<p>I know MIT is obscenely hard to get into, so that's why I'd like to know whether I should even bother applying. This is me as an applicant:</p>
<p>White Male
Public School
5/320 class rank
4.08/4.33 unweighted (having taken the hardest classes)
SAT reasoning (from a single test date) CR 700 Writing 720 Math 780 Comp 2200
SAT 2's Math2- 800 US history-770 (will take Chem+Physics in fall)
AP stats and Us history scores not yet received (and I'm taking four more APs next year)
ECs:
9-12 Math League (President)
9-12 Student council (officer)
10-12 MUN (I've won numerous awards and gone overseas)
11-12 NHS
11-12 Varsity Tennis
11-12 Scholars' Bowl
I also work, but that's not technically an EC
Awards:
MUN awards, RPI $60,000 scholarship, History awards, national Merit finalist (probably, because I scored in the 99th percentile)
Miscellaneous:
Did a summer course at Brown U. and also did Green Mt. Boy's State</p>
<p>Thank you for your time and help. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated</p>
<p>Overall: As good a shot as any? Depends how you present your ECs.
Maybe better if you go with RD and not EA. Nice rounded ECs
-athletics, humanities and math.</p>
<p>Highlights:
USH SAT II is a valuable score for MIT applicants IMO
though you have to explicitly put it in. Along with that
the MUN is cool.</p>
<p>MUN is especially valuable if you can couple it with other
lighter writing/communication experiences (MIT seems to definitely
value communication/writing experiences more than equivalent
Math experiences- for example a COMAP >> AIME from what I
have seen this year EA)</p>
<p>Varsity tennis is cool so is the student council position!</p>
<p>Negatives: SAT I Math needs to be repaired? CR is also
somewhat low. The magic number seems to be 1500 (CR+M)
Try to be above that for some peace of mind.</p>
<p>(?? on the RPI award- it means you have to matriculate at RPI
-take out the the $60K and try to list as "given to top
blah blah at my school")</p>
<p>Why isn't a job considered an extracurricular? Extracurricular=extra+curricular=outside of curriculum/academics. A job is outside of academics. And a lot of people list it as an extracurricular, unless the application asks if you've worked before.</p>
<p>Thank you MIT 12, I appreciate the advice. I'm a bit confused, though. My Math 1 score was a 780-meaning I got 1 question wrong. MIT's IQR is 720-800, so wouldn't I be above average? I agree, though, a 700 CR isn't great.</p>
<p>A 780 would be above average if the 50th percentile for MIT students is below 780. Even if that's not the case, the 780 is more than fine. Any admissions officer will also tell you that, when you receive 700+ for all three sections, your SAT score is already extremely competitive and not worth retaking AT ALL, especially if some of the three sections are high 700s or 800.</p>
<p>Incidentally, I think it takes more than one question wrong to get a 780. Otherwise, what's the point of having the 790 score exist? :p</p>
<p>And of course you should apply. You're well within MIT's ranges. Why WOULDN'T you? </p>
<p>Plenty of current students can chime in that they got in with worse stats than you. Chill.</p>
<p>For the record, your SAT IIs are better than mine, and I even tried Math II twice. SAT Math and I just aren't on great terms. And yet, I still managed to get in. Your stats are fine, you have great ECs, you just have to present who you are well through the application.</p>
<p>Actually, 1 wrong is usually a 780 (it can vary from year to year and sometines 1 wrong is only a 770). Those years no one gets a 790.</p>
<p>Do you think a 680 CR should be retaken if the other scores are high (M 780 WR 760)? He already retook once, and it actually went down. He could proably raise it past a 700 if he actually prepared for it, but I'm not sure it's worth the trouble. </p>
<p>Also, is a 760 ok for the Math Sat II? He was kind of surprised not to do better as he heard it is easier than the SAT I and he wants to retake. However, if this is above the "he can handle the work" threshhold, I think he will be beter served spending more time on his essays.</p>
<p>Any thoughts? All his other SAT II's are over 700 (710 USH, 740 Chem). He's got some interesting ECs - Microsoft high school intern this summer (very selective) and very active in drama, voice and math (including coaching his siter's math team) although he doesn't have any prestigeous prizes or awards. His grades aren't perfect, but he'll proabaly end up with a 3.8 (UW) with an extremely challenging coarse load and lots of advanced math).</p>
That really comes down to personal preference, though I would say yes, mostly because that's what I did. I had a 680 in CR, but 800s in both M and W, and I retook. I felt top colleges really do want to see everything at least in the 700s, and even though I knew a 680 is far from a dealbreaker, I felt raising the CR above 700 would at least more safely ensure SAT scores wouldn't be a concern at all in admissions.</p>
<p>@WAMOM2
If he wants to retake the critical reading portion, it might be worth checking out the ACT. The critical reading portion of the ACT does not include the vocabulary section embedded in the SAT. This would only be worthwhile if he knows that vocabulary is a weakness.</p>
<p>My son is a compulsive reader of all kinds of fiction, and he can devour a 500- page book in a day. So he was stunned to find that he also scored around 680 on the reading SAT. We had a conversation that went sort of like this:</p>
<p>Me: Well, look at this; according to the answer sheet, you missed quite a lot of vocabulary.
