SAT scores too low?

Colleges and Universities A-Z Massachusetts Institute of Technology
21

<p>Laura, you are not being obnoxious, you are absolutely on target with your remarks. Thank you for posting.</p>

22

<p>Yeah, Laura, I really think you're right. I get ****ed every time I read comments like "that's too low" or "you wont get in if you don't improve your math score" etc. I really think that MIT Admission process is really based on the person, and not only on a test. Every year this forum is filled with post of someones stats and asking for their "chances" at MIT and I just realized after the end of this year's admission process that's there's definitely no way to tell who will get in and who wont because MIT has no formula... that's why I keep saying, people, just be happy, try your best shot at MIT but don't get obsessed with stats, those are not that important.</p>

23

<p>Yeah, it's one freaking test, one little test. One little test that carries a lot of weight in college admissions; maybe it should, maybe it shouldn't because, after all, it is just one little multiple choice test. I'm not debating whether it should carry a lot of weight or it shouldn't. I said if you think you can score higher than you did by 50 points, you should spend that $40 and 3 hours to take the test again. If you definitely won't score higher, then clearly don't waste your time. And if you did spend two weeks studying for it and your math score went up 50 points, that's probably worth it because raising your GPA in your last semester before your college app from a 3.8 to a 3.9 takes more than a few weeks of studying. And maybe you'll say that's not worth it, and that may be debatable.</p>

<p>Let's comfort people after something suboptimal happens, not before. Let's give this applicant the best advice we can. And a higher SAT score will help your chances. If she doesn't get into her top choice school, its not the end of the world by any means, the applicant will probably go to a great top 10 or 25 school. But that is the person's top choice school, the most desirable school for them, and the applicant will be going there for four years.</p>

<p>I never said a 670 or 700 score is clearly too low for MIT. But a 770 would be better to have. I know several people at MIT with lower math scores than 670. I also know someone who got into MIT with a 3.1 unweighted high school GPA. Should he be getting offended when someone advises someone to bring up their GPA? I'm not making fun of anyone, I am telling people to raise their scores because it will help.</p>

<p>And also, if you hate putting so much emphasis on the SAT, shouldn't you be proud to have gotten admitted with a below average SAT math score? Now you know your other accomplishments got you in and you didn't even need an 800 math score. You didn't even need a 770+ score on a test you hate to get in.</p>

24

<p>I agree with Kevtrice, the math SAT is reasonably important. But it's not as much that a higher SAT is always better, it's simply that you need some way to prove that you can handle MIT's math curriculum. Above a 750, the scores on the SAT math are officially treated the same. If you're below that line then you need to think about whether or not the rest of your application (SAT II Math scores, AMC scores) conveys your mathematical ability - if they do, then it doesn't matter all. If they don't, then you're a little behind, and if you iknow you deserved better on the SAT, there's no shame in retaking it.</p>

<p>Laura, with respect, I'm afraid that you're somehow taking the admissions office's propaganda and making it what it's not. The worry is that we will discourage the holders of lower SAT scores to apply, or they will end up focusing too much on their SAT. This attitude is of course mistaken, since MIT admits students for all sorts of reasons. Officially, personal qualities and fit for MIT, are the most important factors; these are largely calculated from the essays and recommendations, and are very subjective. If you thought you were lucky to get a 700 on the math, then it's silly to retake it just because you might do slightly better by Brownian motion. Admissions may just check that you've taken AP Calc and then OK you - and then you could easily find out that you're the MIT type, when you're admitted in the Spring.</p>

25

<p>Question: My SAT math was a 690 but my ACT math was a 35.Does this 35 help me more than the 690 hurts me or do I not need to worry about my SAT/ACT scores anymore because all MIT will worry about is the 35 rather than the 690 and not use that against me. </p>

<p>2: Is a 630V 690M 570W too low for MIT. Probably the worse stats of all yall on this board. </p>

<p>I sound confusing huh? Yall get what im saying?
I know im gonna retake in Oct so dont worry about suggesting me retake.</p>

26

<p>all i can say is it depends on your overall package...that is the deciding factor into MIT...</p>

<p>There is no way anyone can suggest your chances just by your scores--yes there are some with higher scores than you, and there are some with lower scores than you...so i dont know really what to tell you but work on your EC's and your essay and reatke IF you want to......bear in mind most of us are just regular people..not admission officers</p>

27

<p>
[quote]

Does this 35 help me more than the 690 hurts me or do I not need to worry about my SAT/ACT scores anymore because all MIT will worry about is the 35 rather than the 690 and not use that against me.

