<p>I think the numerical indicators in the broadest sense are probably fairly constant, although they have likely changed as the number of applications have risen and admissions has become more competitive, so I would assume only about the past five years’ worth of data would be approximately constant with the current pool of applicants. </p>
<p>But the numbers of students admitted are fairly small, so narrowing the indicators too far would most likely give wonky results (e.g., looking at whether an applicant has a 700-740 on a given test, rather than the specific score of 730).</p>
<p>And I don’t believe numerical indicators in combination (700-740 SAT I math x top 10% of class x 750-800 SAT II math, etc.) would have much predictive value.</p>
<p>@silverturtle:
“The fact that one can have a 60% chance does not mean that someone must have a 100% chance.”
It’s mathematics (or Heisenberg’s uncertainty pricinple? idk :D). For example, when you know nothing about an applicant, you say “he has 10% chance”; then you know he is in the top 5%, you say “he has 15% chance”. Adding it up, you will soon reach 100%.
100% is reachable when there is someone having already reached 60%, which is misled by numbers.</p>
<p>"I don’t understand. "
It’s not a number because it’s not a number It’s the same as 2300 SAT, 3.9 GPA: it indicates high school students who have high educational level, that’s all; it would be absurd to say it indicates those who have 100 points less than those who get 2400 SAT - true but meaningless (This is just an objective example; no offense).</p>
<p>I don’t believe chances can be converted to numbers, at least, to MIT.
You know, when you say someone has around 20% chance, you may let him down badly. And who knows, whether he may someday become a famous senator? Instead, the best thing to do is to point out the reality he should face and what he should do.</p>
<p>Are you familiar with asymptotes? The benefit of additional, positive factors is not merely additive until one hits 100%. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I continue to fail to see your point.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Chances are inherently numerical. The verbal alternative of saying “Oh well, the Ivy’s are reaches for everyone” is unhelpful.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The potential prospects of applicants are not relevant to chancing. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Complementing advice with an approximate but reasonable numerical estimate provides the applicant with a helpful concept of his or her chances and how to improve them.</p>
<p>"Are you familiar with asymptotes? The benefit of additional, positive factors is not merely additive until one hits 100%. "
Haha, I expected you would say this. But, again, it’s not about mathematics. It’s about the common sense people easily get when you say “you have 60% chance”. That leads them to the wrong attitude, that they should retake SAT until they get 2400 to get into MIT (okay, I’ve pushed it to an extreme, but generally, that’s how it is).</p>
<p>“I continue to fail to see your point.”
Similarity. What lies behind numbers is not numbers.</p>
<p>“Chances are inherently numerical. The verbal alternative of saying “Oh well, the Ivy’s are reaches for everyone” is unhelpful.”
What you referred to is chances in probability. Chance here is a verb. Another way to say it: “Will I get in?”</p>
<p>"The potential prospects of applicants are not relevant to chancing. "
Hello, this is MIT’s place.</p>
<p>“Complementing advice with an approximate but reasonable numerical estimate provides the applicant with a helpful concept of his or her chances and how to improve them.”
I don’t believe numbers can give them the right concept, or even mislead them to the wrong attitude.</p>
<p>Edit: I like chancing threads like the one of kenhungkk, which is named “I need suggestions on IMPROVEMENTS” (I actually like its name in particular).</p>
It’s the same as 2300 SAT, 3.9 GPA: it indicates high school students who have high educational level, that’s all; it would be absurd to say it indicates those who have 100 points less than those who get 2400 SAT - true but meaningless (This is just an objective example; no offense).</p>