Puzzling - MIT has deferred quite a few 2400

Colleges and Universities A-Z Massachusetts Institute of Technology
61

<p>See, what's often far more indicative is actually having a conversation with someone! If I were an admissions officer, I'd without hesitation throw out all consideration of some people's SAT scores on this thread no matter how high as it shows nothing but just how much they obsess over the test. Now, if they were low, that'd be another sad tale altogether.</p>

<p>By the way, applicants have been known to be rejected based primarily on just having a horrendous personality. Why don't we argue about that instead of the 120 pt difference (40 per section) on the SATs? Everyone can defend their own rights as the scum of the earth to be considered equally as those who are way cooler than they are.</p>

62

<p>


</p>

<p>When I read this on page three, I almost choked. This person couldn't have typed this with a straight face, could they? I mean, it had to be a joke, right? </p>

<p>Is an 800 seriously better than a 750? Well, let's see...800 is a larger number than 750, which in this case indicates answering more questions correctly, so....yeah? </p>

<p>Now, the significance of these fifty points is a different question altogether. Maybe it's not that important. But to see no difference from two very clearly different scores, one higher than the other, is to admit being brainwashed by nonsense from high school guidance counselors. </p>

<p>And if there's no difference between an 800 and 750, how about 750 and 700? And if not, then how about 700 and 650? 650 and 600? 600 and 550? Want to keep going?</p>

<p>At any rate, MIT can do what they want. In the end, that's all that really matters. They have an incredible amount of talent in their student and faculty bodies, plus a tremendous amount of revenue from private, corporate, and government donors. </p>

<p>It would be foolish to say that the MIT trustees don't have a very well thought-out plan for the future, or that they don't have very good reasons for their admissions decisions. </p>

<p>After all, these people are all incredibly smart and talented (certainly moreso than me) just to attain, let alone keep such a position. </p>

<p>I'm sure they have very good reasons behind everything they do.</p>

63

<p>
[quote]
While we're at it we should probably require the scoring sheets to see if the applicants 7xx came from missing an easy, medium or hard question.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No, no, no!</p>

<p>Mathson only misses easy math questions never hard ones! It's so aggravating!</p>

64

<p>
[QUOTE]
By the way, applicants have been known to be rejected based primarily on just having a horrendous personality.

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>See, now that would be a problem for me. If I were conducting interviews, I'd probably reject lots of super-brilliant people just because their weirdness was too much for me, or I found them either too reserved or overly talkative. </p>

<p>They'd probably do something to get under my skin, too; like discuss their love of Star Wars and the Matrix, or make some horrible math/science joke. I'd smile along, of course, but inwardly I'd be counting the seconds before the interview was over. </p>

<p>Meanwhile, I'd probably accept some really attractive blonde girl that kept flashing her eyelids at me... even though she had flunked two years in high school. </p>

<p>Granted, I would make, by my own admission, an atrocious interviewer. I'm sure all the MIT interviewers are far better and more impartial than I am. They wouldn't let considerations of beauty, social aptitude, sex appeal, or sense of humor come into their appraisal of a person at all. It would just be about finding the "best and brightest", or "most quirky and capable of growth", or whatever other metric they choose that admission cycle. </p>

<p>But who's to really say about a "horrendous personality"? I probably have a pretty horrendous personality myself. I can't help it. I don't really know though, to be honest. I never applied to MIT. I'm sure the people attending don't have horrendous personalities. </p>

<p>MIT interviewers are the ones who made value judgements on the personalities, right? Fair enough. They'd certainly do a much better job than me, or anyone else I know.</p>

65

<p>
[quote]
See, what's often far more indicative is actually having a conversation with someone!

