<p>^ Oh, good one. :)</p>
<p>A 2250 can be broken down in several ways. Chris has posted previously that they don’t consider writing scores much because they don’t show a strong correlation with success at MIT. So if you have a 2250 and your breakdown is 1600/650W, you’re on the same level, SAT-wise, as anyone with a 2400 - no matter the ‘final consideration’, as you put it silverturtle. However, a 650 in math with a 1600 on the other two would likely knock your chances down quite a bit, and a 650 on CR with a 1600 is generally more acceptable. A 750 on all 3 is likely your best optionif you have a 2250 - same level as a 2400, I believe.
Silverturtle - I think that the admissions officers’ data is more than adequate. 98% of students graduate, I believe, so I think they consider GPA. Logically speaking, MIT’s way of doing things makes most sense. I can’t see how a 50 point difference in CR or math would define your success at MIT. It’s not even the same skill set. Once you reach a certain range, it means you’re qualified enough. I agree with you to an extent - a 1400 and 1600 (bar writing) are not the same thing, but for all intents and purposes, in college and later in life, it won’t matter all that much.
And if I had to guess, I’d say that they measured GPA, but not specific GPA, rather, a range. For example, those with 2250-2400 all got above a 3.5 GPA freshman year (random number).</p>
<p>^With the 3.5 GPA = success, in their eyes.
[My edit button is messed up right now, sorry for double posting.]</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do you understand my concern over the validity of their analysis?</p>
<p>^Lol 9000 posts for silverturtle :)</p>
<p>Sure a 2250er could probably survive at MIT just as well as a 2400er could. But on average, I would say the 2400er has more ability or potential. So in terms of merit, it isn’t a fair policy imo.</p>
<p>By the way, is the threshold really 2250? Is that official?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Now it’s over 9000. :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I believe that 750 on a given section is the unofficial threshold. At least Chris has indicated that.</p>
<p>What I’ve seen Chris say is once you’re above 700, there isn’t a big difference in admit rate. 2250 isn’t really any threshold, let alone an official one.</p>
<p>@molliebatmit or Chris, so basically, how qualified your classmates are has no effect on your own admissions outcome?</p>
<p>Ok 700 seems really low. I seriously doubt a 2100 would be able to succeed and do well at MIT…unless they were just really really really horrible test takers :P</p>
<p>Oh well, I’m a girl, so at least I can still use that advantage ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There are definitely many people who score 2100 but succeed at MIT.</p>
<p>^Well true, but there is quite a difference between a 2100 and a 2400.</p>
<p>^ Well, I certainly agree that we can’t attribute a 300-point difference to mere misbubbling or differences in preparation exposure except in a rare minority of cases. But I would not say that a 2100 indicates in any way that that person will not succeed at MIT (or that the person can).</p>
<p>Lol kk. It’s ambiguous.</p>
<p>However, generally from what I’ve seen, a 2100 is considered to be pretty low to be competitive for top schools if you’re an unhooked applicant. Granted I didn’t really go through the entire MIT results thread…it was kind of depressing :/</p>
<p>Edit: Btw, how do you quote stuff?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>More ability or potential to succeed on a multiple-choice math/English test with a defined system that you can game? Sure. More ability or potential to delve deeper, or go more theoretical, or solve real problems? … I’m glad Admissions views everything in context.</p>
<p>I know quite a few people who break this higher-SAT-score-equals-better-student curve. The best example I can think of is a guy who started freshman year taking difficult H-level graduate math courses, but we were all surprised to find out that his score was 690 on the SAT math. Turns out he was bad (well, “bad”, as a 690 is a very good score) at doing things with numbers and thought better in theory.</p>
<p>I think the biggest flaw in thinking here is the idea that the SAT adequately tests the skillset required of a successful MIT student.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not being an achievement test, the SAT isn’t designed to test a skillset; it is designed to test reasoning.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course there are exceptions to the trend. Some people just are not natural standardized-test-takers; that is why preparation can oftentimes be so effective. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What do you mean by “game”? I don’t think that I agree with you.</p>
<p>Back to the original topic:
