<p>Ben, how well would you do on standardized tests in Swahili?</p>
<p>Lots of Caucasian immigrants with similar language abilities and similar scores didn't get in.</p>
<p>It's not just about language ability. It's about ethnicity, too.</p>
<p>omareduardo13 got in?</p>
<p>not to be offensive, but i think people are deceiving themselves if they say urm doesn't matter much... because i just find it absolutely hard to imagine a caucasian/asian student getting in with sub 600 stats. i can't help but think that's why pc31 didn't get accepted.</p>
<p>The problem with your blanket statements is the implied racism and sexism. You have no idea of the abilities of this person or how he compares to any of you academically or otherwise. Since every group scores lower on standardized tests than white and Asian males, in promoting a meritocracy based on SAT's we should not see very many different looking faces in the crowd. Problem is this difference relates to standardized testing not intelligence and ability, so how would all of you "experts" decide who gets in? Comparing test scores certainly would not produce equality.</p>
<p>AKGIRL, your point is irrelevant. The fact is, if the school to which you were applying taught in Swahili, then you had better know Swahili. However, MIT doesn't teach in Spanish, or Swahili, or Portuguese, or whatever other language you can think of. MIT teaches its courses in English the last time I checked. Therefore, a strong knowledge of English is very important. If those scores wouldn't be forgiven in a native speaker's case, they shouldn't be forgiven in another's case. They are both applying to the same school. They should be evaluated fairly, which in this case means, "How did they take advantage of the opportunities presented to them?" However, everyone has access to prep books and the SAT question of the day. Sub-600s should not be forgiven, regardless of circumstances.</p>
<p>Ben, you're awesome. Stand by your guns.</p>
<p>Oh, please.</p>
<p>We're not going to start reifying SAT scores again, are we?</p>
<p>MIT admissions would rather see you out in the world doing something exciting rather than obsessively studying for the SATs, and that's as it should be.</p>
<p>AKGIRL -- note that I never suggested SAT scores were infallible or even reliable. You point out a variety of reasons suggesting that they might fail to correctly diagnose potential or ability.</p>
<p>My problem is that more attention is paid to those reasons in the case of ethnic minorities than in the case of plain-vanilla disadvantaged students. </p>
<p>The problem isn't that some people get a second look because they're disadvantaged. That's right and fair. The problem is that whether or not they get that second look depends on the color of their skin, not just on their disadvantage. That's not right and not fair.</p>
<p>If you want to continue to discuss this issue, I will be your humble servant if you would try to respond honestly to the argument I made just now. Which is to say, please don't give a glib answer to some argument you might find it easier to respond to, but which, alas, I didn't make.</p>
<p>The problem is when a person is judged higher based on the color of their skin for the sake of "diversity", instead of given a boost to make up for disadvantages.</p>