<p>But since in Canada, the class averages hover around 60’s-70’s (which corresponds to C’s- B’s), and the highest average in the typical Canadian high school would be between 92-94. </p>
<p>So if you’re a Canadian applying in the top decile of your school, then you’d probably be getting 80’s in school… doesn’t that look bad on an American application? I’m personally not sure if ranking in the decile will cut it. And if I try to convert my marks to a gpa, it looks quite low (since it’s as if everything has been bumped down a notch).</p>
<p>As for the application fee, I heard that it takes quite a lot money to run an admission office. I heard that a lot of Chinese applicants get fee waivers (because of the rate).</p>
<p>And this comes back to what I said earlier about context. A Cambridge A-level is a very different exam than a Hong Kong A-level, which in turn is quite different from a Nigerian A-level, but they all go into the same spot on the form for A-levels. But you see the thing is, because the admissions office gets lots of applicants from all of these regions, they know this too. The application is evaluated in context. Where the context is particularly unclear or unusual, it is the job of the EC to provide some context. This system works quite well (though it is not without its flaws).</p>
<p>I am an international EC. I have seen quite a few international students admitted over the years. The empirical evidence simply does not back this the claims made in this thread.</p>
<p>Yes an application with a 2400 on your SAT’s stronger than one with a 1700, yes absolutely. Does that automatically mean that someone with a 2400 will get in and someone with a 1700 will not? No, definitely not. Though if I had to wager which of the two was a more likely admit, then clearly the first one is a more likely candidate, all else being equal. But the thing of it is, all else is rarely equal. The admissions criteria for internationals is the same as for domestic applicants, though it is more competitive.</p>
<p>So going back to the OP’s statements. Is is worth applying even though you are not internationally or at least nationally recognized. Yes, absolutely, only a minute percentage of applicants have these qualities, and I can point to a very large number of admitted students over the years who definitely not met this categorisation.</p>
<p>ttyl8 says “you still kind of need a 95 whether you got it in Canada or the US.” Does a 95 look better than a 65. Yes. Do you “kind of need one”? NO, Definitely not.</p>
<p>Wouldn’t that admit rate actually be an undefined value? After all, what’s the denominator of that equation? If zero people applied, and zero people got in, then you’re dividing zero by zero, which is undefined.</p>
<p>Now, one could argue that the denominator would actually be all of the people in the world who didn’t apply. But that seems illogical, for an admit rate is defined to be the number of people who were admitted divided by the number of people who actually applied, not the number of people who theoretically could have applied or the population of the world, or any other population.</p>
<p>I concede to sakky’s superior logic. Please allow me to retract the statement and replace it with the more mathematically correct “MIT admits no students who do not apply.” Indeed, going back many, many years, the number of non-applying students who were admitted to MIT has remained stubbornly zero.</p>
<p>My thesis remains intact. If you want to go to MIT you have to apply. The cost of doing so is relatively modest, and if you cannot afford it, then no disadvantage attaches to those who need an application fee waiver (this is part of the whole need-blind thing). The obvious follow up to this is that if you need the application fee waiver, then by all means get one. I have met those who really need the waiver, but refrain from asking it in the mistaken belief that it might affect their application status in any way. Absolutely not true. GET THE WAIVER if you need it.</p>