<p>Well i heard MIT doesnt care about scores in writing. However I am lacking it it.. this may throw me out of the pool. For instance here is my scores from 2 test times
test 1
CR - 560
Math - 780
Writing - 600
test 2
CR - 630
Math - 760
Writing - 690
So combined 1390 but if taken the highest then 1410. This is low.
Combined 2100 but 2080 if taken from just the 1.
However I took the oct. test. My surmise is that I got at max 10 wrong on CR and 7 at least. This is about the 670-700 range. I am worrying if this is too low
Math probably willb e 780. Wrting may be higher (-4 at least and -7 at most with 10 or 11 on essay).
I am just worrying a 2150-2200 may not be considered... or will it? If I get this then my CR + math = 1460. Is this even average or lower than average for an average MIT applicant?
Everything else is fine. I polished my essay and its basically perfect. I have OK EC's (2 out of school. 3 in school) and filled all awards and all volunteering things. I have a perfect GPA 4.0 UW and am tied for rank 1 (so rank 2.) in my school. Can I put valedictorain even though my school doesn't say it? ( they go by summa cumlade etc.).
Can someone answer my questions? thanks.</p>
<p>What's your question regarding SAT scores? Whether you will be considered? Of course you will be considered as long as you paid your application fee and your scores aren't horrendous (your scores aren't outstanding, but they're not horrendous). I don't see what difference it makes whether you think your scores are good enough. Are you going to withdraw your application if you think you won't be considered? I don't think so. I would just say, do your best on your applications, and apply to several schools of various rankings, all of which you would be happy to attend, and don't worry so much. Be realistic and have backup schools. There are many great universities that aren't MIT where I'm sure you will thrive in. (I know, not worrying about these things when you are applying is MUCH easier said than done. I can sympathize, because I've applied to schools twice in the last decade and spazzed out a lot, hehe)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Well i heard MIT doesnt care about scores in writing.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why, 'cause MIT is a nerd-only techie school where nobody cares about communication skills? That's so last millenium. Modern-day MIT wants well-rounded undergrads just as much as other top-ranked colleges, so it is a myth that MIT only cares about math/science skillz.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Can I put valedictorain even though my school doesn't say it? ( they go by summa cumlade etc.).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Perhaps just mention your rank and summa cum laude, etc, because the admissions officers obviously know that rank 1 is equivalent to valedectorian.</p>
<p>Best of luck.</p>
<p>Actually, to clarify, I think we're referring to the fact that last year, admissions specifically did not consider the SAT Writing scores of applicants because the test is brand new, so to put it bluntly, there was no way of telling if it sucked or not. (ie does it actually help predict if students have college-level writing skills, or whatever it is the SAT is supposed to measure anyway). I assume the same policy still holds, since the first year of students to take the new test haven't had time to prove themselves and create the second set of data points necessary for analysis. I imagine this will continue to be true for several more years.</p>
<p>If I sound like a pretentious jerk/idiot, that's because it's almost 4 AM and I've spent the last several hours coding in MATLAB. Apologies. =)</p>
<p>Ah, that makes sense. No, you don't sound pretentious at all :) You have a good point about the SAT writing section being brand-new. The last SAT I took was in May 2000, I think, so I'm way out of the loop! Best of luck!</p>
<p>Honestly, test scores are not the only factor considered in admissions (and they're probably a lot less important than everybody thinks they are).</p>
<p>My fiance got in with a 1400 (690V, 710M). And before anybody makes a snarky comment, he's a white middle-class male from Massachusetts.</p>
<p>Dang thats great. But I have such a large disparity between my math and CR.</p>
<p>The more you people keep obsessing about SATs the more you expose yourselves as cluelessly wrong about what is important in life. </p>
<p>The world is simply FULL of people who got 700 or more on an SAT. The only ones who think it means anything are probably still living in their parents' basement, trying to figure out why the world isn't kissing their feet. </p>
<p>Get a LIFE people--SAT scores do not reveal heart, or learning ability, or creativity. It measures a certain type of intelligence which is unfortunately not correlated with people skills.</p>
<p>Wow, someone did bad on their SAT!</p>
<p>Just kidding, haha</p>
<p>While I can understand Mombot's frustrations with students excessively obsessing over SAT scores in these forums, let me provide an alternative interpretation of standardized test scores that's been in the back of my mind for the past couple of years. I'd love to know whether others share my opinions or dissent against them :)</p>
<p>To me, standardized tests mainly measure one thing: how well you have prepared for the material on the test and learned about the format, test-taking strategies, etc. Okay, many people tend to trivialize those skills, thinking, "oh well, but it doesn't really measure aptitude or intelligence or people skills or creativity or initiative, etc.", but I feel that what it does measure is important --- it measures how willing you are to 'eat your peas and brussel sprouts' and do something that isn't glamourous or enriching (studying for endless hours for mindless tests), simply because you need to do so to progress to the next step in your life (yes, SAT scores aren't everything in admissions, but given two equally-qualified candidates, I'd pick the one with the higher SAT scores).</p>