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Story!</p>

<p>I learned this in my organizational econ class. Once, a very long time ago, in an enchanted forest, there was a big longitudinal study of medical school admissions (I believe the medical school was in Texas). There were two cohorts, with applicants randomly assigned to one or the other. One was admitted with a review of the application and a day-long interview by three doctors, the other just with a review of a paper application. The cohorts were tracked and evaluated by (a) patients' average satisfaction with them 10 years down the line (b) their earnings 10 years down the line. Yes, these are "simple" measures, but they were basically the things that the med schools try to maximize when admitting students.</p>

<p>Now we think through what we might expect depending on what we think of interviews. If interviews are good, then we would expect to see the means of those measures of doctor quality to be higher for people admitted through the interview process.</p>

<p>If interviews are white noise -- neither informative nor actively harmful, we would expect to see the interviewed cohort have higher variance, maybe, but no significant difference in means.</p>

<p>If interviews actively harm your ability to pick good doctors, then the mean for the interviewed cohort should be significantly lower.</p>

<p>Guess what the study found? You're right, #3! :)</p>

<p>I've been digging around Google Scholar and it should be easy to find. Searching for "interviews medical school admissions correlation" turns up a lot of studies that find no effect or replicate the result, so at least one should cite the famous original.</p>

<p>The point is, though everyone does interviews, there's not really a shred of scientific evidence that interviews do any good, and quite a few shreds that suggest they make you stupid.</p>

<p>I find this result just as counterintuitive as you do, maybe more so. I can't tell you the number of times that, while reading an application, I've wanted to have the kid in front of me so I could poke him a few times and see if any life comes out. Like our Dear Leader, I have felt that perhaps I could look into his soul and decide what kind of person or at least student he fundamentally is.</p>

<p>Nope.</p>

66

<p>Last night, I overheard the following dialog in a restaurant between a man and his 5 year old boy:</p>

<p>Boy: Dad, are women taller than men?</p>

<p>Man: No, over all, men are taller than women.</p>

<p>Boy: How come my Mom is taller than you?</p>

<p>Men: …. ….</p>

<p>I couldn’t help imaging myself in that poor father’s position, facing not just one, but a bunch of 5 year old:</p>

<p>So here again:</p>

<p>Man: Over all, men are taller than women.</p>

<p>Boy-a: My mom is at same height as you, so you are wrong. - Those who argue a 2200er can be smart as, or even smarter than a 2400er. </p>

<p>Boy-b: A giant chimpanzee can be taller than any tall man, so what’s the big deal? – Those who compare 2400ers to lottery winners.</p>

<p>Boy-c: Since both men and women are human, why bother distinguish them? – Those argue SAT score gap doesn’t matter at all.</p>

<p>Boy-d (the smartest one): I partially agree with you. However, I have a fancy formula to prove that with big enough “e” - gene error, a chimpanzee can grow into a man, and vice versa. </p>

<p>I don’t see any point to keep this going on. So I am going to stop right here unless someone can prove the following is wrong:</p>

<p>Over all, 2400ers have higher scholastic aptitude than 2200ers. </p>

<p>Thanks for joining the game.</p>

67

<p>Even though I agree with the basic idea behind your muddled posts enough to give it a more coherent defense than you could ever hope to, I can't resist pointing out that you're remarkably naive and obnoxious.</p>

<p>Best,
Ben</p>

<p>P.S. "Fancy forumula"? Sum of two numbers? Go home.</p>

68

<p>OK, I'll join the game. My kid scored near 2200 at his first sitting of the SAT, and 2400 at the second (after studying for several months.) So you're saying his scholastic aptitude was higher at the second testing?</p>

69

<p>To be politically correct we have to keep up the pretense that students scoring in the SAT range of 2250 or better really are no more intelligent, brighter, quicker or smarter - than for example students scoring (after multiple attempts) somewhere in the range of 1700 to 1900</p>

<p>After all, we all know that SATs do not measure intelligence, and intelligence itself (if it exists) cannot be measured anyways</p>

<p>Of course these variations in scores HAVE to be about test taking ability, or (in some cases) the dreaded "cultural bias", unfair income advantages, coaching, or the 19 other oft cited excuses</p>

<p>It seems to make us feel better knowing all people are equal</p>

70

<p>@TMiike:</p>

<p>Oh my, when I say "better" I am not thinking of "higher". If you think that scoring "higher" makes you "better" (whatever that means), then ... well ... do what you want.</p>

<p>
[quote]

After all, these people are all incredibly smart and talented (certainly moreso than me) just to attain, let alone keep such a position. </p>

<p>I'm sure they have very good reasons behind everything they do.

