[Anonymous217]

I dislike how "advice to get in top schools!" threads always digress into the "prestige v. top school legitimacy/etc." arguments. Can't we simply advise the OP without questioning his true intentions?

 

[inception7]

I dislike how "advice to get in top schools!" threads always digress into the "prestige v. top school legitimacy/etc." arguments. Can't we simply advise the OP without questioning his true intentions?

Thumbs up! I definitely agree with everything you've said!

 

[Cuauhtemoc]

Curiously I don't. Most of the Ph.D.'s I know of are loaded, and the people that I know that are richer than Ph.D.'s aren't stupid.



I have an MIT degree and I was unemployed. I'm rolling in money right now. But a lot of that was just getting lucky and meeting the right people.

Oh well, good for you.
Maybe it's just me but politicians and businessman seem to do better around here without even a college degree than phd's in astrophysics.

 

[TMFKAN64]

In general, the way to make money is to pursue money. I am certain that the most successful business people who didn't get a college degree are vastly richer than the most successful Ph.D. astrophysicists. (Even if we eliminate the household names here.)

I'm equally certain that the average Ph.D. astrophysicist is doing better than the average college dropout.

It's all statistics. Buy a lottery ticket, you could get rich!

 

[Cuauhtemoc]

In general, the way to make money is to pursue money. I am certain that the most successful business people who didn't get a college degree are vastly richer than the most successful Ph.D. astrophysicists. (Even if we eliminate the household names here.)

I'm equally certain that the average Ph.D. astrophysicist is doing better than the average college dropout.

It's all statistics. Buy a lottery ticket, you could get rich!

I know, but I believe the average college dropout isn't very clever and so he didn't fare well,in college or business or in a job, but if you have the skills to get a Phd is it worth to lose years of your life doing academic research instead of venturing in business? In terms of money of course, I know people who have phd's because they love studying or want to be academics.
I just don't feel like getting an Ph.D. in astrophysics is the way to become rich, there are easier,faster routes, that don't need a lot of luck like a lottery ticket.
I think getting a degree in engineering and getting into industry is a lot easier, for example.

 

[twofish-quant]

In general, the way to make money is to pursue money. I am certain that the most successful business people who didn't get a college degree are vastly richer than the most successful Ph.D. astrophysicists. (Even if we eliminate the household names here.)

If we eliminate the household names, then I'm not sure this is true. The issue here is that people that startup entrepreneur companies tend to get a lot of press, whereas astrophysics Ph.D.'s that end up being hedge fund managers or managing directors tend to be anonymous. The biggest name in Ph.D.'s that is reasonably famous is Jim Simmons.

One other thing that needs to be considered is that there are very few Ph.D. astrophysicists to begin with.

Also one reason I like my current job and hated some of my previous ones, is that there is less of a glass ceiling. I probably won't ever be a managing director, but it's nice to look at someone that is like you that has gotten there and dream/be insanely jealous. At the other jobs that I had, all of my bosses were MBA-types, so there was no real chance of promotion. In my current position, my bosses bosses boss is somewhat older but has a Ph.D. in astrophysics.

I think that explains why people are so nervous about getting into the right school. It's not that you are likely to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, but the idea is that if you don't do X, then you have no chance at all. Once you realize that things aren't going to get better, then it gets quite depressing.

It's also particularly bad, since there is part of me that still acts like that eager high school student that wants to get the prize. Once I thought that I was somewhere that I got everything that you could get, I got really depressed.

Also, I'm just providing information here. Maybe my purpose in life is as a warning for what not to do. :-) :-) :-)

Finally, one big problem with the academic system is that students don't have contact with a diverse set of Ph.D.'s. People assume that physics Ph.D.'s are starving because most of the Ph.D.'s that people have day to day contact at the university is either a professor or a starving and slightly bitter graduate student. People don't realize that while not every astrophysics Ph.D. makes $1M/year, there isn't a small number that do.

 

[twofish-quant]

I dislike how "advice to get in top schools!" threads always digress into the "prestige v. top school legitimacy/etc." arguments. Can't we simply advise the OP without questioning his true intentions?

No. :-) :-) :-)

Seriously, some of us have gone through the prestige school rat race, and what I'm telling you is basically what I wish someone had told me in 1986. The one advantage that you have is that you have is that the internet basically didn't exist in 1986.

If you just care about getting into top schools, then there is no magic bullet. There are a ton of books on the topic, and they basically say more or less the same thing. The only thing that I have to add here is that *dumb luck* is a huge factor. There are so many good candidates and so few spots that you can do everything right and still not get in, while you can make mistakes and get in.

If you get in...

Something about MIT is that if you get in then for the first time in your life, you will be "average" or even "below average." In high school, I didn't know anyone that was smarter than me, but at MIT, I wasn't particularly smart, and I knew tons of people that were just better (and sometimes a lot better) at math than I was.

