<p>A friend of mine recently went to a baseball recruitment camp and overheard the MIT coach/rep. saying to a group that if a player has a 700 on the math portion SAT then they can play at MIT. Is this at all true?</p>
<p>Haha, but people with a 690 get benched?</p>
<p>There's no cutoff score for admission to MIT, whether for athletes or anybody else; an athlete with a 710 has the same chance of admission as an athlete with a 690.</p>
<p>What the coach may have meant is that someone with a 700 on the math SAT might consider applying to MIT, or could easily be admitted to MIT given a strong overall application. It's certainly not true that every athlete with >700 is admitted -- almost 80% of the MIT applicant pool has an SAT I math score over 700. Clearly not all of them are admitted.</p>
<p>What Mollie says. I just did the arithmetic from the statistics</a> page: 78% of last year's applicant pool overall had an SAT I Math of 700+, and 89% of the admitted students last year had 700+. So an athlete with an SAT I Math over 700 applying to MIT <em>can</em> play for MIT if they're in the fraction of applicants admitted. ;) </p>
<p>Oh wait. Were you saying a baseball player with a 700+ SAT I Math score would have some sort of leg up on admission, or a guarantee of some sort? Hmmm.... no.</p>
<p>Thought that sounded wrong. Thanks</p>
<p>Did they mean that if a good athlete with a high math score might get a leg up? Because as far as I can tell this is somewhat true. If a coach is interested in a player and feels that they are academically qualified, they will write a letter to admissions on behalf of the student. This could be a hook, but it's in no way a guarantee.
What I mean is that if someone is really good at a sport but has low test scores or grades, etc. a coach may choose a student that is pretty good with higher scores to write a letter for. Or at least I'm pretty sure that's true since they have you put your grades/scores and your athletic achievements on the recruitment form. And I know for a fact they write letters</p>
<p>The coaches do write letters, but being good at sports isn't any more of an "in" than being good at something else, like music. I mean, hey, it helps, but it helps in the same way that being good at anything helps.</p>
<p>Yeah, that's what I meant. It helps, but it's not a "shoe in"
And by leg up I meant leg up from where they were before, not a leg up over everyone else.</p>
<p>That is kind of what I meant I guess...I didn't mean 700+ on math = shoein for an athelete. I do know of a person that scored well on their SAT math and got into MIT for basketball. Without the sport this person would have never even been considered. However, he was a good student as he was accepted OOS to UVA and walked onto the basketball team there.</p>
<p>Say I had what the baseball coach was looking for and had a 1400 SAT (750 M) and 32 ACT (34 M)...would I have a chance at getting in?</p>
<p>Take a look at the statistics</a> page again. 19% of applicants with an SAT I Math of 750+ were admitted, as were 13% of those with SAT I CR between 650-690 (19% for ACT composite between 30-36). So of course you'd have "a chance", it's not as if your scores show you to be unprepared: they don't. But it's not being a baseball player that would cause you to be accepted: that will be one part of your application which would receive consideration, as would being part of a robotics team, operating a photographic business, stage managing theatrical productions at school, interning in a lab, drumming in a popular garage band, earning honors at an Olympiad, or producing local public television shows. </p>
<p>If you don't apply, your chance of being accepted would be zero. So if you're interested, apply!</p>
<p>Absolutely,
The other thing that this thread seems to bypass is that "athletic" is not a binary term any more than "smart" is. That is to say, it matters more, if you are trying to decide between MIT and the offered major league contract than if you were a well-liked second string leftfielder in high school. MIT, like most highly competitive colleges respects anyone who can demonstrate true excellence in any form.
-Mikalye</p>
<p>Although the relationship between the ability to throw a fastball and one's merit as a scholar or leader baffles even the most creative mind.</p>
<p>Unless of course you take into account the time commitment required to be that star leftfielder.</p>
<p>The mediocre athlete often verifiably devotes as much time to his sport as the star; therefore it must be the ability to hurl small projectiles per se that is valued.</p>
<p>So at times does the mediocre student or musician. That is not going to help gain admission. Natural ability and the tenacity to make use thereof might translate from sports to academics and thus useful in the admission process.</p>
<p>Tenacity may translate, but you're going to have to try harder if the aim is to make a connection between natural ability at hurling a ball and at having good ideas.</p>
<p>I think the connection some here are trying to make is that tenacity, commitment, and achievement in many areas (GASP! even athletic!) helps provide the experience of failure, resiliancy, and success that are also valuable when learning to think, apply, and lead.</p>
<p>It remains unclear to stupid me how a good baseball player has any more
[quote]
tenacity, commitment... experience of failure, resiliancy
[/quote]
than a bad but equally dedicated baseball player. (In fact, it is obvious that the latter type of baseball player will typically be more tenacious, since unlike his talented bretheren, he perseveres despite sucking.) So on those grounds there is no reason to give good athletes any extra points.</p>
<p>On the the other hand if you think that
[quote]
achievement... success
[/quote]
in baseball per se are important beyond their value in teaching
[quote]
tenacity, commitment... experience of failure, resiliancy
[/quote]
then I'll eagerly await your explanation of how this exalted variety of
[quote]
achievement... success
[/quote]
is important.</p>
<p>Actually, as we all know, what is useful about athletes is that they make MIT's sports teams better. Just another example of institutional incentives of dubious educational relevance playing a prominent role in the admissions process. By the bye, the MIT campus appears to have turned a pale crimson color ;-)</p>
<p>The talented and dedicated "good" player is by default a team leader. It is often an unwanted job but none the less falls to them to perform. This leadership is an attribute much like being an eagle scout, winning a solo jazz award, being president of the student body and other factors that are only indirectly correlated to "academics".</p>
<p>Ben, I really think you are reaching with your last comment. If it were playing a prominent role we would see Division I sports like the school in upstate NY that does lower standards for athletes.</p>
<p>I think athletics should play no role, but I'll agree with you that "prominent" is too strong a word.</p>
<p>I am overwhelmed by the number of obviously nonacademic factors that "matter", but maybe I am just not openminded enough.</p>
<p>Hmm well I suppose this has gotten a little of topic. Thanks for some of the good replies though. To clarify, I am obviously not a draftable baseball player - not even one good enough to play at most colleges. However, I probably am good enough to make and start on the MIT team. The best reply I read made the comment that if the athlete is "qualified" enough, the coach may suggest to addmisions that he be considered for acceptance...or something like that. I doubt I am good enough for a coach to do that but who knows</p>