<p>someone got owned.</p>
<p>
Is there any truth to this claim about the ACT that’s said over and over again?</p>
<p>^Just a little. It really only applies to the math section, wwhere the questions are simpler but require more advanced knowledge of mathematics. SAT math is more problem-solving oriented.</p>
<p>1 or 2 questions on the science section require scientific knowledge, but they’re typically pretty easy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Having taken both, I agree with it. The English and Writing sections are pretty similar in that both tend toward achievement instead of aptitude. But overall, the ACT is clearly less focused on reasoning. </p>
<p>The Reading section on the ACT is extremely straightforward and requires almost no synthesis of information (most answers are almost direct paraphrases of the text). The Science section of the ACT basically tests one’s ability to quickly interpret a graph; background knowledge of the subject (i.e., achievement) helps significantly. (In fact, I didn’t even have to read the graphs for a couple of the sections.) The Math section on the ACT tests much more advanced concepts than does the SAT Math section, but its questions are very straightfoward and, unlike those on the SAT, require almost no problem solving skills.</p>
<p>silverturtle - </p>
<p>I appreciate your expertise and analysis on the subject of subject tests. That said, not everything in there was wrong by substance. </p>
<p>Our data show that, at MIT, missing a few questions on the math - whether because of a silly mistake or an inability to solve the problem - doesn’t predict much greater success than someone who got every one correct. </p>
<p>I don’t want to say that the tests aren’t important or meaningful. But I do feel the need to really push back against the hardcore weight that’s placed on them now.</p>
<p>Chris,</p>
<p>I wouldn’t say that I am advocating that “hardcore weight” be placed on the tests, and I certainly don’t feel that the difference, for example, between 2300 and 2400 is huge by any stretch. I’m just trying to correct the misconceptions that the SAT can be gamed and that the only differentiator at the high end is preparation. </p>
<p>My main concern stems from my opposition to any form of a threshold system. Calling anything 2250+ the same (this isn’t exactly what you have said, but it is similar) is analogous to calling all unweighted GPA’s that are 3.8+ the same as one another, or not considering class rank as long as the student is in the top ten percent of his or her class. When you institute such policies for consideration, you have to distinguish among a sizable chunk of your applicants through completely subjective means. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, we were discussing that earlier. How do you define “success” (e.g., graduation rate, percent of classes passed, GPA)?</p>
<p>Along with what Chris said, the point I was trying to make is that once you get up to higher scores (2100+), the test no longer becomes a matter of intelligence. After that, you may be an expert on everything being tested, but you need to focus more on beating the test itself. That is what all the prep books try to do. Bring you to the next level by learning how exactly to take the test and what to study to make sure you get there. I don’t know about anyone else, but to me that does not indicate intelligence. The data also support this. As Chris has said, there is no significant difference in success, regardless of how it is measured, between students in that range and I applaud MIT for their recognition of this fact. </p>
<p>When I took the SAT, I got one question wrong on the math section and got a 720. I ordered the score report that told me what questions I got wrong, and I answered everything correctly except one question. If there is one thing I can tell you for sure, it’s that. And answering a question incorrectly deducts 1/4 of a point, which is not the same as omitting a question. I don’t believe answering one question incorrectly should be judged as any worse than answering every question correctly, especially on the math section. Whether it’s a silly mistake or not, missing one question is easy. </p>
