<p>It doesn't haha, SAT scores mean squat once you become a freshman ;P</p>
<p>hey ivyaccepted....</p>
<p>use ur real account.....</p>
<p>bob99975,
[quote]
i highly doubt students with 1800 SATs can handle MIT core courses, especially math and science, barring some kind of extreme personal circumstance
[/quote]
Disagree. I'm quite sure that there ARE a nontrivial number of 1800 scorers out there who could handle MIT-level courses/core (and who would probably be able to score 2100+ if they tried hard enough).</p>
<p>Nevertheless, I support the use of SAT scores because the fraction of 1800 scorers which are up to MIT's level is definitely much lower than the fraction of 2100 scorers. This would be the case for (almost) any academic test, but the SAT provides a substantial advantage over GPA/grades - it's standardized. If adcoms feel you need correct SAT for race or whatever, fine. They can. GPA cannot be corrected for anything.</p>
<p>Yeah, but studies have shown that high school GPA is a much better indicator of college performance than SATs. I think.</p>
<p>Besides, it makes sense. We'd all like to think that MIT courses can only be passed by people substantially smarter than average, but a lot of it is how hard you work and how WELL you work, and consequently how well you learn.</p>
<p>Along those lines...</p>
<p>[url=<a href="http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=90377FAE-E7F2-99DF-3A1204FC5F2BF0F7&ref=nature%5DThis%5B/url">http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=90377FAE-E7F2-99DF-3A1204FC5F2BF0F7&ref=nature]This[/url</a>] Scientific American article was linked from the news briefs at Nature this week.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The measure for academic success for decades has been a person's intelligence quotient, or IQ. But new research published in the journal Child Development says that a thought process called "executive functioning," which governs the ability to reason and mentally focus, also plays a critical role in learning, especially when it comes to math skills...</p>
<p>In this study 141 healthy children between the ages of three and five years took a battery of psychological tests that measured their IQs and executive functioning. Researchers found that a child whose IQ and executive functioning were both above average was three times more likely to succeed in math than a kid who simply had a high IQ.</p>
<p>"[The fact] that executive function, even in children this young, is significantly related to early math performance suggests that if we can improve executive function, we can improve their academic performance," says Adele Diamond, professor of developmental cognitive neuroscience at the University of British Columbia.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>In the interest of full disclosure, I couldn't wade through the jargon in the [url=<a href="http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01019.x%5Dthe">http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01019.x]the</a> original paper<a href="%5Burl=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&itool=toolbar%5DPubMed%5B/url%5D%20ID%2017381795">/url</a>. Go forth and wade, if it strikes your fancy.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Other majors may have ways to get them by taking easy classes. Is that not at all true for any major at Caltech?
[/quote]
Everyone regardless of major still has to take a fairly large amount of science and math classes, the heart of which is five terms of math (proof-based calculus, linear algebra, vector calculus, differential equations, statistics) and five terms of physics (classical mechanics, special relativity + E --> M, statistical physics, waves, quantum mechanics.) Basically, even someone just majoring in literature can go into a scientific field after graduating even just taking the bare minimum requirements for their major. That said, there are still different difficulty levels of majors - geology is considered one of the easiest and chemical engineering is considered one of the hardest - but difficulty levels for the first two years (while on core) are pretty consistent between majors.</p>
<p>College admissions isn't perfect. The problem doesn't have much to do with MIT specifically. Admissions officers everywhere do what they can with the information presented on the application. They will never have the opportunity to go to school with the kids they admit/reject, so they will never know them as you do. Maybe that is a good thing in your case.</p>
<p>
OK, normally I'm usually good at catching sarcasm but now I'm just confused. Please tell me you're kidding. You think that leadership skills are irrelevant, but if we must consider them, we should do so via popularity contests among high school students?</p>
<p>
I really don't think I'll ever understand why some people are so convinced that colleges go out of their way to make applicant's lives miserable. For one thing, unless you are a mind reader, your use of the word "deliberate" is completely unfounded. Also, the "match criteria" are written all over MIT's website- there's a page for it specifically, and we blog about that kind of thing all the time. I think just being yourself is a whole lot less stressful than freaking out about standardized tests, but to each his own. (As for the SATs, I'd gladly abolish them completey if I had the power. Just saying.)</p>
<p>
Well said.</p>
<p>Look... I could care less about "leadership" so I would really rather not get in a discussion about the valid ways of measuring it and how much it should matter. One thing I hate is that leadership is often measured by how many pointless clubs and activities you found and make yourself the president. I've seen that work for the ivies. Anyway, it's not really the heart of what I'm trying to say. </p>
<p>MIT and CalTech were the only elite colleges where being the best student in the traditional sense, being the smartest and most motivated, was by far the most important characteristic in admissions success. I think there should be one or two elite colleges that "geniuses" can get in even if they are not quite top 50 in Putnam.</p>
<p>I don't know that it has definitely changed at MIT, but I don't like the current rhetoric coming out of the admissions department at MIT--they are sounding a lot like Harvard.</p>
<p>I think it's the prerogative of MIT admissions to decide what students fit best and not yours, to put it simply.</p>
<p>But you have to be able to distinguish between someone who gets the grades and scores because he/she is a genius and the one who gets them because he/she is a grade-grubbing robot. I mean, you can survive MIT without an 800 on the SAT I in math; you can't survive MIT without creativity, resilience, and a little patience.</p>
<p>Just thought I'd point a couple things out.