@molliebatmit or Chris or any poster, so basically, how qualified your classmates at your high school are has no effect on your own admissions outcome?</p>
<p>I would call reasoning a skill. In any case, there are many more forms of reasoning than the SAT tests. As for the trend, it’s true that I’m offering anecdata, but I haven’t seen anything to convince me that there is a huge difference between SAT scores and MIT performance at the upper levels.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Have you ever taken an SAT prep class? It’s not all about learning the material.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s possible, which is why I was eager to see the data.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have sat in on them for evaluative purposes. The concensus on CC among high scorers is that they are nearly worthless. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course; the SAT is not an achievement test. </p>
<p>I’m still not sure what you were implying when you said that the SAT can be gamed. There are no magic tricks. Now, I’m not saying that preparation can’t make a big difference (in fact, I wrote a whole [url=<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/sat-preparation/955109-silverturtles-guide-sat-admissions-success.html]guide[/url”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/sat-preparation/955109-silverturtles-guide-sat-admissions-success.html]guide[/url</a>] on the topic), but it just helps students to understand the test and how to most successfully approach it so that they can show their abilities better.</p>
<p>Re: Original Topic
The qualifications of your high school classmates has no bearing on your admission. Some schools do “regional admissions,” where one admissions officer is in charge of accepting x students from all the applicants from a particular state or geographic region. MIT does not do this. The qualifications of your classmates is taken into consideration to help the admissions committee understand your qualifications- for example, in understanding the significance of your class rank. (If you have a low rank but attend a very good school with many high achieving students, your “low” rank may not seem so low.) But you are not “competing” against them in any sense.</p>
<p>Re: The SAT. It seems like we all agree that “studying” for the SAT, which basically means taking prep classes about multiple choice elimination techniques, can have a relatively large impact on your score. Given that, what’s the problem with giving a buffer around high scores?</p>
<p>Taking the SAT and going to MIT are really, really different things. MIT doesn’t really care much about your SAT score, because it doesn’t really map very well to the kinds of things that do sort of relate to actually going to MIT. Once they see that your score is high, they mostly forget exactly what it was. </p>
<p>I got a 700 on the math section of the SAT. The horrors! It’s not a low score, thank you very much. =)</p>
<p>Wow, so many posts to reply to. Where to start…
Yes, I do. I apologize, I wasn’t clear, but it was 2:30 in the morning and I was typing on my phone.
Anyway, my point: In your previous post, you noted that you were curious about the final consideration: GPA or graduation rate. What I meant was that it’s unlikely they really consider graduation rate, and rather, consider in what GPA range every SAT score corresponds to, and found that most scores, say, with 700+ on each section, end up in the same range.</p>
<p>I also meant that the SAT has like nothing to do with college achievement past a certain point. Piper restated this point better than I could have, so I won’t try to. But, just generally, the SAT tests basic math principles and logic reasoning, and reading skills. You obviously need these in order to get through anything, but past a certain point I doubt it affects how much you’ll succeed. That’s just logically.</p>
<p>
I agree with this.
I also agree that it can be gamed. Not ‘gamed’ in the sense that there are random tricks that’ll up your score, no, but gamed because the test, obviously, is standardized. Enough practice will get anyone up there, since the SAT is more or less repeated in different words.</p>
<p>
I agree with this, but maybe that’s just because of the high scores. Just a thought. Maybe it’s also ineffective for lower scorers. I’m giving courses myself though, to a small group of friends, and they’re improving steadily. But then I know exactly what each of them needs so it’s not the same as random courses with 30+ people in one class.</p>
<p>
I’m counting on this :D</p>
<p>At any rate, I’m sure I haven’t succeeded in convincing you, because even I realize that my above post didn’t make my full point clear. But yeah, hopefully arguing with you enough will help me become better at debates and I’ll soon be able to articulate my opinions better. :)</p>
<p>
Anyways, now that we have that proven, what would a 700 correlate to on a section of the ACT?</p>