sloan vs. wharton

College Search & Selection
21

<p>Flames of Wrath:</p>

<p>you said that your stats are:</p>

<p>GPA: 3.53 Unweighted, 4.01 Weighted
SAT I: 1530
SAT II's: 790 Physics, 760 Math IIC, 670 Writing, 730 Literature.
No AP's at the time of application.</p>

<p>I applied to MIT in 1999, when it was easier to get in. My GPA was about 0.3 points higher than yours, both w & uw. I was in the top 3% of my high school class. My SAT was 20 points higher - the 800 was in math. My SAT IIs were the same - substitute physics for chem and take off 10 points. I had APs (and 5 on the AP chem I took as a junior). I had 10 varsity letters. I was also rejected from MIT. Don't talk to me about affirmative action for women, buddy, because it just isn't there.</p>

22

<p>Haha, are you a girl?</p>

23

<p>Anyways, I was just trying to vent my frustrations at how a girl with 1480 got in, as well as another new American who also had 1480.</p>

<p>Whereas, like I said, a guy with 1590 and much better stats than me was booted. Not trying to start an argument me, just venting frustrations.</p>

24

<p>Yeah, but that's making the mistake of correlating SAT scores with worth as a student. Percentile-wise, anything above a 1480 is 99th percentile. Statistically speaking, there's probably not a difference between a 1600 scorer and a 1480 scorer, no matter how much the person with the higher score wishes it were so.</p>

25

<p>Sigh - yes, I am a girl... </p>

<p>I agree with Mollie. The ONE case in which it would not be true would be a huge differential in math/verbal for the low scorer... e.g. if person A is 800/800, but person B is 800 verbal/680 math - person B would obviously not be as qualified to be an engineer. OTOH, if the 1480 split is 700v/780m, there is little difference in the applicants for an engineering degree.</p>

<p>My ex-boyfriend only had a 1440 and got in... also went to a worse school, lower class rank, and didn't do much outside of school - aside from SPLASH. Hum, maybe it was the last thing that helped out...</p>

26

<p>if you're comparing wharton and sloan i think its foolish to bother considering the academic differences. these two schools are so completely different its ridiculous. if you choose to go to one of these schools solely because you think its [marginally] better in finance, you will be miserable for four years (assuming you get in).</p>

27

<p>I Totally Agree With An0nym0u5
:)</p>

28

<p>oh flames, just thought I'd answer your admittance woes, as a female who was accepted to MIT this year.</p>

<p>MIT admissions has neer claimed to look at stats/numbers as the primary means of acceptance. What was so special about you? That's what they're looking for. Was your essay passionate? Do you think you showed them that you'll fit in with the culture of the school? The thing is that tons of kids apply with high test scores. Your 1530 doesn't stand out in the least. Obviously, neither did the lower test scores (both boys and girls with lower scores than you got accepted, I'll have you know) but they would have had something else going in their favor. </p>

<p>Oh yeah, and Harvard doesn't have any pre-professional UG schools. It's a bit against their philosophy - they're still a liberal arts school at heart.</p>

29

<p>Oh, boy, I was expecting this when I posted my personal views <em>smiles, cracks his knuckles, and takes a swig of Entwash waters</em>.</p>

<p>So, it seems that all the women on the board are on my back now, eh? I don't blame you, you're rapier thrusts are purely a defensive mechanism quite natural to everyone.</p>

<p>First of all, I want to discuss Mollie's disagreement with SAT's based on statistics. I find your 120 point range a little extreme. So, a person of 1400 SAT is equally as smart as another guy who got a 1280? Based on my experience, it's not true. If you were trying to establish that 1480 SAT people are equally as smart as the people who got 1600, well, I do agree sometimes scores do not always signify intelligence (one girl I knew from senior year high school was a complete copier but still got 1520). Yet, usually I have found higher SAT scores to be an indicator of higher intelligence; if not, of very hardworking people.</p>

<p>If you had taken the time to read my earlier post, I did not merely mention myself: doing so would have been completely ridiculous because I recognize that a 1530 is pretty low. However, I did mention two folks who had better scores AND stats (ha! I am determined to prove that I am not simply growling over scores). </p>

<p>I said one fellow that had a 1540 SAT I, 750+ SAT II's, great AP scores, and a near 4.0 unweighted GPA was rejected. As was a guy who had a 1590, near 800's SAT II's, 4.0 GPA (I think), and all 5's on his APs.</p>

