<p>What I took away from attending the "road show" last Fall was that MIT really wanted people who could communicate well and work well with others. It seems like recommendations, essays and the interview would indicate that better than just scores and grades.</p>
<p>i think mit looks for people who work well for others-- from what i've heard, mit is a big community, where working with others is key.</p>
<p>as many have said before, most people who apply to mit are qualified-- so the admissions staff must delve deeper than just academics</p>
<p>i think the admissions officers look for people who not necessarily know what they want to do in life, but rather, have passions-- passions that they pursue. they want to see dedication and perseverance.</p>
<p>on top of that, i think that they like to see students that are serious, but aren't completely uptight. they want to admit students that can laugh at their mistakes and come back stronger.</p>
<p>Ben:</p>
<p>Thanks for the link to the "match" post. You mention that kids really don't need a perfect GPA to demonstrate that they have the grades necessary to thrive, which is nice to hear. Does that mean that at some threshold, the difference between GPA doesn't matter as you are looking at these other factors? In other words, I've heard that if you hit a 750 or above in math, the difference between that and an 800 is really not significant as you've showed a sufficient ability. Is this true with GPA as well? If so, can you give us an idea of what that number might be? To be more specific, is someone with a 3.7 (in a highly rigorous course load) at a disadvantage compated to 4.0 students? Or does that (or some other number) meet a sufficient competency such that the decision will come down to the other factors (i.e. the match?). </p>
<p>Also, I'm curious about the degree to which you look at class rank when it is not weighted? Our district doens't weight, so many honors kids who challenge themselves with the most difficult courses and have a 3.7 or 3.8 aren't even in the tpp 10%. I know you look at things holistically, but is this going to hurt on some level?</p>
<p>I'm sure taking an easier classload and getting a higher GPA is not an advantage. However, if there are people who took the most challenging courseload and got a 4.0, then obviously these people would have somewhat of an advantage over you. </p>
<p>Regardless, it's not about the number. It depends on where the B's are. If you got a B's in woodshop and ceramics, it won't hurt as much (if at all) as if you got them in calc I and II. Same goes for a less fundamental class like astronomy versus basic math, chemistry, or physics.</p>
<p>BTW, to answer your question, my impression is that scores of 750+ are basically considered equivalent. The one exception might be the math SATII, because you can get like 4-6 wrong and still get an 800. For math though, my guess is they would rather admit a guy with a 750 math SAT I and a good AMC score rather than a guy who just got 800 on the math SAT I.</p>
<p>You may be right and MIT considers a 3.7 basically the same as a 4.0, but at the very least, the admissions policies at MIT are not harsher than what I have delineated above.</p>
<p>Great advice from collegealum314.</p>
<p>The way we say it around the office is that we're "looking for excellence, not perfection." Each applicant's context is different, of course, and all of that is weighed when asking the "will this person thrive here academically" question. If the answer to that is yes, then we turn our attention to everything that isn't a number to make a decision. :-)</p>
<p>lol!!!! "the plot in Madagascar"! =D</p>
<p>Hmmm, after getting into the neighbor's I think it was just the poor quality of my MIT app...oh well, I'll still see be able to meet all of you at a whim ;)</p>
<p>Also ben, if you can answer this on behalf of Matt: is there any news on how the ice cream party at ISEF is going to be coordinated? Or are we still too far away to be discussing it?</p>