[/quote]

That's surely the weakest and most dangerous argument I have ever heard.</p>

71

<p>CITATION X - It does make me feel good that I will give even the lowest scorer the benefit of the doubt until AFTER he/she has gone out into the world and done something with his/her life.</p>

72

<p>In the Land of Oz everyone is equal in terms of abilities and talents - and as a result we all feel good about it</p>

73

<p>I just thought of a little thought experiment to check if you "really" believe that 2250 and 2400 should be viewed as essentially equal for all important purposes. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that we have two students, about whom you know nothing except that A scored 2250 and B scored 2400. Each was picked randomly from the cohort of people with his SAT score and both of them are admitted to MIT by fiat, not by the usual admissions process (to make the thought experiment less complicated).</p>

<p>A rich man writes a contract binding him to give you $100,000 if you guess correctly who will have the higher GPA at the end of MIT, and $0 otherwise. (We could pick some more impressive metric of success, but we'll probably agree that MIT GPA is not meaningless.) If you refuse to choose one, you get $0.</p>

<p>I think it would be very interesting to hear which you would guess, and why, especially if you make the "counterintuitive" guess.</p>

74

<p>Well said, CITATION.</p>

<p>I would add another score range on top of it: those score 2400 and over – if, of course, bonus points were given on the test.</p>

<p>I believe devaluing the score gaps is not just an issue of politically correctness, which is understandable and acceptable if it really applies to those really under-privileged. But in reality, it is being used as a pompous excuse for elite colleges to open the door to less qualified, but more privileged applicants (athletes, legacies, big donors and celebrities). Daniel Golden proved this very well in his book: “The Price of Admission”. So if you want to argue about this, go read his book first.</p>

75

<p>


</p>

<p>My God. You can't be serious. This is like someone saying "my house isn't cheap... it's inexpensive!"</p>

<p>"Better" and "higher" MEAN THE EXACT SAME FREAKING THING IN THIS SITUATION. </p>

<p>Higher SAT score = Better SAT score.... or were you trying to argue that a lower SAT score is better than a higher one??</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
That's surely the weakest and most dangerous argument I have ever heard.

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>I just knew at least one person wouldn't get the sarcasm there...not surprisingly, it's the same poster who probably "doesn't get" a lot of things in life.</p>

<p>That being said, the argument, while tongue-in-cheek, is essentially correct; there ARE reasons behind what MIT is doing, and the people making these decisions ARE much smarter than me. </p>

<p>Keep in mind, people; what's good for the CC student population might not necessarily be good for the powers that be of a university. Their interests aren't the same. And frankly, you CC people with your overinflated sense of ego and opinion (especially myself) are completely meaningless in the grand scheme of things. </p>

<p>It would be a lot nicer if college admissions everywhere were more understandable. Unfortunately, high school students confuse their own selfish needs with the needs of people far richer, older, and smarter than themselves. </p>

<p>Contrary to what you've been taught, high school students and their opinions mean jack diddly squat, unless we're talking ways for businesses to seperate them from their parents' hard-earned money. </p>

<p>Hence, the needs of a different group take precedent over yours. </p>

<p>You not liking it and wanting to change is like a kid with a BB gun trying to take down the US Armed Forces. Not going to happen. You're better off accepting the way the game is played... and trying to win at it. You certainly don't have the might to change its rules.</p>

76

<p>Ben: it is my understanding that the argument is not that they are equal, but they are equal when considered relative to the rest of the application. Imagine instead a system where instead of scoring 600-2400, you scored 1-3. Two theoretical applicants now have a 1 and 3. In your scenario, you'd pick the 3 because you have no reason not to. After all, he scored 200% higher than the 1.</p>

<p>However, suppose that this score comprises 3% of the actual value of the applicant. The fact that one applicant scored 200% higher than the other becomes less meaningful. All other things being equal and perfect, one applicant has a value score of 98% and the other 100%, and you'll agree that 98:100 is a much more negligible difference than 1:3.</p>

