With 700 specifically, not really, no.
Average 50% Math SAT at MIT is [780, 800].
Zero students were admitted with Math SAT of 690.
23 were admitted in the [700,740] range (1% admit rate for that group vs 10% for higher scorers), and I have to assume they were all closer to 740 than to 700.
Someone with a 700 Math SAT would be in for a very, very rough awakening at MIT, no matter their SES.
Scores of test optional admits do not appear to be included in the referenced table. I wouldnāt assume none of the test optional admits had <700, but the number is probably quite low due to a combination of self-selection and correlations with other evaluated criteria. Iād expect that the vast majority of test optional admits scored 700+, and the few that scored lower generally are adequately prepared in spite of their score.
That may be true, if you just selected a random kid who scored 700, but Iād make a similar comment if you just selected a random kid who scored 750. The randomly selected 750 kid probably has a better chance of being prepared than the randomly selected 700 kid, but both of them are probably not going to be admitted to MIT. Instead MIT considers many other factors, and the few kids who are admitted have other indicators of being well prepared, and often differ significantly from the average kid with that score. This relates to why I expect that the test optional kids who are admitted have high scores compared to the overall population (among those who took the test), in spite of their score not being considered.
Note that my key words were āinitially surviveā. No doubt it will be rough, but having the first semester as pass-fail helps get through it.
My children benefitted from having an excellent education and I assume yours did too. We cannot expect the same scores from those that did not.
Here is a copy of that page for DSās class of 2024 (the class year before MIT went TO):
It looks almost identical.
Zero admits with Math SAT < 700.
EDIT: Actually, it looks like the relevant section of that page remained completely unchanged since two years ago.
Perhaps @MITChris could get someone look into this. Is it because that was the last year for which meaningful (pre-TO) data was available?
Based on the admission stats, MIT clearly doesnāt believe that to be the case - and I think they are absolutely right.
The scores do not look āalmost identical.ā The scores on the class of 2024 and class of 2025 pages are exactly identical. I suspect they didnāt update scores on the admission stats page because they didnāt have scores of the test optional admits. So under a previous test required year, it looks like ~92% of applicants scored 700+ math, and 100% of admits.
Comparing the two pages, note that when test optional was implemented, the number of applications increased by 66% between class of 2024 and 2025, which is the largest application increase primarily in response to test optional Iām aware of among all US colleges, I phrase it like that because while Colgate had a larger increase, it was primarily not in response to test optional. It seems many applicants thought the high scores and stats like the one you listed with nobody being admitted with <700 were a barrier that prevented them from applying. This contributes to the self-selection effects that I mentioned, including with 92% of applicants (who submitted SAT) having a 700+.
Nevertheless, this is not good evidence that you need a 700 to survive at MIT. Itās not even solid evidence that MIT requires applicants to have such a 700+ score to be admitted. The first link on the MIT admission stats page explains this more eloquently than I can, as quoted below.
Now, I and others are on the record as saying that we admit people, not test scores, and that in any case there is really not a difference in our process between someone who scores, say, a 740 on the SAT math, and someone who scores an 800 on the SAT math. So why, as the commentor asks, is there such a difference in the admit rate? Aha! Clearly we DO prefer higher SAT scores!
Well no, we donāt. What we prefer are things which may coincide with higher SAT scores. For example, a student who receives a gold medal at the IMO is probably more likely to score an 800 on the math SAT than a 740. But if we take an IMO medalist (with an 800) over random applicant X (with a 740), does that mean we preferred an 800 to a 740? No. It means we preferred the IMO medalist, who also happened to get an 800!
I think it would be interesting to see the scores of the test optional kids that MIT does admit (among those who took the test). Hopefully MIT requested this for statistical purposes and will publish information like Bowdoin and various others do. I suspect that scores will be significantly lower among test optional admits than test submitter admits, but the overwhelming majority of test optional admits will still have 700+ math, in spite of their score not being considered as part of the application process. I expect this occurs both due to self-selection and scores being well correlated with the other criteria that MIT does consider, such as the IMO medalist example in the quote above. As such the relatively lower math scoring kids that are admitted under test optional are not the average kids with that score, and I do not think one can assume that this group will have trouble surviving.
Yes, I just noticed that too, and edited my post (not all scores, but certainly the section under discussion here).
Anyhow, I will hold my opinion about whether someone with SAT <700 should apply to/be admitted/attend MIT to myself, but I am certainly very glad to see MIT returning to requiring standardized tests for admission.
But MITās argument for using SAT/ACT scores is for those students who canāt otherwise demonstrate preparedness based on class rigour or other criteria (e.g. being an IMO medalist). If the students who are admitted already have other indicators of being well prepared, why would you still need SAT/ACT scores? Their transcripts and supplemental applications should be sufficient. Is scoring high enough on a standardized test in and of itself, absent of other confirming data points (class rigour, math competitions etc.), sufficient to determine if a student is well prepared to handle the rigours of MITās curriculum? If itās not, then it adds nothing to the table. How likely is it that a student that has only a high SAT or ACT score to demonstrate their ability is actually prepared enough to handle the work?
MIT gets applications from all over the world, from students in very different school systems. Unlikely it is familiar with all the high schools in Romania or Burundi. Standardized tests help sort it out.
Yes, this is essentially the kind of thing our research shows, unless contraindicated by other, more meaningful factors. As a hypothetical, it might be theoretically possible (if in practice rare) for someone to, say, get a 5 on BC calculus and also a 700 on the SAT math, and in a case like that, a strong performance indicating mastery from a full calculus class is probably more meaningful than the SAT.
e: for clarity, itās not that the research shows a 700 is qualitatively different from a bit above or a bit below. When I say itās what our research shows, I mean that ā as we said in the blog post ā after you control for SES, you see predictivity in the tests beyond what grades can tell you, unless you are looking at other, even less-widely-available measures (relative to the SAT).
