Extracurriculars like research, robotics competitions, math camp, etc. are absolutely considered heavily by MIT. SATs and grades are way too saturated at the top end of the curve to make reasonable admissions decisions, and performing highly at a particular extracurricular can be an important signal for future success in itself.

I get what you're saying though, being a typical jack of all trades high school overachiever isn't the best strategy for getting into MIT. I don't think that's because they don't consider personality though - heck one of the admissions short answers is "what do you do for fun?". I think it's actually because they are trying to avoid the type that does things just to get into college or just because it's the thing to do at their school. If you're an absolute prodigy then it probably doesn't matter either way, but if you're borderline MIT is definitely the top school that tries the hardest to take the kid that seems more genuinely passionate and not like a social climber.

MIT also does the best job of considering context of all the elite schools. If you went to a great private high school you better have taken full advantage of those opportunities, whereas most other elite schools will just see the better overall resume/prior education. This is pretty clearly reflected in the schools' respective demographics.

Aha! They have extracurricular activities for nerds now! I had forgotten! (I am such an alter cocker this was unknown, absolutely unknown, science fiction unknown, when I was young.)

Haha I figured you were just using a different definition for "extracurricular" but I hadn't really considered that these are relatively new options.

At least back when I knew people in the admissions office, MIT definitely did not ignore that “crap” though I’d be willing to stipulate it may have weighted it less heavily than a school like Harvard.

Yes you knew what they told you. Yes they looked at for a minute. Yes, out of a class of 950, it made a difference for 20-30. But I bet, privately, they spat on it. They had plenty of experience with total nerds who founded industries or disciplines. Remember, physics, chemistry, EE, material science, that’s 40-50% of the class: physics up to quantum mechanics. Entire undergraduate body: special relativity with 4 weeks of problem sets, and derivation of the magnetic field from this. When you’re 18.

I think you underestimate the number of people that have a perfect gpa and a perfect score on the sat/act. Thousands of kids get a perfect score on the sat or act test every year. MIT is going to have to be looking at more than just that.

You are right. I forgot. I wouldn’t even get in now probably.

Most of the people I’ve known from MIT, and pretty much all of the interesting ones, are technically savvy but pretty much the opposite of total nerds.

Heh heh. Perfect example of why “extracurricular activities” are total bs. Admissions people need to have intangibles. That way, they can do what they want, when they want to.

Exactly how did they prosper? Caltech seriously mishandled its endowment between 1999-2008 despite getting some of the largest individual donations in history.