<p>GPA is much different. It is a much more accurate measurement because it is an average taken over years of work. In this case, a 4.0 unweighted is definitely better than a 3.8. Not by much, but it is. There will still not be a very strong correlation in short, high GPA ranges between success and GPA, but it is certainly stronger than the SAT. Once the big factors in estimating success (SAT/GPA) lose their accuracy, subjectivity is necessary. An applicant with a 2200 and amazing essays/ECs/etc. that show extraordinary potential is much more promising than an applicant with a 2400 that is not as subjectively strong. I would say the same about a 3.9 and a 4.0 GPA. I think MIT is only making itself better by recognizing this.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, you’re overgeneralizing in your attributions, as evidenced by the cases of people who score 2300+ with no preparation. Indeed, there are some people who scored 2100 who would have scored 2300+ if they had spent more timing preparing, but this is far from being the case in general; that is, some people who score 2100 are capable of scoring 2300, but everyone who scores 2300 is capable of scoring 2300.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Chris never made such a claim. Where did he claim that all measures of success support that conclusion?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are mistaken. Even missing two questions has never yielded anything that low.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are mistaken. Missing one question and omitting one question yield the exact same score every time.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The College Board’s policy is consistent with your belief.</p>
<p>I am not mistaken and if the college board’s policy were consistent with my belief, I would have scored an 800, but that isn’t even the point. This is not the place for an argument about specific SAT curves. Sure, there are people who get 2300s without prep, but who are we to say that they couldn’t have just as easily scored 100 points lower due to mistakes that have nothing to do with their logical reasoning skills. Sorry, I should have mentioned it was from another thread posted a few pages ago, but Chris has stated that 700+ is all they want. </p>
<p>I’m simply trying to say that fluctuations in scores at higher ranges are not very significant. MIT seems to agree, considering the almost unchanging acceptance rate in the 700+ range on each section.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Missing one and omitting one yield the same score, and missing one never yields anything near 720. Because you claimed to the contrary on both counts, you are mistaken.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Woops, I misread the final quote.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I questioned this claim:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>With special attention given to the phrase “regardless of how it is measured.”</p>
<p>@silverturtle - </p>
<p>You bring up the GPA point. Yes! And if we had models which said “for the purposes of success at MIT, a 3.8 is functionally indistinguishable from a 4.0”, we would not prefer a 4.0 to a 3.8. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, because of the incredibly vague and nonstandard nature of GPAs, we can’t do that. People think of GPAs as being an “objective” characteristic, but the only thing “objective” about a GPA is that it is “objectively” a number. </p>
<p>I can’t compare, by the topline number, a 4.0 unweighted GPA as such in Los Alamos to one in Los Angeles, or one in Boston to one in Barre, let alone compare it to a 4.0 weighted, 5.0, 10.0, french bac, so on and so forth. When we review cases, we don’t say “hrm, 3.9, well, that’s objectively better in every way than a 3.87 over here”; we look at classes taken, the sort of school system it is in, to what degree they’ve challenged themselves, how their teachers describe their classroom performance, and everything. All of those characteristics are components of how we consider the apparently “objective” GPA. </p>
<p>So, as I said, we don’t have a model for GPA because we can’t; however, in practice, our consideration of GPAs is more of the “predictive” model, to the extent that when I look at grades, I care less about the topline GPA than a sense of whether that student will be able to hack it academically at MIT. </p>
<p>To answer your second question: </p>
<p>We define “success at MIT” through a few baseline features. So for example we know that a student with X score on Y test </p>
<ul>
<li>graduates with a perfect GPA at a certain rate</li>
<li>graduates with a high GPA at a certain rate</li>
<li>graduates with a certain rate</li>
<li>receives academic warning with a certain rate</li>
<li>is on academic probation at a certain rate</li>
<li>drops out at a certain rate </li>
</ul>
<p>We like it if your scores predict the first three, and like it less if they predict the last three. </p>
<p>That’s a purposefully inexact explanation of our scientific process (can’t give away the entire secret recipe to Coca Cola, can I?). But that’s what we mean.</p>
<p>MITChris: Just out of curiosity, what is the record number of students accepted to MIT from any one particular school in the same year?</p>
<p>And as for why we consider those as the metrics for success: </p>
<p>Success can be measured in many ways. And there are plenty of people who are successful by ANY metric who never graduated from MIT. </p>