<p>The argument is not that they are identical, but that the score difference is negligible. 800 is almost 6.7% higher than a 750, but as it compares to the actual value of the applicant, this 6.7% reflects such a small improvement that it may as well be equal. Both applicants have met a minimum "threshold" for which they are considered qualified. It is far more practical to consider the parts of the application which are more consistent with the values that the school is looking for. For instance, if I believe that half an applicant's value can be determined in his essays, then the essays will comprise 50% of the value score, and the differences in essay qualities (which are more slightly nuanced) will be more significant in the end than the difference in SAT scores (which may have more drastic gradients).</p>

<p>It seems that the arguments really boil down to what value percentages parts of the application should correspond to rather than the deviations within individual parts of the application. For instance, one school feels SATs are more indicative of the qualities it's looking for in students than another school, and thus deviations in the score become more significant for that school.</p>

<p>You're correct in saying a 2250 is <em>not</em> identical to a 2400. This is however not the argument at hand. Instead, the conjecture was that *in the context of the entire application<a href="which%20you%20have%20omitted%20from%20your%20scenario">/b</a>, the difference between a 2250 and a 2400 is negligible such that it *might as well be the same. By removing the rest of the application, it seems to me you've started a separate discussion that doesn't address the original statement.</p>

77

<p>The SAT used to mean <em>aptitude</em> -- not <em>ability</em>. One used to be able to submit SAT scores to Mensa, et al as valid indications of one's IQ. When my spouse graduated from Bronx Science, <em>three</em> people broke 1500 out of a class of 750. Since then, the College Board re-centered and re-designed the test. </p>

<p>My question for chewing on: How much of this debate over differentiation among the top 1-2% of scores has been caused by changes to the testing instrument? Has lowering the ceiling on the test forced colleges to use subjective criteria to distringuish the top 1-2%, since test scores across the applicant pool are so consistently high?</p>

78

<p>At the most elite colleges URMs account for approximately 1 in 6 enrolled students and typically score somewhere between 150 to 300 points lower on the SAT exam - yet legacies which account for perhaps 1 in 18 enrolled class members - score generally equal or better in term of the SAT than the median SAT numbers</p>

<p>Howver to be fair, I would be quite happy to see legacy advantages dumped along with the entire URM race based system - however I suspect few would then be pleased</p>

<p>As for athletes - yes their scores are lower, however many in fact are from designated URM groups</p>

<p>I will let the other (dozen of so) lawyers who post in these forums maybe explain at some point in here why race based preferences in constitutional terms - are very different in terms of equal protection issues than categories such as athletic ability, artistic ability, musical ability, or legacy status. Generally I find non-lawyers cannot comprehend this rather basic point of law or I simply cannnot explain it well enough, or whatever - so I will just skip it this time</p>

<p>Daniel Golden is into class warfare and conveniently overlooks the outsized impact of lowering standard for URMs categories - however that's another story</p>

79

<p>
[quote]
The SAT used to mean <em>aptitude</em> -- not <em>ability</em>.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Small quibble. The College Board folks have now admitted that the A stands for neither apitude nor ability and gosh not even assessment. It stands for NOTHING.</p>

<p>Remember all they've ever actually claimed is that it predicts first year grades.</p>

80

<p>Ok, first of all, let's take all of our politically correct conspiracy theories and file them on a shelf titled "not related to the subject at hand."</p>

<p>We all know that people who have a higher SAT score are those who answered more questions correctly. We're not saying that everyone is equally smart or that all SAT scores are equal. All we're saying is that what you scored on the SAT DOES NOT DEFINE YOUR ENTIRE FREAKING EXISTENCE!</p>

<p>And in regards to the "higher" versus "better" argument, I believe those who scoff at their interchangeability are referring to a more general sense of the term "better." Yes, a higher SAT score is better just in the same way that a lower golf score is better. But having a higher SAT score from someone else does not make you a "better" person.</p>

<p>TMiike- just because someone can't read your mind when you write sarcasm into an online forum doesn't mean they're an idiot, and if I may say so, it's really rather rude to imply otherwise.</p>