Taking all the hardest classes doesn't necessarily mean everything.
Person A loaded up on AP classes. They wanted to get into college, but didn't actually care about most of those subjects.
Person B only took the AP classes that looked interesting/were passionate about, and took other, non-AP and non-honors classes that looked interesting.</p>
<p>Should this be a competition over the number of APs they took, or the fact that person B is in these classes because they really care? It can be hard to decide, because there's always person C who took all APs because they really cared.</p>
<p>Also, many of you are saying that sports aren't important, and I agree that somebody should not be let in because of their athletic ability. However, should sports not be given equal weighting as a musical instrument? They are also highly intellectual. I probably would not be the student I am today if it weren't for my sports. They have taught me extreme concentration, taught me how to ignore distractions, taught me to work fast and efficiently, taught me how to control my body and how to take coaching and apply it immediately, and many other things. Every day I have to watch my teammates pole vault or jump (and back in the day I watched them flip or go around on bars) and be able to tell them exactly what they are doing wrong (or one thing that they are doing wrong). We don't have a coach, so I have to create drills to fix these problems. Not to mention, it's something I've devoted so much time to because I am passionate about it. It shows how hard I'm willing to work to achieve my goals and to succeed in something I love. And despite all this time I devoted to track and gymnastics, I still managed to get exceptional grades.</p>
<p>I don't know how this doesn't show just as much intellecual involvement and capacity as mastering violin, so if you believe that musical talent should be included in admissions, please don't forget sports. (I do believe that musical talent is certainly as important and takes just as much intellect as sports, no worries.)</p>
<p>Also, don't forget about the essays. Essays play a big role in admissions, and perhaps these "geniuses" you know had really boring, really uninventive essays. Now this can be worrying for an admissions officer. Is this person just going to sit around and be smart, but not be able to apply it because they aren't very creative? Or perhaps they were worried, based on their essay, that this person would not thrive in their collaborative atmosphere (or MIT's atmosphere in general). It is also the admissions committee's job to keep their students happy (and therefore thriving), not only to admit the most academically qualified students. I'm aware that there are students who are just bad at writing and this probably harmed their application, and I truly feel sorry for these students. But essays are important because they have no other good way of judging who you are.</p>
<p>Oh and regarding SATs.
My brother is a sophomore, and recently took the PSATs. His scores roughly translated to 760 math, 450 critical reading. I don't know his writing score.
Now, looking at his reading score, you may wonder how this kid is getting almost straight A's in school (including his english class).
Because he's just a really really really slow reader. He's slow at processing written and verbal information (though not when it's spoken or written in math =P) It's a diagnosed learning disability, and given an extra half hour on the SATs, he could probably score in the high 600s or 700s for critical reading. Does this mean that he is not smart? Obviously he works hard enough at home to overcome this in school. He doesn't have a 504 because he is a high achiever. My school doesn't believe that smart kids can possibly have a learning disability, so no help there (he doesn't really care, he just wants extra time on the SATs which is almost impossible to get without this).
So in his case, his reading score isn't at all representative of his intellect.
Now I'll say right off that MIT would not be the place for him. However, will his reading SAT keep him out of other universities that would be a much better fit for him? Perhaps. Is this fair? Probably not.
