I have read on several blog posts on mit admissions website that they look for the ‘match’ and not the test scores. Does it mean that a student with low test scores but great demonstrated interest in science and engineering can get in?
In some rare cases, that may be possible. But the bulk of these comments are trying to say that MIT (or other highly selective colleges) will want to see great demonstrated interest/talent in addition to strong test scores. They are not just looking for perfect SATs, but your scores need to be within a reasonable range for their class. They publish that range in the form of the middle 50% (25%ile to 75%ile range). Depending how far below the 25%ile your scores are, the more impressive your “other factors” need to be.
Yes, it’s still possible. See admissions data http://mitadmissions.org/apply/process/stats
One thing they don’t list is % admit based on subject test scores. Curious about students with high SAT but lower subject test scores.
Yes, but it depends on the context. MIT is an evidence-based institution (as you would expect). So one question that the admissions officers are trying to answer firstly is “Will this student be able to do the work that MIT expects and be able to prosper and thrive at MIT.” If the answer to that question is no, then nothing else can save an application.
However, test scores (or grades) are only part of that picture. If for example a teacher writes in a Letter of Recommendation: “Bob could have done much better in his classes than he actually did. However, we struggled to get him out of the research lab to pay attention to his classes. He graduated with a B average without really trying, but he did get two patents and a solo article in Nature.” Yeah, in that case, the B average is probably not an application killer. It all depends on what evidence that you can give MIT that gives them comfort in ignoring a data point.
I think it’s also important to understand two other things. One is that for international students, things get more competitive. For example, there are 21 undergraduates from India, which means they enroll on average five per year. It’s not enough to be a “pretty good match” - one needs to be an exceptionally good match, especially one one considers the relative sizes of the pool of high school graduates.
The other is that students with a strong interest tend to demonstrate it, and this shows up in grades and to a lesser extent, test scores. There are students who simply say “but I am passionate!” and there are students who show this passion through their performance and activities. MIT looks for a “match”, and there are certainly elements of this that aren’t correlated with traditional metrics. But there are also elements that do. Put another way, if they weren’t going to consider grades and test scores, they wouldn’t ask for them.
That said, the only way to ensure you won’t get in is not to apply.
I think the message is that academics are a necessary but not sufficient criteria for admission. You need to demonstrate that you can do the work, because MIT is hard. If the admissions committee does not think that you can do the work, then you simply will not be admitted. That being said, MIT is a very self-selective institution. Some other schools (such as Harvard) get a large pool of applicants who do not qualify academically but who apply on the “what the heck” approach, to a school they know they haven’t really got a shot at. MIT’s pool is very much more self selective. A large majority applicants are academically qualified, which means that the admissions committee evaluates the match criteria to make the admissions decision. And this is where many students get it wrong. They think that the way to distinguish themselves is to be marginally better academically qualified. For example, they think that having a 780 on their math SAT is way better than having a 760 on their math SAT. And it really isn’t. That is not the thing that will get you into MIT.
Indeed, MIT is an evidenced based institution. They attempted to correlate SAT scores against future success as an MIT undergraduate. And it turns out that for scores up to about 700, there is a pretty strong correlation. However, that correlation becomes weaker and weaker as you rise above that level, and there really isn’t much of a difference between a 760, a 780 or an 800. They all tell MIT “You can do SAT math pretty well”. And there is independent evidence of that. This is true of everything that MIT looks at. It send a music portfolio to the Music department to evaluate, because a Music professor saying “This applicant is really good” is much stronger than an applicant claiming that they are really good. An athletics coach saying “this applicant is someone I want” is much stronger than the applicant claiming that they are good at sport.
You need to be able to demonstrate aptitude and ability for academic study (because MIT is a university, that’s pretty important). “Great demonstrated interest” as the OP put it, is not likely to be sufficient. That being said, HOW that aptitude is demonstrated is largely irrelevant. A strong SAT showing is usually reasonable evidence, but if you do get a 600 on your SAT but have other independently validated evidence of aptitude then that might well be okay.
I wonder if this would hold especially true for applicants that might be going for less "STEM"y majors such as CMS.
“great demonstrated interest in science”. I think people are getting all confused about the words like passion and interest. Must students at MIT have pursued things with gusto. They’ve gone after experiences that are in their area of interest. They didn’t do that because they wanted to “show interest” but because they have genuine interest and they therefore find every opportunity to be involved in things related to their interests. But it isn’t the “great demonstrated interest” or “passion” that gets them accepted to schools like MIT. It is the great demonstrated aptitude paired with the inclination to achieve in that area.
And the “demonstrated” is dangerous. Anything that you do specifically and primarily because you want to send a signal to university admissions offices is inherently less valuable than something you did primarily because you thought it was cool. And admissions officers at MIT usually can tell the difference.
Here you can see what the ranges of test scores and all the other stats are for last year’s admittees.
http://web.mit.edu/ir/cds/2014/index.html