<p>My father went to MIT full-ride for undergrad, then did grad school, got his phd, and taught for several years. I know legacy isn't a factor in admission, but the way he describes MIT sounds like a place where I would enjoy challenging myself; and I feel that the MIT-way of problem-solving is an invaluable skill/habit to be acquired. </p>
<p>On the other hand, I feel like I just don't deserve to be in that category of students. National math winners, child prodigies, etc. I believe myself to have a great deal of potential in math, and certain sciences, but know that my talent isn't near as developed as practically any of my would-be peers. </p>
<p>I am also wondering if it could improve my chances that the only majors I would be interested in are econ/poli sci (and possibly cognitive science). It wouldn't surprise me if they are looking for more econ majors given their strong reputation for math and hard sciences.</p>
<p>My stats place me at the back of the herd: 760m/680cr/700w, 3.75 W, although my important AP's have good scores: ap macro 5, ap micro 5, bc calc 5</p>
<p>I know some schools are willing to take a chance on talented kids who underachieved or never really found a passion (in my case, it has been related to family issues although that's sure not a full excuse)...but I feel that MIT - due to the applicant pool - probably doesn't resort to this. Should I bother submitting an app or is just gonna get canned? Be (brutally) honest, my feelings won't be hurt lol.</p>
<p>If you want to go to MIT, then apply. If you don’t want to go, then don’t apply. As a friend of mine is fond of saying, “you miss 100% of the shots you don’t take.”</p>
<p>He has a clever follow-up line to this statement, but I’ll save it for a less public forum.</p>
<p>Not everyone is a big time award winner at MIT. Really are “normal” people at MIT. IMHO you do need to be good at math and science and have a passion for it. Go ahead and apply if you think it fits what you want to do.</p>
<p>Hmmm, you know there is a lot of time inbetween now and January first. I think I will go for it. I wasn’t a fan of chem class, but I loved biology and ADORED Physics C; and at a young age I had a strong inclination towards all things math. I think the public education system made me favor math and science less, but MIT could help me regain that passion. The “minimum” math and science requirements don’t sound daunting to me, but actually pretty reasonable. If I catch on to one of the hard sciences, or math, MIT will be probably the best place in the world to be. Otherwise, I will have a solid background as a math/physics minor, and can do poli-sci/econ/neuroscience. Sounds like a pretty solid plan to me. Then again, I shouldn’t get too far ahead of myself. I have a 12% chance to get in :p</p>
<p>Unless I’ve misunderstood what Admissions has been saying for years and years, we essentially can. After 700, you meet their qualifications (which they have made by careful study of performance of current/past MIT students), and it’s the rest of your app that will get you in. Admissions won’t go, “Oh, whoa, a 750, this person is so much better than that 700 person”. The difference isn’t meaningful at that point.</p>
It’s not meaningful. But what you’re essentially saying is that 700 is a cutoff…which it’s not, because there aren’t any cutoffs…and if “after 700 you meet their qualifications,” then what about 690? That’s close enough to 700 for there to not be a statistical difference. What about 680 then? In the end, it’s all holistic. Not a list of things to be checked off.</p>
<p>Please don’t put words into my mouth. I never said 700s were a cutoff - that’s just around the point where Admissions won’t worry. They’ve said this time and again. It doesn’t mean that people with below those scores will be automatically rejected - but it does mean that, if one’s scores are significantly lower, they will hopefully prove competence in some other manner (ie APs, IBs, college classes, etc). Overall, however, CC has a habit of putting way too much emphasis on minor score quibbles and not enough on the major parts of the application. My original response was mostly in reply to the “My stats place me at the back of the herd” comment.</p>
You know what I can’t believe, that Real Madrid just tied with Levante!!
ARGH, I’m so angry right now!!!. After spending 100+ million on player transfer, Madrid’s still playing like sh**!</p>
Okay, honestly? I have no clue what you meant. Just what you said. This is all true, and if you read my post, you’re basically agreeing with me here. However saying “your scores don’t matter after 700” sounds like it doesn’t matter if we can aim for an 800, why don’t we just get a 700 instead! You have to bubble in fewer answers. Less work for us all. Well, thanks for the clarification, I know that’s not what you intended. I don’t frequent CC, I don’t know the lingo. </p>
<p>There are two camps of people here as far as I can tell, the ones who go “OMG i got a 790 should i retake??” the ones who are like “scores don’t matter unless you FAIL.” Well, neither is correct. It’s a mix of the two. AKA “hollistic” system.</p>
<p>That “above 700 doesn’t matter” argument never made sense to me. Let’s see if I can explain it. If the point is just to decide if you are qualified pass/fail, there are obviously two answers. Yes or no. But if there are only two answers, then there must be an unofficial cutoff point, at least in each admissions officer’s mind. Here’s why.</p>
<p>If there weren’t a cut-off point, then each case would be evaluated on its own. For example “700, I guess that’s good enough. 690, I guess that’s good enough… 680, hmm…” Eventually you have to make a decision whether a certain score indicates that a student is academically qualified, or else you’d be evaluating each score on an individual basis. And if you’re evaluating each on an individual basis, then you’re not meeting your original goal of answering the yes/no “are they qualified” question. Compare this to someone who has a 780 or 790 - obviously not a whole lot of decision-making has to go in this, since most people would agree that these scores are above any arbitrary threshold. So a 790 does have an advantage over a 700, 690, or whatever bottom level you want to set.</p>
<p>Also, admissions officers are HUMAN. Of COURSE they’re going to be more impressed by the 2400 than the 2100, because it’s not like they can “unsee” the scores once they’ve determined “qualified.”</p>
<p>Or something like that. It made sense to me at least.</p>
<p>^Yeah, I agree. It’s not that I’m dismissing what Piper’s saying, as she obviously has a point and is trying to dispel the CC notion that scores are everything. But mathematically, there can’t possibly be a point where scores don’t matter, and then there not existing a cutoff. It’s contradictory. And obviously, there isn’t a cutoff, so…</p>
<p>NOT saying you should retake a 790. Or a 750. Or even a 700. It’s just that saying “above a certain score doesn’t matter at all” is a little bit extreme in the other direction.</p>
<p>You are evaluated on an individual basis. This is part of the holistic process. You guys focus way too much on taking one single number (or two numbers, I suppose), when that is but the tiniest part of an application. There are activities, essays, recommendations - heck, there are even other numbers.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are they? You’re getting this packet trying to express an entire human being. Their hopes, their dreams, their trials, their interests, their families. A 2400, frankly, isn’t interesting. No one ever claimed Admissions can “unsee” scores, but if they know the person is likely to be able to handle the rigorous academics at MIT, they’re going to focus on bringing someone who fits the Match in. If Admissions’ goal was to bring in the people who could do the best on a standardized test, I’d understand your point completely. But that is not what Admissions is trying to do.</p>
<p>To the op: your SATI’s are ok even for a school like MIT. The GPA is a lot less important than what classes you got B’s in. Obviously, B’s are more tolerated in humanities classes. Regardless, you should apply. </p>
<p>Also, applying as an econ or poli-sci major doesn’t increase your chances. MIT doesn’t try to fill out their majors like other schools do. We end up with plenty of econ majors anyhow-math people end up gravitating there anyway. And we don’t worry about having enough humanities majors. Our HASS requirements ensure that enough people will take the offered classes.</p>
<p>If your dad went to MIT, you’re probably a pretty smart guy. Go ahead and apply and take your shot at it.</p>