Luckily, he's a very good writer and a very interesting kid. Hopefully his grades and his essays will balance out this very low SAT score, as will an explanation.</p>
<p>Just saying, SATs aren't perfect.</p>
<p>trying to hierarchize the "legitimacy" of different activities is, as figgies notes, inherently absurd. but, that doesn't mean distinctions can't be made. when IMO gold medalists get rejected from a place like harvard, you know something's seriously wrong with the admissions process there. analogously, if some random kid who hasn't accomplished anything of significance over his/her high school years gets into a prestigious institution, it is not unfair to say that something went awry. of course, there are always gray areas, and that's why the admissions process exists.</p>
<p>but, all this is secondary to the larger point that it may not even be the project of mit (or any other elite institution) to assemble the most talented class possible. maybe they really are shooting for some other je ne sais quoi. to be honest, i don't see how admitting underachieving candidates would make the student body "happy", as figgies suggests might be the case, or why awarding certain applicants for their good luck in the lottery of birth (race, gender, whatever) would somehow make the environment more "collaborative" or conducive to "creativity." whatever the elite institutions' motivations may be, the important thing is that they need to be transparent about them, because their public image certainly does not conjure visions of just plain old folks loafing and living the good life in cambridge. to act in a way radically contrary to their reputations as institutions of the highest caliber is nothing short of deceptive.</p>
<p>i don't know anything about to what extent this is a problem at mit since it seems like those who i expected to get in got in, but i've seen how absurd admissions can be at harvard.</p>
<p>I'm certainly not saying that an underachieving candidate should be let in to make the student body more happy, but that a one high achieving candidate may be let in other another, perhaps "higher achieving" candidate because they will add more to the class in terms of personality/ make the students more happy. If the students aren't happy, they won't thrive.
Also, I'm not saying that that race/gender/whatever else brings more in terms of a collaborative environment. I'm saying that an admissions officer may be able to tell who would by their essays.</p>
<p>Also, read this.<a href="http://www.mitadmissions.org/topics/misc/miscellaneous/brain_dump_1.shtml%5B/url%5D">http://www.mitadmissions.org/topics/misc/miscellaneous/brain_dump_1.shtml</a>
scroll down to "Affirmative Action."
It's very well worded, and I think should help people understand why.</p>
<p>"I think it's the prerogative of MIT admissions to decide what students fit best and not yours, to put it simply."</p>
<p>I am an alum and am therefore part of the MIT community. I have a right to criticize it.</p>
<h2>But you have to be able to distinguish between someone who gets the grades and scores because he/she is a genius and the one who gets them because he/she is a grade-grubbing robot. I mean, you can survive MIT without an 800 on the SAT I in math; you can't survive MIT without creativity, resilience, and a little patience.</h2>
<p>I agree, although I think it shows discipline to always show up and perform in <em>every</em> class even if you don't happen to like that class. Even in one's major, there are things which are boring and monotonous but must be mastered.</p>
<p>The issue of selecting for "passion" needs to be done carefully. I had passion, although I thought that would come through the teacher's recs (which it did for MIT and CalTech.) I just don't want the students to have to <em>say</em> "I have passion" on an application. I was uncomfortable bragging about myself or appearing to have a flamboyant personality and I think many high performers in math and science (especially at age 18) are often deficient in that area. I mean if I have an "A+" in a class and another guy has an "A-" and he <em>says</em> he has passion and is going to change the world, should that guy get in over me? I personally felt it was inappropriate to say something like, "I want to be the next Einstein." Look at the teacher recs to decide who has passion. </p>
<p>I just think there are too many talented people who aren't grade-grubbers to be tolerant of a "B" in math or science or more than two or three "B's" overall in MIT admissions. A caveat to this is if the person does something extraordinary like qualifies for USAMO or is an INTEL finalist or something; if they show they are really significantly smarter than the guys with perfect everything, then by all means take them. Also, if you have two guys from the same high school and the teacher recs say the guy with a couple of B's is really at a significantly higher intellectual level overall than the guy with perfect grades/scores then I would consider favoring the guy with a couple of "B's". It's just that with the top ivies the guy with the best recs and the perfect record in terms of grades, test scores, and competitions; may still not be favored over someone less impressive in all of these areas. I don't want to see this happen at MIT.</p>