<p>MIT claims to be a school that appreciates brilliance and talent, one of the few elites in this country that admitted on pure merit. Why, then, was the 1590 guy rejected? Because MIT felt that he just wasn't smart enough to be in the same class as the girl with the 1480? Or people like the jock with the 1440? If those are the reasons, OMG. If they aren't, then why? (Pardon the strong language, but that's the image you painted, ariesathena) Marilee Jones, its director of admissions, gave various quotes in a book called "How to get into the Top Colleges" on how MIT loves people who are smart and hardworking, and how the admissions process there wasn't like the other colleges in that dummies could get in based on a earthshaking essay. Unfortunately, many disillusioned people like me have found out that this is FALSE, that Jones is a blatant liar, and that MIT is no different: it has the same unpredictable and stupid admissions process as the Ivies that surround it.</p>

<p>Now to seriously talk with ariesathena. Are you aware that MIT used to be an all-boys school in the '70s? And are you aware that since the American youth population now uses "social life" as a criteria factor, schools have been obligated to make their school image gleam of good campus life and diversity so that smart/social people won't be diverted away from a techie school because of their party inclinations? Times change. So has MIT. And believe me, its frustrating to hear from people who are on vacation from MIT that their female classmates got in with lower stats and nothing really special (several did not even pass the AMC). Simply to make MIT look like a diverse, party-lovin family.</p>

<p>Yet, I am not saying that the majority of MIT girls are stupid. Nay, that be nonsense. But the few idiots, of course, are always there. Maybe that's why a bunch of the freshmen get out after the 1st year. Justice is ultimately achieved.</p>

<p>Therefore, I am simply saying that while some girls get in because of brilliance, others get in because they're girls. In addition, MIT should not blare the slogan of purely smart-people friendly if they are going to push aside perfectly capable and brilliant young students just so they can have the satisfaction of having a girl that said she was brainy because she raised three skunks in her backyard in just one summer.</p>

<p>I wish that somebody would please tell me how to access March and April 2005 archives so I can find the thread that had the two guys' stats posted. Speaking without hard evidence is annoying in such a discussion as this.</p>

30

<p>Katie, thanks for harvard tidbit.</p>

31

<p><a href="one%20girl%20I%20knew%20from%20senior%20year%20high%20school%20was%20a%20complete%20copier%20but%20still%20got%201520">quote</a>

[/quote]
maybe you just didn't know her. people surprise.</p>

32

<p>Well, what would you rather MIT do? Admit the 1500 people from the applicant pool with the top SAT scores, period? That's a terrifying idea, especially when one believes (like I do) that SAT scores don't really measure much in the way of ability.</p>

<p>What I was saying above, incidentally, was that a 1480 and a 1600 are both 99th percentile, so I don't think there's much of a point differentiating between the two scores. Note that I'm not talking about point spreads in a general sense, but their correlation with percentiles (<a href="http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/about/news_info/cbsenior/yr2003/pdf/table_3b.pdf)%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/about/news_info/cbsenior/yr2003/pdf/table_3b.pdf)&lt;/a>. A score of 1480 and a score of 1600 are not really all that different -- both scores put you above 99% of the people who took the test. </p>

<p>The reality is that there are far more brilliant and capable candidates who apply to MIT every year than there are spots for them. It sucks, but there it is. And that means that a lot of qualified candidates are going to be turned away each year, even those who believe their qualifications are good enough.</p>

<p>MIT is not, by the way, "purely smart-people friendly." It is probably better to be a hardworking MIT student than a brilliant one, and the admissions committee takes this into account when selecting a freshman class. They like to see smart people who can get up when they fall down, rather than necessarily perfect valedictorian 1600-types who would crack under real pressure. An important aspect of this is proving to the admissions committee that you can handle a tough workload; some people do that through academics and academic olympiads, some people do that through insane extracurricular schedules. Merit doesn't just mean GPA, class rank, and SAT score, and believing that it does leads to misconceptions like yours.</p>

<p>My gut feeling, after being here for three years, is that there are just as many dumb guys here as dumb girls. Actually, I think that there are more dumb guys, but my boyfriend is ambivalent about that assertation, so we're compromising.</p>

