<p>LauraN, what did u get on IIC or IC? I know how to do calc as my AP score reflects, but i just take an extra few seconds for each pre-cal question. That just kills me on the test so basically shows that MC is not meant for me. Would 4>680IIC, 750IC? Im usually careful on my work but its just the time factor for MC.</p>
<p>
LAURA'S NUMBER ONE RULE FOR THE ADMISSIONS PROCESS:</p>
<p>I already talked about this in my first entry ever. If you are reading this now and thinking "yeah yeah okay but what about the 770 I got on the math section of the SAT? That's THIRTY WHOLE POINTS BELOW PERFECT," then you need to stop. Right now. I'm totally serious. I really think that kind of thing is nothing short of unhealthy, and Marliee Jones agrees with me. First of all, I only got a 700 on the math section of the SAT I (gasp!), and I don't want to listen to other people worry that a 770 means they're not smart enough for MIT. That makes me part sad, part angry. (Mostly angry. =P) Second of all, perfection is useless. Of course MIT only admits students who are qualified, but once you hit a certain level of scores and grades and activities, the applicant pool is so large that a difference in 10 points on your SATs simply does not matter. At this point, you've done all you can do. You can't worry about that one research paper you handed in late freshman year that lost you .01 points on your history GPA. All you can do is try to show MIT who you are through your interviews and essays, and the more relaxed you are, the easier that will be.
</p>
<p>...from this</a> entry of her</a> blog. :)</p>
<p>"Second of all, perfection is useless."</p>
<p>i disagree with her. would i want my brain surgeon to say that to my family after my brain surgery? i think not.</p>
<p>in my opinion, there are fields of studies where perfection is good</p>
<p>If we were perfect, we wouldn't be humans. That'd be sad :B
but being nearly perfect as a brain surgeon would be kinda nice...</p>
<p>i think the context is sort of important here :-P
(maybe college admissions are necessarily more imprecise than brain surgery? :-P)</p>
<p>I have an vast disparity between my SAT I and SAT II scores. I was wondering, firstly, how colleges would percieve this. Since the SAT I is a "Reasoning Test", does that mean MIT will percieve me as a poor reasoner, despite relatively high SAT II scores?</p>
<p>Thanks, Mollie. =)</p>
<p>Namkim does have a point, but everyone else is right too. Perfection would be kind of nice for a brain surgeon, but it's still impossible. Thankfully, high school seniors are not brain surgeons. But point taken. =) </p>
<p>This next bit applies to zking786 and callthecops2: while I can't give you some kind of breakdown of what goes on in the head of an admissions officer when (s)he sees an 800 SAT I vs. a 3 on the AP vs a 4 on the AP vs a 700 SAT II vs whatever...I will say that they are (generally) reasonable people who do keep in mind that all of the above mentioned numbers are test scores. Test scores, while important, are fairly imperfect measures of intelligence (not to mention pretty awful measures of people in general.) I know we're probably drving you all nuts with this "context is important" arguement, but here's where it's important. If you got straight A's in precalc and a 600 on the Math IIC- well those As represent a year of your life. The 600 represents an hour. Maybe you choked on test day. They won't throw your app in the trash because of that one number. =)</p>
<p>Sorry to be so vague, but there are no real answers.</p>
<p>Thanks for your advice. It seems to make sense, although a part of me still doubts they take such as reasonable approach. I guess I'll never really come around till I look at this from the perspective of an admitted student =).</p>
<p>With regards my specific case:
Anyway, do you think they percieve a person who scored low on the SAT I as a poor reasoner? I was sort of stumped when I looked back at the purpose of the SAT I and SAT II exams. I figured the subject exams gauge one's knowledge of the subject matter, fairly aptly. The SAT I, however, seems to test one's "reasoning" abilities. In some of the correspondences I've had with adcoms, I've been told that the SATs are used to gudge the student's ability to handle the courses. I was wondering how they would interpret such a disparity. I still don't seem to get what you mean by "context is important". Surely, they take your context into account when they evaluate you. In fact, it makes sense in terms of comparing course grades to standardized scores (ie. one year of work earning an A, versus one hour of work disadvantaging one with a 600). But your response doesn't seem to make sense when one considers such a vast difference between two different standardized test scores. In my situation, I scored 650 in Math twice on the SAT I, but scored a 5 on the AP Calc exam and recieved an 800 on the Math IIc. As you can see, the subject tests (the SAT II and the AP exams) show my mastering of the course materials of precalculus and calculus, but my "reasoning" scores are far below average. Sort of an odd situation. That's why I was wondering what might go through the head of an adcom who glanced at these scores.</p>
<p>thanks for that Laura. For me, my SAT IIs have consistently been < APs. ie. took Physics SAT II when i sucked at physics, and got 690 in January, got a 5 on the Physics B in May, took SAT II Physics again in June and landed up with a 680 :( Same went with my IIC. Got a 650 on IIC after the may AP Calc exam on which I got a 4, while in January, I got a 680. In my opinion AP scores are just better judges of the quality of the student because its got free-response and not just MC, and its a taught course over a full year (so school grades will also be backed up by the AP test score). Does anyone know if this is a logic that adcoms might apply to standardized tests?</p>
<p>Well, what about this: I got a rather bad score on US History, a 730. Admittedly, my chem score is not perfect (780), but I did manage an 800 in math.</p>
<p>In other words, how much weight is placed on the "3rd" SAT II?</p>
<p>Namkim: An '800' does not immediately signify any sort of perfection.</p>
<p>Jesus, decisions come out in two weeks. Anyone else jittery?</p>
<p>"rather bad...730"</p>
<p>oh please.</p>
<p>jennyz365:</p>
<p>Pretty please with a cherry on top?</p>
<p>Is there any comparison made on the 3rd SAT II, like, with AP exams?</p>
<p>zking786:</p>
<p>That's odd. I'd tend to think performance in AP courses would more accurately reflect performance in college classes.</p>