Reconstruction of MIT 2009 domestic (USA) admit rates by SAT score.

[MITChris]

<p>@siserune - </p>

<p>Some of your assumptions are incorrect. </p>

<p>As for our treatment of SAT scores, see our website: [MIT</a> Admissions: Standardized Test Requirements](<a href=“http://mitadmissions.org/topics/apply/standardized_test_requirements/index.shtml]MIT”>http://mitadmissions.org/topics/apply/standardized_test_requirements/index.shtml)</p>

<p>

For students we admitted in 2009, the middle 50% score range was between 670-770 for the SAT Reasoning Test Critical Reading and 730-800 for SAT Reasoning Test Math. We do not have cutoff scores for the SAT Reasoning Test and SAT Subject Tests, as scores are evaluated within an applicant’s context.

</p>

<p>As I have posted several times in the last several days, we look at SAT scores as predictors of success or causes for concern, not as qualifiers for MIT in and of themselves. </p>

<p>Since you’re a fan of statistical analysis, you’ll be happy to know that’s what drives our treatment of scores. Statistically speaking, there are SAT score ranges (on each individual test) that indicate a great likelihood of success at MIT and those that indicate a great likelihood of trouble at MIT. </p>

<p>The break point exists somewhere between the high 600s and low 700s depending on the test. Below that, and the record shows the student would likely struggle here; above that, and students succeed with statistically insignificant differences as scores increase. </p>

<p>These scores are then considered with grades and coursework as additional predictors of success or causes for concern. For extreme examples, As in multivariable calc is a
predictor of success; Cs in precalc (as a senior, with no calculus taken) is a cause for concern. </p>

<p>Once you clear the success/concern bar, we don’t really care about scores anymore, and we consider grades as part of your context (how much initiative have you shown? is your coursework especially outstanding? etc). </p>

<p>As for your citations: </p>

<p>Nowhere have I said that our women or URM applicants have lower scores than other applicants. I have not said this for two important reasons. </p>

<h1>1 - It isn’t true.</h1>

<h1>2 - Even if it were true, it would be immaterial. A student who scores a 2300 on the SATs is not “less qualified” than someone who scores a 2400. They are equally qualified. They have both cleared the break point, and thus, when making decisions about “qualifications”, we look elsewhere for dispositive data.</h1>

<p>I hope this helps clear up any confusion!</p>