<p>Yes, we consider any context of which we are aware.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>MIT requires a math Subject Test and a science Subject Test. If I send in additional tests, will MIT consider them?</p>
<p>What silverturtle means is that</p>
<p>Does MIT consider subject test scores in addition to the two required?</p>
<p>i.e.</p>
<p>800s on Math II, Bio, Chem, USH, Literature, Spanish</p>
<p>Would all of those be considered or only the requirements considered (math and a science)?</p>
<p>@silverturtle - </p>
<p>Yes, but we put the most weight on the best math score and best science score you have.</p>
<p>Thank you.</p>
<p>When you say a B+ in the context of a lot of other academic excellence, what do you mean by “academic exellence”?
I mean, in my case I had like an 89.9, but our science department rounds down (-.-).
My school has challenging curriculum, and the people who generally are okish or bad at science get B-'s and lower. Obviously, you don’t need a nobel prize to make up for a B+ in sophomore physics…right?</p>
<p>These are insane statistics.</p>
<p>@junhugie - </p>
<p>Relax, you don’t need a nobel prize. Just apply. </p>
<p>@Honors - </p>
<p>Thanks!</p>
<p>@Thank you so much MITChris! You’ve been so helpful!</p>
<p>I have one last question, does attending a summer program like RSI or TASP or being a national AP scholar after junior year qualify to be “Starry”?</p>
<p>You can’t equate RSI, TASP to National AP Scholar.</p>
<p>MITChris - Is there a statistic for the number of applications that don’t make it to the AdCom’s review process? What I am trying to understand is this: Are all of them reviewed during the selection process or is there a notable percentage that simply don’t make the first cut?</p>
<p>@Kajon - </p>
<p>We don’t have a meaningful, consistent, year after year statistic on that. What I can tell you is that every applicant, no matter how poor their application, is reviewed by at least one (and more often more) senior admissions officers prior to not making it to committee. So in that sense, everyone makes the first cut. </p>
<p>I wish we could bring every case before a hypothetical committee consisting of the entire staff, sitting around a big fancy wooden table glowering with ultimate power, but - do the math: </p>
<p>16,000 applicants * 90 minutes per applicant (a random number I picked that seems like a good number as any for this exercise) / 60 (for minutes in an hour) / 24 (for hours in a day) / 365 (for days in a year) == ~2.7 years of nonstop application consideration per year of applicants. </p>
<p>Or, put another way: if we wanted to bring every applicant before an all-staff committee, and we wanted to have it completed in an actual admissions cycle (say, 12 weeks, each week being five 12 hour work days long), we would only be able to devote ~ 2.7 minutes per applicant, which obviously wouldn’t do them justice. </p>
<p>So we manage time in a couple of different ways. We have statistical models used to evaluate standardized test scores as predictors for success or causes for concern in terms of academic qualifications (as I’ve described extensively elsewhere). We have senior staff review applications against these models (and their own personal expertise) for students who are then evaluated by other officers and eventually brought several smaller committees, each with their own competences and expertise, before the final acceptances finally make their way through all the cuts and to MIT. That’s why we say that if you’ve been accepted to MIT your application has been probably read by at least a dozen different folks. </p>
<p>As you can imagine, it is an incredibly time-intensive process. I personally prefer to spend around ~40 minutes per application, studying the student’s profile, learning from the world they come from, and searching for that MIT “match” that will help provide a compelling reason to bring them to campus. </p>
<p>I don’t get a lot of sleep in reading season, and I don’t get a lot of time on the weekends to watch football. But you know what? I am glad that we spend so much time on our kids, because they go on to be the greatest college students in the world.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Darn it! Now you have ruined my image of you guys sitting in a wood paneled library with a fire crackling in the background, soothing music, sipping a Starbuck’s and munching on chocolate chip cookies! :p</p>
<p>Thanks for the reply - I was just curious how the process works and was wondering how you guys possibly get through that many apps.</p>
<p>^I know, that’s the image I always had as well :P.</p>
<p>*I don’t get a lot of sleep in reading season, and I don’t get a lot of time on the weekends to watch football. *</p>
<p>Poor admissions officers :(.</p>
<p>I would just like to say to anyone applying this year… good luck. If you get in, I am happy for you.</p>
<p>MITChirs,</p>
<p>I have wealthy friends who used their parents’ $ to cheat through the college admission process. This is totally not fair. Someone has relatives who are professors and simply told the professors to include his name on the published papers. Someone hired an unethical education consultant to even write the essays for him. The worse part is elite colleges like MIT will never find out about it.</p>
<p>As I said in the other thread, I don’t think that a middle author in a paper means much. I also doubt that a professor will put in somebody’s name in a peer review paper just because he/she is a relative. However, if he/she did contribute significantly, there is nothing wrong to include him/her into a paper. Consultant may not write a better assay than the kid because the experience is not original.</p>
<p>If the rich kid does get great grades and scores, and embraces to get hammered in MIT classes, he/she may deserve it.</p>
<p>What about being first author? Does that give a significant boost? What if the paper is being presented to a conference as well?</p>
<p>bestswimmer,</p>
<p>Having a consultant write an essay or being a middle name on a paper is one thing, getting the grades at MIT is another. MIT isn’t the place to just get by, it takes a lot of work to stay there.</p>
<p>Since I am not an admission officer of MIT, I cannot speak for them. In the field of natural and biological sciences, if a high schooler first authors a peer-review paper in a journal with impact factor 6 and above, it will be highly unusual, probably more meritorious than winning a Intel or Siemens. A typical Ph.D. thesis in major research universities in the U.S. is 2 first author peer review papers. </p>
<p>Conference papers are not much meaningful though.</p>