Son: OMG, I hate that section.
Me: How can you not know "epicure"?
Son: It does sound familiar...
Me: Or "noisome"!
Son: Noisy?
Me: No -- noisome, meaning putrid, smelly. Don't you read books with good vocabulary words?????
Son: Of course I do!!! (reaches for a book, opens to a random page) LOOK!
Me: Okay (scanning), here's a SAT word. What does "perfidious" mean?
Son: ------------ Well -------- Uh, usually when I don't know the meaning of the word I just sort of blip through it.
Me: blip?</p>
<p>Long story short, he took the ACT instead and scored extremely well. I do think that score reflects his ability to read analytically, which is what the test should measure.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Uh, usually when I don't know the meaning of the word I just sort of blip through it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oooh, I used to do that. Now I'm the opposite - I compulsively look up words I don't know, and if I can't do it then I write it down for later =D. (I also used to do that with character names - like Trelawney from Harry Potter. My brain would just process her name as "long-word-that-starts-with-T".)</p>
<p>I agree with all those saying you've "got a good as shot as any." Just emphasize the things that are unique/interesting about you in your essays/application. Best of luck!</p>
<p>"Long story short, he took the ACT instead and scored extremely well. I do think that score reflects his ability to read analytically, which is what the test should measure"</p>
<p>I disagree. I would say that people who are strong in english tend to have large vocabularies. I don't see anything wrong with testing that. The SAT math is already far too easy. They shouldn't make the verbal section easy too.</p>
<p>"people who are strong in English tend to have good vocabularies."
I agree! But sometimes very gifted individuals develop those great vocabularies later in life, particularly if they are the sort of people who can't be bothered to look up an unfamiliar word when they encounter it in a text. From my perspective, the more kinds of measurements of strength, the better.</p>
<p>Biographers have reported Richard Feynman's IQ as below 130, and I've always wondered, given his performance on the Putnam in college, whether that was due to the vocabulary section in the IQ test. Given that score, he would not have qualified for the gifted program in the local school district here, but no one now doubts his brilliance. Since the IQ verbal score correlates well with the SAT critical reading score, I've always been curious about his SAT scores. But perhaps he took a different test. :-)</p>
<p>Well, notwithstanding the fact that Feynman wrote some interesting books, it's possible that he wasn't strong in english. I get the feeling from his books that he thought humanities were total BS, and that "masters" in this area were something like the Emperor with no clothes. In fact, he used to mock professors in the humanities dept when he was a professor at Cornell. It was only later in life after taking up painting that he came to the realization that there is something, genuine talent, that separates someone who is good at the arts and someone who is not. </p>
<p>I agree that it's good that there is a test like the ACT with a different emphasis. However, when I hear people say that there is no point to having a good vocabulary and that it doesn't reflect anything more than knowing word definitions (not you, but others have said this,) it reminds me of people who bemoan math contests because they emphasize "math tricks." It may be true to a certain extent. However, people who are wordsmiths and are truly conscious of the subtleties that go along with choosing one word or phrase over another based on the web of connotations to which it is connected tend to do well on the vocabulary and analogy part. I would think they would do better on this than the writing part, which is all about writing in a simple, unsophisticated manner.</p>