Scarily accurate. The only thing I’d add is that even in these cases, it’s sometimes not enough info even after you do all that calling, because we might not have the long-term data to support “okay, well this specific way of teaching DE calc sets you up for 18.01, but this other way doesn’t.”
Everyone in our office is extremely aware of the challenges/limitations of the test; I think what guides us here is that we are also extremely aware of the challenges and limitations of everything else, including what kind of remedial work it is possible for MIT to provide, as currently configured.
Earlier in my career, I used to be more of the mindset “but what about these students we could take a risk on?” Now, I question that mindset as being an instance of a savior complex: presuming that a student needs MIT to ‘save them’ from their situation, or to reach their full potential. For most students, this is not true, and I think our denied student blog series has shown this (Denied by MIT, Now [X] | MIT Admissions), to say nothing of That CC Thread (Homeless, didn't get in through the waitlist, have no where else to go, need advice - #75 by thisisthais). Us ‘taking a risk’ on them really means taking a risk with them: their happiness, their sense of self-efficacy, their educational trajectory. Of course, all admissions decisions are in some sense a risk: the future is unknowable. But we think it’s really important we are very careful in how we weigh those risks, and not too parochial in terms of assuming a student ‘needs’ MIT to succeed (because they usually don’t).