<p>And, incidentally, on the value of test scores as the be-all and end-all of admissions worth -- I got a 1430 on the SAT four years ago, which I believe would be considered unworthy relative to the numerous 1500+ students who were probably rejected in favor of me. I took the GRE yesterday (which is scored on the same 200-800 scale, but on which it is more difficult to get a very high score because the population being tested is students planning to go to grad school, a more selective group than students planning to go to college) -- and got a 1540. Should I have been rejected four years ago because of my 1430, when I've clearly gone on to be successful (double-major, 3.5 GPA, publishing a paper in a major journal in my field as an undergraduate)? </p>

<p>The fact is that SAT score is not strictly predictive of success at a pressure cooker like MIT. To cite one more example, a friend of mine (male) got an 1150 on the SAT, was admitted based on his outstanding engineering-related ECs and college courses, and graduated this year as probably the most talented Mech E in his class. Should he have been denied admission since his SAT score wasn't worthy?</p>

<p>You don't need perfect stats to be successful at MIT. You need tenacity, determination, and passion.</p>

33

<p>Sweetheart, not to be condescending, but I would really like to know who is giving you false information.</p>

<p>First of all... you mention that you are determined to prove that you knew people who got rejected with better scores AND stats, and then you go on to mention that you want to show that you were not strictly thinking about scores. Well then, what do you mean by stats? In MIT admissions (along with every other school in the country) stats refer to numbers - number of APs, scores on AP tests, AMC scores, etc... the girls on here who are arguing you are also not merely referring to the SAT. MIT simply looks at the scores/stats to see if you got a decently high score to handle the school work. They give them no more consideration than that. The bulk of admissions is on intangible factors, and every single admissions officer there, including Marilee, will agree to that. Maybe you didn't show the passion. MIT is all about passion, intensity, and <em>cough</em> a good attitude. </p>

<p>You have usually found SAT scores to mean higher intelligence? And you are qualified to say this how? Yeah, Einstein was LD in grade school, and averaged Cs in some of his physics courses in undergrad university. It's a bit of a cliche thing to remind you of, but um MIT remembers things like this and looks for future promise in their applicants instead of merely current conformity to collegeconfidential standards. </p>

<p>to quote you: "you're rapier thrusts" Grammer are you're friend. </p>

<p>MIT would not think that a 1590 guy was not smart enough to attend class with 1480s. The admissions office constantly reminds applicants that about 80% or around there of applicants can do the coursework at MIT. That's why it's so difficult to get in. What else would the 1590 have added to campus other than good grades? </p>

<p>Um, you have the MIT admissions process backwards. It's most other schools that admit on scores and stats. MIT is a school that will honestly look at overall context. No, one great essay will not get you in. A bunch of good test scores will also not get you in. A bunch of decently good test scores, an honest essay that lets them know how well you would fit in at MIT, passionate extracurriculars that are backed up by recommendations, a true love for learning and an understanding of the world around you will get you in. </p>

<p>MIT has a 98% freshman retention rate. A bunch of the idiots do not get out after the first year. We seem to be stuck with those idiots. <em>sigh</em> :)</p>

<p>You mention MIT being an all boys school in the '70s. I hope you mean 1870s. Um, that's all I'm going to say on that one. </p>

<p>Even if you could get to the two guys' stats, which I'm sure are spectacular, we would still retort with the things we're saying now. It's not about stats. It's as simple as that. </p>

<p>One more thing... did you give a good answer for the question that asks what you like to do simply for yourself and your own personal enjoyment? They like that one, and I have a feeling they don't look for suck-uppy answers like "I do advanced math." Anyway, the answers to those types of questions, along with everything else in your application, are what tells them a lot about you. To anyone reading this who would like to apply to MIT in the future, the trick is to make yourself stand out. Test scores will not do this. If you fit in with MIT, you'll understand why without even any of us explaining :)</p>

34

<p>LOL - exactly - MIT started admitting women in the nineteenth century. </p>

<p>Are you saying that, despite my stats, I'm not bubbly enough for MIT? One of my friends said that I was rejected on account of having too much personality for the place (no offense to Mollie). ;) C'mon, why would they take a "stupid" woman and reject me?</p>

35

<p>wasnt MIT founded in the 1950s?</p>

36

<p>Y'all are clueless. (Not the girls - the other y'all.)</p>

<p><a href="http://libraries.mit.edu/archives/exhibits/esr/index.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://libraries.mit.edu/archives/exhibits/esr/index.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Should answer the woman and the history question at once.</p>

<p>As I recall (can't find a link), MIT was founded around the time of the Civil War but the opening of the Institute was delayed due to said War.</p>

