I wouldn't say it's silly, I'd just say it's a difference in culture. No need to be defensive. :P

MIT was started as a reaction to other universities whose graduates couldn't do anything "useful." (That is William Barton's word, not mine.) At that time, supposedly prestigious colleges were accepting and graduating rich and powerful students who could talk the talk, but couldn't make any real contributions when it came to math, economics, physics, or any other hard science or engineering discipline.

So, MIT was founded to be a utopia of meritocracy where no one cared where you were from or who your father is, all anyone wanted to know is "can you do the work?" Furthermore, MIT was founded on the principle that if you've graduated from MIT, you are guaranteed to be capable of useful contributions to society. This was considered to be a binary question -- either you're an MIT graduate or you aren't. That's why honor rolls are anathema to the Institute.

At the end of the day, this means that honorary degrees, athletic scholarships, and status-based admissions were out from the beginning because they are diametrically opposed to the mission of the Institute. What was (and is) in? Rigorous math, physics, chemistry, biology for every single graduate, no matter if they are mechanical engineers or music majors.

>MIT was founded to be a utopia of meritocracy where no one cared where you were from or who your father is, all anyone wanted to know is "can you do the work?"

At $34k a year? The key word is 'founded' I guess.

Actually, MIT has need-blind admission AND guarantees to meet 100% of all admitted students' financial need (as determined by FAFSA). I got well over $120,000 in scholarships without which I couldn't have gone.

How long has this been going on and how well is it publicized? A dozen years ago when I was applying to colleges, I really wanted to go to MIT but tuition was more than my mom earned a year so I didn't even apply. That's great if other good students can avoid missing out like I did.

That's a real shame and, sadly, that kind of thing is pretty common. The school's commitment to meeting 100% of need is not very well publicized, unfortunately. Even now, I talk to many really promising high school students who are discouraged from applying to MIT for the very same reasons you were.

The need-blind admission has been going on forever and the commitment to meet 100% of financial need has been going on for a long time, though I can only say with certainty that it's been in play since 1998 (when I first started looking seriously at the MIT admissions materials).

The good news is that a lot of other "elite" schools are doing this now too. If anyone here knows a smart kid with an expensive dream school, definitely advise them to apply now and worry about the money later.

Neat, I like the philosophy. I wonder if they still stick to it, or if they've also become a robot factory over time.

I like to think they've more or less stuck with it. :) There are definitely forces at work that try to water it down by, for example, introduce proposals to dumb down the core curriculum. The good news is that most MIT trustees have sense enough to know that these things will only devalue their own degrees. :P