<p>I've got a 2240 on the SAT.
I've had straight A's for 6 semesters in a row.
I qualify for the merit scholarship.
I'm a national merit scholar.
I've interviewed, visited twice, and generally expressed extreme interest in the school.</p>
<p>BUT I'm also a Caucasian male.</p>
<p>I thought I wasn't going to get this nervous! If I'm not accepted to HMC, I'm more or less left with going to Davis as a regent or UCLA without a regent scholarship. They are fine choices, but I had hoped to do better (no regents at UCLA and waitlisted at Caltech).</p>
<p>Making it as far as wait-list at Caltech is a good sign that your apps were all okay and your Mudd envelope will be "fat". Try to chill for a couple of days.</p>
<p>I got an email a while back saying that finalists for the PSP will be notified on the 28th, then interviews will take place in April: 12-14. I'm incredibly nervous about it all - especially after being rejected from MIT and waitlisted at UChicago.</p>
<p>Although the college doesn't come out and say it, I would imagine that if you meet the requirements of the Mudd merit Scholarship you are in. Unless of course there is some kind of character issue, like a felony involving moral turpitude. Try not to stress.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Although the college doesn't come out and say it, I would imagine that if you meet the requirements of the Mudd merit Scholarship you are in. Unless of course there is some kind of character issue, like a felony involving moral turpitude. Try not to stress.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is completely false. Literally half of Mudd is on the merit scholarship. I got it myself and considered Mudd to be a reach.</p>
<p>That being said, the fact that the OP got waitlisted at Caltech is definitely a good sign. The waitlist at Caltech is approximately as selective as an acceptance to Mudd.</p>
<p>Exactly how does your assertion that literally half the admitted class received this scholarship constitute proof in your mind that meeting its qualifications is not predictive of admission? The illogic of your statement is stunning.</p>
<p>It's not illogical, though. There were 2493 applicants in 2007. The standards of the 40k merit scholarship are:</p>
<pre><code>* SAT Critical Reading Score: 700 or above
* SAT Writing Score: 700 or above
* SAT Math Score: 750 or above SAT
* Math 2 Subject Exam Score: 750 or above
* High school rank within the top 10%
</code></pre>
<p>How hard do you think it is to achieve that criteria, especially from applicants to a school of Mudd's caliber? And yet, only 28% of the applicants got in.</p>
<p>The fact that half of the student body is on the merit scholarship does not seem to be indicative of one's chances of getting into Mudd, either. Half of the student body is about 370 students. That's about $15 million total in scholarships. I think that's a believable endowment for Mudd to have for bestowing scholarships.</p>
<p>[edit:] Also, here is their student profile, taken from the Mudd</a> Student Body Profile:
Ninety-three percent ranked in the top 10 percent of their high school classes. More than 25 percent of the entering class were valedictorian or salutatorian of their graduating high school class. The middle 50 percent of the class received the following SAT scores:</p>
<p>NONE of the stats posted on this thread, by any stretch of logic, refute the initial premise that meeting the requirements of the Mudd scholarship is predictive of admission (and if anything they are consistent with that initial premise) . If you have any data that shows that a substantial number of REJECTED applicants (not matriculated students or non-matriculating admittees) met the scholarship requirements, show me; otherwise y'all have nothing. Mudd is a good school. I am sure the admin is quite happy that it has a large number of its admittees meet these particular scholarship requirements. That's not the point.</p>
<p>mia305, I their point is that just having those scores is only a fraction of what it takes to get into Mudd. Having the test scores that qualify you for the scholarship is certainly a good first step, but you're competing against about a thousand applicants who have similar test scores and another thousand or so that have other achievements that may make up for not having those scores (ISTS winners, etc). You also need advanced classes and great grades, extracurricular passions, a true interest in your major and have demonstrated interest in Mudd. </p>
<p>I would therefore not call them predictive. There are a number of people attending Mudd that didn't get the scholarship and I'm sure that there are a number of people rejected who would have qualified. From what I've seen of top engineering and tech schools is that standardized test scores are more of a rough benchmark rather than an indicator of admissions. A high score is neutral but a low score hurts you. For most top schools, that benchmark is about a 32 ACT. Anything below 30 will likely hurt your chances, but a 36 won't overshadow B's in math and science or a lack of interest. </p>
<p>Now, there <em>is</em> a reason that 1/2 the campus qualified for the scholarship. Mudd requires advanced coursework across the board, not just in STEM fields, a strong passion for a STEM major, a good work ethic, great recommendations, etc. People who meet these qualifications probably score well on the SAT and ACT, but the reverse is not necessarily true. I think the term is "lurking variable" - while there's a strong correlation, the test score is not the driving force behind admissions: it's the overall strength of the applicant.</p>
<p>If you want to see evidence of those making the scholarship not getting accepted, just look at the past decisions threads.</p>
<p>Though this year might be a bit more lax. While Mudd was getting more selective, the higher ups this year decided to aim for 200 incoming students, rather than the traditional 180ish. (Where the hell are they gonna go?)</p>
<p>Seiken,
They admitted for 180 last year and yielded 215 plus transfers. They're splitting the difference, maybe?!? Are things that crowded now?</p>
<p>Well, 203 yield plus 2 transfers, with a burnout of 4 frosh before the fall, so we ended at just 1 over the current marker of 200. That being said, it is somewhat crowded right now; I avoided the pinch by being a transfer but I think some of the sophomores got it pretty badly because of the over-yield. There are 2 other reasons why I dislike this decision:
1. The professors werent consulted at all, and from what I hear some were ****ed.
2. Somehow I imagine them screwing this up and getting a yield of 225 students. I wonder if they are gonna do what they did last year and just hope for the same yield.</p>
<p>OK, they had posted 213 acceptees at one point last May -- there must have been a few who got off waitlists elsewhere or something...
Are you glad you transferred, Seiken?</p>