[/quote]

If you submit both your SAT and ACT scores, MIT will only consider the scores which present you in the best light.</p>

28

<p>it really doesn't matter, please don't waste your money. anything in the seven-hundreds is sufficient... </p>

<p>if mit is really your top choice, you should probably reconsider your priorities anyway. like many of the members said here, the sats are just a way to make sure you're not horribly inept and can handle the coursework at their schools. your 800 on sat math iic shows that already, so there's no reason to beat a dead horse with a stick. remember, sat i math only covers up to algebra ii, and even this was a pretty recent addition. sat ii math, on the other hand, is a more comprehensive survey of the field - it includes concepts up to pre-calculus. which do you think mit cares more? that you lost a few points due to strange wording /designed/ to trip you, or that you are adequately versed in trigonometry?</p>

<p>i noticed a few members like laura and mollie responded to your post with similar sentiments. i think you should take their words with at least a grain of salt. obviously they got in, but their scores weren't perfect (or even stellar, due to standard inflation). this shows that a higher score won't help you in any way at all, if you've already broken a certain threshhold. </p>

<p>i'm sure mit has seen its fair share of 800-everything. let's say, hypothetically, you managed to raise your scores to 2400. when you're competing with a thousand other perfects, how are you supposed to gain the upper hand? what's better than a 2400?</p>

<p>come on man, you have more stuff than that.</p>

29

<p>Wow, 35, that's very good!</p>

<p>Snowfinite, I think MIT actually cares about the SAT I more. But, this is a speculation, however, I think Ben Golub would agree with me.</p>

<p>I'll say it again, though, don't risk having too low of a score if you think you can do substantially better. The money and time to take the test aspect is trivial, I hope people just say that because it has a certain ring to it. People can sugar coat everything for you, but MIT is going to want to see you do well on the math SAT. If you think you can do better, please take the test again to help yourself get into your favorite school.</p>

30

<p>Why would they care more about SAT I when SAT IIc and AP Calc scores are available on an applicant and more accurately reflect the applicant's ability to tackle higher math, ability to handle a demanding course (AP Calc), and willingness to push themselves beyond standard high school expectations?</p>

<p>D. won't take the SAT I again--no WAY will she have time this fall. She's doing an independent study next year (the rest of calculus and possibly AP stat), she's taking a photography class this summer and is running all around taking photos, printing them and matting/framing them to give to family and friends for Christmas and she's learning the music for a benefit concert she's organizing as her senior project. Oh, and she's got to do her college apps. This is on top of her usual varsity sports/newspaper editor schedule. </p>

<p>If she's right for MIT they'll figure it out, and if she's not right, she's better off not trying to force it.</p>

31

<p>So you are apparently going to let the MIT admissions department tell your daughter whether she is fit for MIT. I'm pretty sure you believe, as most people do on this forum, including me, that perfectly qualified applicants get rejected because so many great students apply. It's not like if she gets in, she should be there and if she doesn't get in, she shouldn't. You definitely want to give it your all in the admissions process, assuming it doesn't take a long time. And taking the SAT takes three hours. You came on this thread asking whether your daughter should retake the SAT, and now somehow this thread convinced you that she shouldn't? You have now made up your mind?</p>

<p>Why would MIT care about the SAT I, over more advanced math? I don't know. It doesn't really matter though. Why should they care about the SAT anyway? It's just one little stupid test. Well, they do. Why should they care about sports, or diversity, some may ask, or any thing else? It doesn't really matter because they do.</p>

32

<p>Oh yeah, and don't worry about the SAT, everyone seems to be saying "don't worry", because worrying is an undesirable thing. Don't worry about it, but take them again if you can get higher.</p>

33

<p>i think any factor in admissions is best viewed in context with Bryan's four-leg table analogy, where SATs is one leg. A table still stands with three other strong legs. (but then again, it also stands with four! =P)</p>

<p>It's sometime daunting to think that one acceptee means turning 7-8 other applicants away.</p>

34

<p>You keep saying that it's trivial in terms of time to retake the test. That may be true, but not if you indeed to improve your score. You need to STUDY to do that, which takes time. (Self-study, prep class, whatever.) </p>

<p>You're absolutely right, of course you should try to do your best. I just try to convince people that a 690 will not make or break an application.</p>