<p>That said, the relevant metric for us, as MIT Admissions Officers, would (reasonably) be “how well will you do at MIT?” And this is what we seek. </p>
<p>One thing that decidedly isn’t a meaningful metric for general success is SAT scores. Once you get into college, no one cares about SAT scores anymore. In fact, anyone who brings up SAT scores in college in general conversation is likely to be looked at like a loon. </p>
<p>SAT scores have a simple function in life: to be imperfect, “it’s-the-best-we-can-do” indicators of success at college. That’s it. And that’s why we consider them the way we do.</p>
<p>@rchhay</p>
<p>To be completely honest, I don’t know what the record is, and whatever the record is, it was probably set in a completely different era of admissions. </p>
<p>I think last year there was one school from which we accepted perhaps two dozen applicants; those are incredible outliers, however.</p>
<p>@silverturtle - </p>
<p>I hope you don’t think I’m being dismissive of you or your posts about the SATs, either. I’ve read your megathread; you know as much about the SAT as its designers (and perhaps more than even them). </p>
<p>So I know that you know that SAT scores are imperfect predictors of grades, are vulnerable to a variety of socioeconomic biases, and so forth. And what I’m just trying to do is explain that we know these things to, and how we treat them, so that students focus more on their application as a whole than on just their SAT scores. </p>
<p>This isn’t true for all schools by the way. Many, many schools just take your SATs, multiply it by your GPA, see if the score crosses a threshold, and you’re in or out (I’m simplifying, but only slightly, and only about the precise nature of the equation used). </p>
<p>But for us…not the case.</p>
<p>Am always surprised when people call the SAT an aptitude test,and ETS claim the range of improvement on a retest is about 20-40 points.i did a personal experiment on the math section and raised my score by 120 points,to a 740.i missed two questions,though.it would have been an 800.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yep, pretty much. I frequently poll my zephyr class (chat room, basically - zephyr is used by some number of MIT students) about these sorts of things as they come up on CC. Granted, they know I’m on CC and am asking for the Betterment of Mankind, so they don’t think it’s so strange anymore :P</p>
<p>(Not that this dissuades them from thinking I’m a loon…)</p>
<p>Actually, silverturtle, I must apologize. Apparently we were both right. I’ve researched it and you are right that my score could not be 720, but I’ve looked at my online score report and the copy I got in the mail and I was given a 720 after getting only one question wrong and every other question right. Apparently the college board has made a horrible mistake and so have I. I’ve always thought that score was a little ridiculous, but I assumed that was normal. I should have received a 770-780, which would have bumped my score to at least a 2110. I don’t know if there is anything I can do about this now, but the report clearly says 1 question incorrect, 0 omitted. I know this sounds completely ridiculous, but that is apparently what happened. </p>
<p>Anyway, I don’t want to turn this thread into an SAT score argument. Chris is making my point much better than I am.</p>
<p>I have another question, about the effect of high school on admissions chances:</p>
<p>If both of the 2 students accepted EA from my school this year ended up going to Stanford, how will that affect my chances at EA? Will MIT be more reluctant to accept people from my school via EA because of the yield?</p>
<p>Or is there no effect at all?</p>
<p>From what I understand, MIT does not put you in context with the other people in your school at all (other than rank). When your application is considered, no one will no information such as yield from your school, grades from other applicants in your school, # of acceptances from your school, etc.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well yes, of course, but not in the sense of “Oh hey look, Project Lead the Way. Put a big smiley face sticker on this application.” It also falls under the category of “opportunities that are not equally available to all applicants.” Does it demonstrate your math/science interests and abilities and make you seem like a good match for MIT? Absolutely! But not significantly more than if you went to a school that didn’t have PLTW and built robots in your spare time or something. Or even if you went to a school that did offer PLTW and took every AP science instead (because you had to choose and couldn’t do both).</p>
<p>
Ha! For sure. I think I can best sum up my high school with the following fact: our student newspaper was called “.txt”</p>
<p>Yeah.</p>