Harvard, MIT and Caltech Accepted vs. Rejected Applicants: What 296 Real 2026 Decisions Show

What separates accepted vs. rejected applicants at Harvard, MIT and Caltech? Harvard, MIT and Caltech are the three most selective schools in our tally, each admitting under 5% of applicants, and so few of their applicants get in that none has enough admits for a reliable article of its own. Pooled, they give us 296 decisions from 193 applicants who posted full 2026 results on r/collegeresults: 46 admitted, 225 rejected and 25 waitlisted.

The short version: a perfect GPA mattered most, and unlike at Yale and Princeton, a higher SAT did too. Research that produced real output, coding, robotics and creative work were more common among admits. Varsity sports, debate and internships were less common.

This is part of our larger comparison of accepted vs. rejected applicants at top colleges, which explains how the data was collected. Harvard's decisions are also in the pooled Ivy League comparison.

How to read these numbers

The 193 applicants were admitted in 15.5% of their decisions here, versus about 3.8% officially across the three schools. That gap is who posts: strong applicants with good news are more likely to share results. So don't read 15% as your odds. Read the gaps between groups instead. Every gap below was checked against school mix: the groups being compared applied to schools with nearly the same official admit rates.

With 46 admits in total, and just 11 at Caltech, a difference of a few people can move a percentage a lot. The school-by-school figures in particular are hints, not findings.

School by school

At all three, a 4.0 was more common among admits. MIT stood out most: 10 of the 11 admits who stated a GPA had a perfect one.

A 4.0, then a high SAT

Here the big jump is at the very top. A 3.9-something did barely better than a sub-3.9, and a 4.0 came with more than twice the rate. At most schools in our data, the line sat lower, at 3.9 for big public universities and band by band at other top schools.

Unlike at Yale and Princeton, where admits and non-admits had the same median SAT, scores separated applicants here. At MIT and Caltech, admits had a median 1575 versus 1550 for everyone else. At Harvard, both groups' median was 1550. Harvard and MIT both require test scores again; see test-optional vs. test-blind for what that means for each school.

Which activities showed up more among admits

Admit rate within the sample, for decisions where the applicant listed each item, versus decisions where they didn't:

• A research publication or paper award: 28.0% versus 13.0% (26 people).
• Visual arts, theater or creative writing: 26.1% versus 12.3% (46 people).
• Coding or tech projects: 24.3% versus 12.8% (43 people).
• Robotics or engineering teams: 22.5% versus 13.3% (39 people).
• A named scholarship or fellowship: 21.6% versus 13.0% (58 people).
• A paid job: 19.8% versus 13.2% (74 people).

And some came with lower rates:

• Debate, speech or Model UN: 8.8% versus 17.2% (42 people).
• Scouting or civic groups: 8.0% versus 17.1% (38 people).
• A school award: 10.9% versus 17.6%.
• A varsity sport (not recruited): 11.2% versus 18.3% (76 people).
• An internship: 11.7% versus 17.8% (77 people).

Coding and robotics are the interesting reversal. Across the Ivies and at most other top schools, they made little or no difference, largely because so many applicants list them. At MIT and Caltech, which most applicants approach as engineering or science schools, building things lined up with admission. The arts result is a reminder that creative work counts even at the most technical schools. Research that produced real output stood out here as it did across the Ivy League; research of any kind came with a much smaller gap (16.5% versus 14.3%).

By intended major, computer science (20.4% versus 13.0%) and engineering (18.3% versus 13.9%) applicants actually did a bit better than everyone else, mostly because of MIT and Caltech. At Harvard, none of the 24 applicants who listed a humanities major were admitted. That's a small group, so treat it as a hint. Our CS comparison across 36 colleges covers CS at each school.

Early rounds and deferrals

All three have a non-binding early round: MIT's is unrestricted early action, while Harvard and Caltech use restrictive early action. In our sample, early applications were admitted 14 times out of 53 (26%), versus 22 of 139 in regular decision (16%). But a deferral was usually the end of the road: 36 applicants were deferred, and only 6 were admitted later. At Harvard, none of the 12 deferred applicants got in. At MIT, 4 of 21 did. We cover what helps after a deferral in deferred from a college? here's what actually helps.

Hooks

First-generation applicants were admitted in 28.2% of their decisions, versus 13.6% for everyone else (24 people). Legacy applicants were admitted 21.1% of the time versus 15.2% (15 people). Both groups are small. Harvard's own court-disclosed legacy figures are in legacy admissions at every Ivy League school.

What Harvard, MIT and Caltech applicants can take from this

• A 4.0 was close to the baseline for admits, especially at MIT. A 3.9-something did barely better than lower GPAs.
• Scores mattered here. At MIT and Caltech, admits had higher SATs; send your best.
• Build and make things. Coding, robotics, research with real output and creative work were more common among admits.
• Don't count on a deferral. Only 6 of 36 deferred applicants got in.

For the same comparison at Stanford, see Stanford accepted vs. rejected applicants.

Sources

• College Intel's tally of self-reported r/collegeresults posts, 2026 admissions cycle (445 posts logged as of Oct 17, 2026; 296 decisions at Harvard, MIT and Caltech from 193 applicants). Recruited athletes and transfer applicants excluded. Aggregates only; no individual post is reproduced, and no figure rests on fewer than 3 people.
• College Scorecard -- U.S. Department of Education (official admission rates)