<p>Yeah, I don't know... Are your SATs below 2200, since I don't really have a good data set for that? </p>
<p>Honestly, I think my formula is solid, although it certainly does have a tendency to over-estimate chances.</p>
<p>Yeah, I don't know. I'm pretty sure I didn't do anything wrong, I just think that the CC decision threads aren't really an accurate sample.</p>
<p>i got a 79.0%. haha. thats much better than 104%.</p>
<p>grrrr... WHAT DID I DO WRONG?!?!?!?? </p>
<p>But really, it seems like CC is just really skewed towards crazy talented people, which is throwing off my results.</p>
<p>I think this idea is a big waste of time. There is no possible way to measure the acceptance rates of top schools like MIT or Harvard or Berkeley for that matter. There are too many qualitative components that are taken into consideration. Yes, to an extent, raw data does matter. This would include what you have wasted your time on - GPA, SAT, SAT II, ACT, blah blah blah.</p>
<p>You haven't considered location, the school, personal circumstances, essays - which are of course the most important. All of these factors have considerable influence on the decision. A person from Montana has a far better chance of getting in than a person from San Francisco. Demographics come into play as well, although all these colleges say it doesn't...i think that's baloney. What about if you're female/male? Males have a much harder chance. So what's the point in doing all these calculations? Besides, you've already submitted everything over which you were in control. There's no point in mulling over things you can't change.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think this idea is a big waste of time.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's great. </p>
<p>
[quote]
There is no possible way to measure the acceptance rates of top schools like MIT or Harvard or Berkeley for that matter. There are too many qualitative components that are taken into consideration.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Agreed, I even mentioned that in my 1st post. In fact, in many ways, that's the ultimate conclusion of my statistical correlations - that SATs are not a terribly important factor so long as your score is above a certain threshold. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Yes, to an extent, raw data does matter. This would include what you have wasted your time on - GPA, SAT, SAT II, ACT, blah blah blah.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The regular decisions threads seem to indicate that these matter quite a bit, but only during a certain threshold. </p>
<p>
[quote]
You haven't considered location, the school, personal circumstances, essays - which are of course the most important. All of these factors have considerable influence on the decision.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I know, that's why I said that it was "rough". If I could get essays and personal circumstances, than we wouldn't need to call them chances, would we? </p>
<p>
[quote]
A person from Montana has a far better chance of getting in than a person from San Francisco. Demographics come into play as well, although all these colleges say it doesn't...i think that's baloney. What about if you're female/male? Males have a much harder chance.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I should have actually done male/female correlations to see if you're right. And ultimately, I had insufficient evidence to consider demographics, although that could've been very interesting.</p>
<p>HERE'S ANOTHER CORRECTION: </p>
<p><strong><em>ATTENTION: UPDATED CHANCES FORMULA</em></strong></p>
<p>Here's my updated data, taken from this years early decision thread and last year's regular decision thread. The stats from over 73 students were sampled (I really have no life).</p>
<p>Correlations:</p>
<p>SATs (all 3 sections, super scored):</p>
<p>.002997</p>
<p>Math Level 2 Subject Test:</p>
<p>.2475</p>
<p>Highest Science Subject Test:</p>
<p>.1191</p>
<p>Unweighted GPA:</p>
<p>.302</p>
<p>Number of AP Tests passed with 4/5:</p>
<p>-.0531 (Doing well on AP Tests actually hurts your chances)</p>
<p>Ranking of most important factors:</p>
<ol>
<li>GPA/Class Rank</li>
<li>Math Subject Test</li>
<li>Science Subject Test</li>
<li>SATs</li>
<li>AP Tests</li>
</ol>