You wouldnāt, but think about policy design. Would we say: āyou must submit your SAT scores unless you have an IMO medal and/or a 5 on BC calculusā? That is confusing and sends even more implicit (and incorrect) messages about what is needed to be considered prepared for MIT.
Thereās an MIT DUSP professor, Caesar McDowell, who likes to talk about how when designing for equity, you design from āthe outside inā ā i.e., you design for the margins, and what you do for the margins helps other people too. I understand itās counterintuitive, given the well-understood challenges posed by the tests, to think of a requirement for the tests as being something for the margin. But we see so many communications challenges for students with less capital ā and such a differential in in score-disclosure advising based on resources ā that (we posit) a requirement is actually the most equitable thing we can do.
We are familiar (more than you might expect) with international curriculums, and, as we say in the post, in certain standardized international curricula (I think we call out the Cambridge exams, the Abitur, French Bac, and a few others) we have enough data to be able to understand that prep. But from a policy communication perspective, and from an equity perspective if we donāt have those things, the tests still help us abroad, too.
The students who were admitted without SAT/ACT scores presumably sufficiently demonstrated indicators of being well prepared for MIT. However, this small subgroup of test optional admits is not the same as all test optional applicants It sounds like issue more relates to a combination of not all test optional applicants providing these indicators and requiring a lot of time/effort to discern these indicators ,with a large 66% increase in applications fueled by a huge influx of test optional applicants, many of whom may not be adequately prepared.
Some members of this small subgroup of test optional applicants who were admitted may have scored <= 700 math, yet I expect that they still demonstrated adequate preparation. My point is itās not a simple map where any of the test optional admits who scored <= 700 or 720 math are going to have major problems, as has been implied in various posts. While there is a correlation, external studies have shown that correlation is often weak, and largely replicated by other information in the application. Of course these external studies are not specific to MIT, which may require be looking for additional criteria/evidence beyond typical.
Some of the posts have talked about using AP calculus scores as an alternative means of showing =preparation, and/or AP calculus score possibly being a more reliable indicator. The correlation between math SAT and scores on various AP tests is listed below. Unfortunately only correlations for calc AB is available, not BC. There is clearly a correlation between scores on the AP and SAT, but that correlation is far from ideal. Math SAT score explained 31% of variance in AP calculus score, and probably much less in calculus grades. I expect a similar type of statement could be made about the correlation between SAT math and success in MITās calculus classes. While there is a correlation, Iād expect many kids do much better/worse in MIT math than predicted by SAT score.
Variance in AP Score Explained by Math SAT score
Biology ā 48%
Physics 1 (uses algebra) ā 42%
Economics ā 38%
English Language ā 37%
US History / World History ā 35%
English Literature ā 34%
Calculus AB ā 31%
Psychology ā 31%
Music ā 28%
Physics C Elec&Mag (uses advanced calclus) ā 23%
Seems like physics C and calculus AB may have top compression of SAT score (and calculus BC probably has more of that than calculus AB). I.e. only the stronger in math students self-select for those courses, so the SAT score range for them may be relatively narrow.
As we have said in several blog posts, in the absence of SAT scores (or alongside them), we can look at AP calc scores. However, AP calc is much, much less available to students than the SATs (and not just across schools, but within them, depending on who you are ā audit studies show that, given identical transcripts, guidance counselors will be less likely to recommend students with stereotypically Black names for AP Calc than students with stereotypically white or asian names).
Of course, to even have an AP calculus score by the time one applies to colleges in 12th grade, one has to have been on the +2 math track (calculus in 11th grade), which is a lot less common than being on the +1 math track that reaches calculus in 12th grade. In most school systems, that depends on middle school math placement.
It is possible in a high school with block scheduling (4 classes in the fall and 4 in the spring). With that schedule, kids can get to Calc AP in junior year even if they did not have Algebra I in Middle. They could do Algebra 1 and Geometry freshman year, Allegra 2 and pre-calc in sophomore year, and then calc AB or BC in Junior year (usually a full year class fall -spring blocks).
I expect a similar statement about self-selection for high scores and score compression could be made about MIT. The stats page linked earlier suggested that the overwhelming majority of MIT applicants and 98% of admits who submitted SAT had a 750+ prior to going test optional. It seems that nearly the full class had very high scores. While the test optional kids no doubt had a lower score average than the test submitter kids, I expect the scores of test optional kids (who took the test) are probably still very high compared to the overall population, particularly among admits.
I agree that it is not fair to expect everyone to submit AP calculus scores. In my earlier post, I was instead trying to give some specific numbers relating to correlation vs simple mapping of math SAT score of x is required to be successful,. There are many ways to show proficiency besides just math SAT score (in my opinion, there are far more meaningful and reliable ways to show advanced calculus proficiency than a multiple choice algebra/geometry test that emphasizes rapid speed without carless error, rather than complexity), but these are often not equally available to all applicants.
True, but not every student has access to a high school with block scheduling.
Really, in the US high school system, having an AP calculus score (or college calculus grade, or something similar) before 12th grade often depends as much on chance access in the school system as it does on the studentās academic strength in math.
Hence, the US standardized testing for math that colleges can mostly rely on for suitability for a broad range of college-bound students would be limited to the SAT (+0), ACT (+0), discontinued SAT subject math level 1 (+0), and discontinued SAT subject math level 2 (+1). But these may not be that suitable for colleges that admit at the tail end of the distribution (as opposed to the broad middle of colleges), so they can really only provide negative information with low scores, but high scores do not provide positive information.
Interesting. Are these audit studies publicly available?