<p>Scores mean squat. End of story. With all the prep that's out there, scores are not a great indicator. You really don't know what smart is until you see MIT (or CalTech,CMU,etc...) push someone to the limit. As long as your scores are in the range, you're fine. I've seen a lot of these "amazing" 5x800 kids crash and burn here.</p>
<p>MIT looks for passion because you cannot lack passion and survive here. If you do things just to get them done, MIT will bury you. You need to have a certain degree of personal pride to do well here.</p>
<p>And also, people REALLY underestimate athletics. I can't speak for URM's, or females, or other people that are complained about on here, but I can vouch for athletes. My athletic background has been CRUCIAL to me doing well here. I can't tell you how many times I've been buried by work, and I just sit back to myself and recall all the days in HS where I'd get up at 5 AM to lift and run, go to school, and then have practice. Or triple sessions in 100 degree heat in August. Or the "first aid station" (a garbage bucket in the middle of the track). Regardless, athletics can push your physical and mental toughness in a way that nothing else can. Even physical toughness can be important here. Your body really starts to wear after a couple all nighters.</p>
<p>Sorry for the rant. But really, just because your friend, who is "the smartest guy you know," didn't get into MIT and someone who had SATs that were lower did, doesn't mean that MIT admissions is crazy.</p>
<p>This thread has become a complete joke. Threads like this show up every year, in some form or another.</p>
<p>Listen people, just the play the game. You know as well as I do that things like "passion" aren't exactly common among teenagers (Jones said something to this effect herself). Make yourself look good on paper, and then forget about it. </p>
<p>Obviously, MIT will still be MIT 4 years from now, and they will still be known as the math/science powerhouse of the U.S. No matter what YOU think, this will not change.</p>
<p>I know it's cliche, but I have to say it once more: Life isn't fair. It wasn't meant to be fair, and it will never be. MIT doesnt accept every single 2400 4.0 ISEF applicant... who cares? Move on with your life.</p>
<p>So, has MIT actually compiled statistics of average GPA among its regular students, as compared to URMs? </p>
<p>The problem is a lack of reliable controls. Now, I think we can effectively accept that the average URM's SAT scores and HS GPA are lower than those of the average white/Asian applicant. The problem is that SAT scores and HS GPA are not very good controls for college GPA, especially considering that most students who are MIT-calibre already have such high GPAs/SATs such that people who get lower GPAs/SATs than others often have lower GPA/SAT scores due to factors unrelated to academic capability (perhaps the person made stupid mistakes on the SAT I Math, or the person doesn't want to study for more hours on his homework at diminishing marginal utility per hour when he could be doing something far more useful instead). As a result, it's virtually impossible for us to objectively compare URMs with white/Asian applicants.</p>
<p>Moreover, recommendations and essays are flawed in their own ways. Essays can be modified by parents/peers/teachers, and recommendations always reflect on the teachers personality - not all teachers are equal in their ability to write good recs. While URMs may be given the benefit of the doubt with respect to essays (since it's often assumed, even unconsciously, that they don't have as many opportunities for proof-reading essays as do other students), we really don't know if that is such the case.</p>
<p>Of course, MIT is changing its focus. It's no longer exclusively geared towards math/science. As a result, it's trying to look for criteria beyond math/science. It's already hard enough to distinguish people's capability in math/science, given that GPAs and SAT scores are already high.</p>
<p>In any case, a good question to ask is - why favor URM diversity in favor of some other form of diversity - say regional? Perhaps affirmative action can be described as some sort of experiment (as Sandra Day O'Conner said with respect to AA in the workplace). But then the "experiment" continues - often for differently cited reasons.</p>
<p>One interesting change, after all, is MIT OCW. Now, out of the pool of qualified rejects who would have otherwise been accepted were AA not around, how many of them would actually take the initiative to study OCW materials? Not many. Perhaps more would do so if self-study in courses was more valued than it had been in the past. Personally, I went to an early entrance program at state instead of gunning for a top institution, and I'm glad I did, because I still can learn as much as I want to - just by means of self-studying (though I do skip my courses so that I can self-study more).</p>
<p>Nonetheless, it's my belief that the Internet will help level out informational asymmetry between institutions - in that a truly self-motivated learner really can learn a lot of the course material of top universities by himself by checking out textbooks from university libraries (or downloading them off BitTorrent), going to university webpages for solutions and notes, and posting questions on online forums like artofproblemsolving.com. Not going to "institution X" doesn't have the academic penalty that it used to have, thanks to the impact of the Internet on informational asymmetry.</p>