<p>As for SATs not correlating to chances, I very honestly believe that I did my calculation correctly, however nearly every student who posted had SATs in the 2200+ range, and very little data existed for students with SATs below 2100. This is interesting, since it seems to defeat the myth that there's a big difference in college's mind between a 2300 and a 2400.</p>
<p>I have no idea why the AP relationship exists. Its possible that the kids who took no APs went to unconventional schools, and therefore stood out. But this is a very interesting result.</p>
<p>Anyway, onto the formula (I provide a whole lot of precision with the decimal places, it's somewhat unnecessary, depending on how precise you want your final chance to be):</p>
<p>Step 1:</p>
<p>Take your SAT score (out of 2400), and multiply it by .0000098545 and add .69614, take this number and multiply it by .0048456</p>
<p>Store this number</p>
<p>Step 2:</p>
<p>Take your Math Level 2 SAT Subject test score (out of 800) and multiply it by .002628 and then subtract 1.325722243, then multiply this number by .4</p>
<p>Store this number</p>
<p>Step 3:</p>
<p>Take your highest Science SAT Subject Test score (out of 800) and multiply it by .001054, then subtract .076445 from that number, then multiply this number by .19256</p>
<p>Store this number</p>
<p>Step 4:</p>
<p>Take your unweighted GPA (out of 4.0), and multiply it by 1.265733423, then subtract 4.852933692 from this number, then multiply by .4883224064</p>
<p>Store this number</p>
<p>Step 5:</p>
<p>Take the number of AP Tests you've gotton a 4 or a 5 on, and multiply by -.0091718924, then add .7635234132 to this number. Then multiply by -.0857756388</p>
<p>Store this number
Step 6:</p>
<p>Add the results from steps 1-5, and multiply by 100. This is your percent chance of being admitted into MIT.</p>
<p>lol, first one got me a 106.9%, second one a 93.6% chance</p>
<p>I was deferred, so sorry these aren't great indicators. =/</p>
<p>I would try working the formula with just SAT CR score, see if you get a higher correlation. My guess is that they completely discount the writing section.</p>
<p>Haha al6200 - I meant to be openly hostile to see your response, and I must say I'm impressed with your "cool" reply.</p>
<p>I still think this stuff is a waste of time, but good luck with admissions... : )</p>
<p>
[quote]
But this is really intriguing. A 2400 is no better than a 2200, assuming people on CC are honest and vindictive (sic) of the general trend.
[/quote]
Not too terribly intriguing -- if you search the CC posts of Ben Jones (benjones), you'll see that he explicitly states that MIT doesn't advantage a 2400 scorer over a 2250 scorer.</p>
<p>Yeah, but I think its just that my sample is skewed. People on CC who posted in the decisions thread had a SAT subject test scores much, much higher than the MIT average, and SAT scores much higher as well. </p>
<p>@molliebatmit, do they value a 2400 scorer over a 2170 (my score) scorer? Just curious...</p>
<p>haha, the third formula is even more amazing. i got a 50.5% chance. : )</p>
<p>@al: I don't think cumulative scores are easy to discuss. I think it depends on the breakdown. MIT admissions has said before they don't value the writing test very highly so it is better to have scored better on the math and verbal sections.</p>
<p>@al6200: yeah, an excel table (or any other format, for that matter) would be cool :)
@anyone who thinks this is a waste of time: It is. But that is not the point ;)</p>
<p>
[quote]
@molliebatmit, do they value a 2400 scorer over a 2170 (my score) scorer? Just curious...
[/quote]
I wouldn't be able to tell you, and I think Ben was saying something like "once you're over a certain threshold, your exact scores per se aren't important" rather than "2250 = 2400" only.</p>
<p>Yeah, the only reason I re-took a 2270 was to balance out my CR score because I thought I could do better (and I did 70 points better in the second testing)...and honestly even then I probably shouldn't have re-taken it. 2400s are nice, but if you have a 1500+ on the math/cr then it really doesnt matter.</p>
<p>48.3555% chance. I don't know if that's good or bad. :):(</p>
<p>My CR+M is 1450, idk, it was kind of disappointing when i got it. But you know, that's how life is, they would be 1500s if everyone got them</p>
<p>I honestly think 1450 is above that line that Mollie was talking about...dont sweat it</p>