37

<p>wow, flame<em>of</em>wrath is under siege! lol...but flame, I do have to say a few things regarding some of the issues you brought up. (And I'm afraid that, though being a guy, I have to disagree with a few things you said--hope you can spare me...lol)</p>

<p>First, I don't really believe in something called the "SAT". (Even though my score wasn't bad at all.) The CollegeBoard said that the correlation between high SAT scores and good first year uni grades is about .6 (even them!), when public (neutral) analysts say it's only about a .4. So maybe in some cases, high scorers indeed match great attitude, work ethics and what not. But it's just as equally likely that a high score doens't have all that much to do with anything else! I remember when I prepared for the analogy section on the old SAT, the book (Princeton Review, wasn't it?) told me all these tricks about not knowing what the heck the words in the question mean, but still figure out the answer just by looking at the choices. And something like "go with the flow, is it positive or negative?" makes me feel like I'm in physics class. My point is, SAT is way too highly overrated, and that's why a lot of universities do not take them as seriously (to the slightest extent) as people may think (or hope?). And THAT is a good thing.</p>

<p>Regarding your attitude towards the affirmative action, and why some girls (one?) you know got into MIT with (seemingly) lower stats than some guys you know. (Sorry I have to put things in brackets because I don't know the credibility of these sources, not doubting you, of course, :D) The affirmative action, if any, has been going on since the late 1980s, and quite frankly, if it's that much of a factor in admissions into these elites, which aren't doing all that bad (both academically and otherwise when compared to 20 years ago, you know, maybe girls perform better in universities than boys PERIOD. Besides, you REALLY think that the universities will be so single-minded as to be bounded on what, eliminating gender inequality? Come on! They (the elites) don't care about gender, ethnicity, religion, class as NEARLY as they do in the individual (how can he/she contribute to the university? are they ready? do they really love the uni?) And in case you didn't know, people with "higher" stats don't get in, but people with "lower" stats get in ALL THE TIME! Are you saying it never existed when it was "all boy" hundreds of years ago? If stats were the only thing that mattered (it's not!), why do you think there are things called "teacher recs" and "personal essays" on the application? Maybe I will see this whole thing differently after this year's admissions (let's just hope I get into my first choice, lol), and maybe then I will be swayed by this wave of irrationality/jealousy? But as it stands now, I believe it's totally ludicrous to think that university admissions process is tainted by some affirmative action on genders, at least not to the extent you were expressing discontent to...not ever!</p>

<p>So guys, don't blame it on the girls. If you are really good, I don't think you'd care. (btw, I'm certainly not that good, so I was half speaking to myself, you know, just mentally prepared if I get rejected...:D)</p>

38

<p>As a group, women who apply as engineering majors have higher stats than their male counterparts. Admitted women have higher stats than their male counterparts. Surprise there. </p>

<p>Reasoning: possibly because men are confident enough in their science/math ability to apply anyway, whereas women need the validation of the high grades and SAT scores to think they can handle the curriculum. </p>

<p>So if you're going by stats, men are the ones who are being helped out, as they get in with lower SAT scores. :) (If you are curious, google this - NYT article after the Larry Summers media frenzy.)</p>

39

<p>Wharton hands down...but I'm a little biased.</p>

<p>Come on who wants to go to the nerdiest school in the world?
Typical MIT conversation:
1: So what are you doing this weekend?
2: Nothing just studying...how about you?
1: Oh I just submitted this huge paper so I thought I'd relax this weekend.
2: That sounds nice...what kind of relaxing are you going to do? Chill in your room? Go out and party? Go to the bar and hit on some good looking ladies?
1: (looks confused) Well I was just going to get a group together and have differential equation races & watch the new PBS special on quantum physics...by the way, what are ladies? Ok man I have to go...you know how Kim Lee Kim gets when people are late for our Star Wars club meeting.
2: See you later...may the force be with you.</p>

40

<p>The civil war idea is correct. </p>

<p>Fewer girls apply to MIT because it's just a truth of our society that most girls are not interested in science/engineering. Therefore, the rate of accepted girls is higher; however, there is a greater process of self-selection in the that only very qualified girls seem to apply whereas more unqualified males do, so it ends up being about equal. </p>

<p>And people sheesh, MIT has been around a hell of a lot longer than the 1950s. George Eastman, of Eastman Kodak... even hear of him? Along with several other alums from 'round the turn of the century. <em>sigh</em></p>