<p>Why is this 'eating your peas and brussel sprouts' skill important (in my opinion)? Because in the real world, unless you are the boss of yourself and of everyone around you, you WILL NEED to suck in your pride and do mundane, trite, boring, vapid, banal, etc. work, to jump through hoops, in order to do your job well and to situate yourself for advancement. It is idealistic to believe that the only things that matter for your life are personal passion, creativity, heart, ability/willingness to learn, interpersonal skills, independence, and all the other traits that modern Western culture values so dearly ... why? ... because you aren't the boss most of the time.</p>
<p>People who didn't study for their SATs and did marginally well are so proud of their accomplishments (they are the most proud people I've encountered with respect to SATs), because they felt like they did it on natural talent alone without having to resort to being a studying drone. On the other hand, people who did study a lot and did really well are made to feel ashamed and marginalized because of their high scores; they often don't want to share their accomplishments for fear that their friends will think that they are 'tools', 'mindless drones', or 'no-life nerds', etc. I find these trends disturbing, from the students that I've spoken to over the past few years.</p>
<p>SATs are one instance of simply having to buckle down and study for something that might be boring, difficult, annoying, etc., but a high score shows that a student has put forth that effort when he/she could be doing much more fun things (like eating gummi bears while skateboarding down the hill and posting the videos on youtube). I think that this show of effort is more important in the real world than most people realize. For example, if you are a manager, would you want your employees to always demand to do exactly what they want and never do things for the greater good of the team? If you give your employee an assignment, do you want him/her to not 'study up' on anything and simply wing-it on 'natural talent' alone and do a decent job, or do you want him/her to be diligent, eat the peas, and study the problem carefully, think a lot, and then create a better solution?</p>
<p>My advice to people who obsess over SAT scores: Just suck it up, eat your peas and brussel sprouts, and study for those tests and do the best you can, but at the same time, keep living your life and doing things you enjoy so that other people can't marginalize you as a nerd who only studies for SATs. If you do really freaking well on your SATs, you should be proud that your hard work and efforts paid off, and that's it. It should NOT be your claim to fame. There are many more people in the world like you :) But congrats, you've eaten your peas and swallowed.</p>
<p>My advice to people who are annoyed at people who obsess over SAT scores: Having high test scores and having good inter-personal skills, heart, charisma, etc. are NOT mutually-exclusive. It's not like you can't have both :) Please don't make people feel bad for putting effort into something for months and getting good results (e.g., in this culture, sports are considered much more sacred and more immune to criticism than academics ... for instance, if your child practiced basketball day and night and got really good and won all these games, you would feel deeply insulted if other people said that your child wasted his efforts because basketball skills aren't all that's important in life, etc. etc. etc.)</p>
<p>So, I will end my rambling now before I get way off-track. Back to MIT. People with decently good SAT scores get into MIT, people with great SAT scores get into MIT, people with decently good SAT scores don't get into MIT, people with great SAT scores don't get into MIT. SAT scores are one of the many facets of one's application, but they should not be trivialized because they demonstrate one's willingness to 'eat your peas and brussel sprouts', which is an important skill that a teenager should definitely learn. Adults don't get to have their way all the time :0</p>
<p>gyros, don't be so worried. I know a guy with scores worse than mollie's fiance that got into MIT and is currently doing very well there. btw, according to what you've written, i guess you're doing great at high school. You'll surely be put in the competitive range. Is that correct, mollieb?
@pgbovine: please post this on the SAT Prep/College Admission/Parents forum. I did think a lot about your article. It gives a new idea about the SATs, esp. for those who're cursing the CB.</p>
<p>Ya I have a 4.0 and I took the maximum honors/aps classes (like 10 honors and 6 aps) .. and how do they know to look at schools in context? jus twondering. ya tahnks for that article pg. >.></p>
<p>They know to look at schools in context because your guidance counselor sends (or should send) them a detailed report about what levels of what classes were offered at your high school, as well as hopefully detailed information about you as a student.</p>
<p>Also, if there's anything you think MIT should know that your guidance counselor might not have written down and/or stressed enough, there are two sections on the application to write about that: the "grading information" section after self-reported coursework, and the "anything else?" (#14) at the very end of the app.</p>
<p>Personally, I used #14 to talk about why I'm taking a computer science course at the local specialized arts and technology high school instead of my school's AP course.</p>
<p>My counselor did not (at least she said she didn't do much with that). So I put in optional essay 2 something about that I took the max. ap's and honor's classes.
Oh and I am not stressing about scores anymore. I am finally feeling good and confident. A change from before that is quite welcoming :).</p>
<p><a href="http://web.mit.edu/ir/cds/2006/c.html%5B/url%5D">http://web.mit.edu/ir/cds/2006/c.html</a>
Well this is for RD. I cant find the EA one....
anyhow what is the difference between
geographical residency
and state residency
its in the website... i am just wondering whats the difference.</p>