35

<p>a 690 will not make or break an application.</p>

<p>But it will break your applications to hedge funds, later in life :P</p>

36

<p>It's true, a 690 generally won't make or break your app if you're a strong student. Plenty of people in MIT got in with a score like that. Perhaps not most, but the minority are people too! ^^</p>

37

<p>

sure, that's a great cover-up. admissions can't be a roll of the dice - if x got admitted but y didn't, then x has something over y. a person might be fit for mit under the condition that all applicants fit for mit would be accepted. however, because of the high demand and limited space, those standards for a 'fit' are consequentially raised - there might be even better matches than the original parameters dictae.</p>

<p>

of course it's not - but once again, depending on who she is competing with, she might not belong there after all. of course it's the applicant's responsibility to give their all to the admissons staff. the adcom doesn't know you, and it's up to you to show them everything you've got. everything you've got does not mean an extra fifty points on the sat. granted, it's only a couple of bucks to enroll and three hours of your time - so if the parents of this board do become convinced, go ahead - the exchange for another crack at this test isn't really that much. what's really important is the weight mit puts on sats - and that is: enough to get you by the preliminaries, but absolutely nothing afterwards. thankfully mit knows that true potential and intelligence isn't measured by a standardized test. it's true that they select largely based on personal traits; when they do look at academic merit they factor in all the underachievers and school corruption (don't laugh, i've been there) cases in their files, and view them in a situation-by-situation basis. </p>

<p>

originally i sat behind my computer and was thoroughly disgusted with cc (the hogwash on these forums are ridiculuous, people blindly asking "WILL I GET IN?! OMG LIEK AP = 3927 && I'M VAL W/ 8 YRS OF VARSITY TENNIS OH YEAHHH!!! I PWN ECHIZEN RYOMA ANY DAY, CAN I GET INTO DUKE?! LOLLOL!111!111ONEONE THIRTY-FOUR 4+7i !", especially with the ivies. it seems like with peer and parental pressure, combined with a secret vanity all of us carry, students are simply applying to all the big names without any consideration that it's their lives they're messing with! i hated this board from the first time is saw it, which was about two years ago. </p>

<p>lately, i've been rapidly approaching the application date myself. i read some of the mit blogs and amused myself with a lot of the things they wrote, some of them almost ender's game-esque; i was referred back to this forum and was once again very disconcerted with what i saw. i decided that if i detested it so much, i might as well attempt to help out and right the wrongs that i saw. </p>

<p>what is this board for, anyway? a reference, some people might reply. and references are meant to help guide a decision. why does it surprise you that she changed her mind? i'm very happy she did. it means with our combined efforts, we've persuaded her for the better (and i've succeeded in the job i hope to uphold).</p>

<p>

i'll offer an explanation. the sat ii's might offer insight into how much a student knows about a specific subject, but the sat i's remain measuring sticks for how well a student knows the basics. no matter how many twists and turns ets puts on their test, if a student isn't bluffing (you can bluff very well on subject tests - just take the time to read a review book and memorize the information a few days in advance), he or she will do well, regardless.</p>

<p>still, i stand by my theory that sat ii's will do more than enough to cover up for a mediocre sat i grade. in your case, your scores are better than mediocre, so you should have nothing to worry.</p>

<p>

doing your best doesn't always mean doing your best on sats. you could do your best on sats... if you really, really, really wanted to, you know, for fun. i suggest using your mental prowess for worthier things, like swallowing ice cream.</p>

<p>sorry this post is a little late.</p>

38

<p>"You keep saying that it's trivial in terms of time to retake the test. That may be true, but not if you indeed to improve your score. You need to STUDY to do that, which takes time. (Self-study, prep class, whatever.)"</p>

<p>No, you don't neccessarily need to study, especially if you feel you can easily improve your score. The difference between a 700 and a 790 can often be only missing <em>two fewer</em> questions in the math section, and it can definitely be worth re-taking to try to raise the score. And even if you do study, the only "studying" that helps really at all with the SAT is taking practice tests, and I don't think one practice test a month for a couple months is going kill somebody who even has a relatively full schedule (even moreso if you just do the math sections). Considering there's a pretty big difference between a 700 and 790 in admissions (of course you can get in with a 700, the rest of your app will just need to look much better), it's worth it for most people.</p>

39

<p>One guy from India who got 3X0/800=11X0 admitted to MIT.</p>

40

<br>


<br>

<p>I just love this! This captures her attitude so well..she saves her best for things that are worth doing.</p>