It will hit you in the gut, the first time you take a test and instead of getting the standard "99" score you are used to in high school, you'll end up with a 60 which turns out to be class average, and you are working ten hours a day just to try to get your grade up to a B. Personally, I learned to "enjoy the pain" in some sick masochistic way, but I know of a lot of people that just fell apart.

You will have bad days in which you ask "why am I here?" "what am I doing?" "is this really worth it?", and you'll get through those bad days if you gave some thought to those questions before you step on campus.

Also, once you start being hypercompetive, it's hard to stop. I'm working as hard today, and as stressed I was in high school. If you don't mind this as a way of life, that's great, but don't kid yourself into thinking that there is some pot of gold at the end of the road. There is no end of the road until you die.

If you don't get in...

Then you can help fix the problem. Something that the world needs is driven people to improve their environment. There is nothing about MIT that can't be duplicated elsewhere, and if didn't get into MIT, and your reaction is "screw them, I'll build something better" then that's the spirit that we need more of.

 

[Anonymous217]

No. :-) :-) :-)
...
Then you can help fix the problem. Something that the world needs is driven people to improve their environment. There is nothing about MIT that can't be duplicated elsewhere, and if didn't get into MIT, and your reaction is "screw them, I'll build something better" then that's the spirit that we need more of.

Great post. You offer a lot of useful information for deciding whether to attend a top school or not to. However, rather than address these problem in singular topics, why not create a sticky addressing the issue? That way, you won't need to repeat the same information (as you probably have many times), and you can centralize the "debate".

 

[twofish-quant]

if you have the skills to get a Phd is it worth to lose years of your life doing academic research instead of venturing in business?

For me, the answer was not only yes, but HELL, YES! Much of it is that I don't see doing academic research as "losing years of my life" any more than I see industrial research as "losing years of my life."

I just don't feel like getting an Ph.D. in astrophysics is the way to become rich, there are easier, faster routes, that don't need a lot of luck like a lottery ticket.

Sure, but I hate fast and easy. I like challenge, and so if someone just gave me money, it wouldn't be any "fun". I am a tightwad, cheapskate that hates spending money. I also don't like gambling. If I put money in a slot machine, and get a ton of money, that's also not "fun."

I get some sort of weird thrill looking at the numbers in my bank account, because for me, money is "keeping score." It's like a massive video game, in which I use my brains and skills to make that number go up. That's actually why I hate spending money, because if I spend money, my "score" goes down.

I think getting a degree in engineering and getting into industry is a lot easier, for example.

It is, but I want to make money the hard way.

A lot depends on what you want to do out of life.

 

[twofish-quant]

Great post. You offer a lot of useful information for deciding whether to attend a top school or not to.

It's not a decision you make.

If you have good scores and a decent high school record, there's no harm in applying to MIT. The problem is that there is a 90% chance that you won't get in. If you have a *perfect* record, there is still a very good chance that you won't get in.

The information on the website is correct. There is absolutely nothing that you can say or do that will guarantee admission to MIT. That's a little depressing. One reason that people like myself are really interested in alternatives to MIT, is that I think that there is a very good chance that if I had to do it over again, *I* couldn't get in, and this topic comes up constantly at alumni gatherings.

Applying is only a waste of time if you have a transcript that is so bad that you have zero chance of getting in. For example, if your SAT math is 600, don't bother applying to MIT, you aren't getting in. If it's 700, then your odds of getting in are average. But even that adds to the stress. Sometimes it feels good for someone to tell you that "you've lost." If you have an SAT math of 600, you aren't getting in, give up. The trouble is that just as it is impossible to find something that guarantees admission, once you've filtered out people that obviously don't have the skills, it's hard to find things that will guarantee non-admission.

Also, "top schools" are very different. The culture of MIT is very, very different from the culture of Harvard, and Stanford, Princeton, Columbia, NYU, UChicago are all very, very different from each other. One thing that is very different about MIT is that MIT people tend to talk a lot about MIT, whereas I don't see Harvard people spending as much time talking about Harvard. I can't stand Harvard undergraduate culture.

One of the reasons that I talk about MIT is that I was at an alumni gathering in which the President of MIT told people that they should talk about MIT.

 

[TMFKAN64]

I just don't feel like getting an Ph.D. in astrophysics is the way to become rich.

No one ever suggested that if you want to become rich, getting a Ph.D. in astrophysics is the way to go. Rather the contrary.

If money is what you want, go chase money!

You'll make a comfortable living with a Ph.D. in astrophysics, though.

 

[TMFKAN64]

A lot depends on what you want to do out of life.

Amen.

 

[Anonymous217]

It's not a decision you make.

If you have good scores and a decent high school record, there's no harm in applying to MIT. The problem is that there is a 90% chance that you won't get in. If you have a *perfect* record, there is still a very good chance that you won't get in.

My assumption, of course, supposed that you were accepted and you were now choosing which university to attend. I faced a similar issue last year for undergrad: I was accepted to MIT, Princeton, Yale, and Berkeley (among others). However, I chose Berkeley for undergrad for reasons similar to what you have already stated, although I also wanted to attend both a public and private university to experience both cultures. So, then, why not Berkeley for undergrad and perhaps HYPMS, etc. for grad (obviously, I haven't found a concentration yet, but this is the general concept)?

 

[Omega_Prime]

Two-Fish I thoroughly enjoyed your edgy, quasi-Yoda-like contributions to what may have been just some ordinary necro thread!

 

[Cuauhtemoc]

For me, the answer was not only yes, but HELL, YES! Much of it is that I don't see doing academic research as "losing years of my life" any more than I see industrial research as "losing years of my life."



Sure, but I hate fast and easy. I like challenge, and so if someone just gave me money, it wouldn't be any "fun". I am a tightwad, cheapskate that hates spending money. I also don't like gambling. If I put money in a slot machine, and get a ton of money, that's also not "fun."

I get some sort of weird thrill looking at the numbers in my bank account, because for me, money is "keeping score." It's like a massive video game, in which I use my brains and skills to make that number go up. That's actually why I hate spending money, because if I spend money, my "score" goes down.



It is, but I want to make money the hard way.

A lot depends on what you want to do out of life.

Ah, I get it now. It's just that I have a irrational hate against anything related to academia.
I came from a pretty wealthy family myself so becoming rich was never my main focus, but I did graduate in chemical engineering because I enjoyed it, but no way I was going to do academic research haha.
Some people said it was also an waste of time since I could have just ventured into the family business(farming, which I enjoy btw, and I specialized in fertilizers and soil chemistry) but I throughly enjoyed my course, but that was it...graduate soon and leave university.
What I did see although during my student years was that people who went into academia(even if they didn't end becoming professors, but tried getting an phd) didn't end up poor but they have a lot tougher path than people who went into industry. But I think we agree at this point.
I'm also not american so things are a little different down here, large scale monoculture farmers get a lot more money here in Brazil than phd's.

 

[Mépris]

The information on the website is correct. There is absolutely nothing that you can say or do that will guarantee admission to MIT. That's a little depressing. One reason that people like myself are really interested in alternatives to MIT, is that I think that there is a very good chance that if I had to do it over again, *I* couldn't get in, and this topic comes up constantly at alumni gatherings.

What did you say and do? Did you apply to Princeton as well?

On that note, there are probably people who've had their grades inflated and another bunch who're having their essays by people who know just how to write them (i.e: confidently write about things the students haven't even done)...how do you compete with that?

I went on their admissions' website a few days ago and saw this 20-year old video, with some Nirvana song in the background, about MIT and they claim that they've been "consistent" over the years and not much has changed since. What do you think of that?

Another thing, at your work place, are you working with other MIT alums? Or are they present in other departments?

I will begin my application soon enough. Gotta create accounts on MyMIT and CommonApp.

 

[Mépris]

http://mitadmissions.org/blogs/entry/there_is_no_formula

Reading this gives me the impression that they take the remaining applicants, the right fits, put their names in a box and randomly pick out a thousand of those...

 

[Vanadium 50]

It's funny. Students demand to be evaluated as individuals and "not a bunch of numbers" - but they also want an exact formula with complete certainty.

 

[Mépris]

It's funny. Students demand to be evaluated as individuals and "not a bunch of numbers" - but they also want an exact formula with complete certainty.

Ha! I prefer this way, it allows me to play to my strengths but before rushing into anything. I'd rather have a clear (as clear things would allow) understanding of what I'm up against. So far, the general idea that I've gathered is that if one is looking at it from a perspective of trying to figure out what is *expected* of him, he's already moving in the wrong direction. Initiating things independently, on the other hand, is a trait I've observed in people who have actually gotten in. (just reading through the forums here and the MIT admissions blogs)

I've seen this guy who got accepted into MIT, Harvard and a couple other schools with horrendous grades. He was, however, a refugee in the US who set up various clubs related to his culture and interests. (some Muslim-related club...) He also went to Somalia and helped build three wells in two different towns. While all of this is very impressive, I don't think that's what got him in. I haven't read his essay(s), but I suspect he got in because of them. His essay was about what he did/experienced in Somalia and my guess is, he wrote about what he loved. I'd go as far as saying that if that guy managed to write about scavenging or playing with a yo-yo in the same way he wrote about Somalia, he would still have gotten in. Anyway, that's just my own opinion on what I know so far and what I think may be wrong. In any case, unless one personally knows people in admissions or are part of the committee themselves, there's no way to know.

Other question:[b/] What do you think of the interview process? Have you interviewed anyone at some point? (Vanadium, twofish, any other MIT alum)

Also:
Anybody wanting to go to a "big school" where there's an exact formula for entry can always go to the UK, assuming they have the funds for it. ~$25k for tuition fees/year, depending on where one's going. The formula is usually displayed on the school's program website under the entry requirements section.
Interestingly, no one UK university (as far as I'm aware) gives half a toss about an applicants performance throughout the year. If you have great A-Levels, you're in. Some places require interview though. And if we're talking medicine, then things start getting more complicated but for everything else, it's all very straightforward.