<p>hehe i think she meant the writing section, not cc, as a means to eliminate candidates :).</p>
<p>
[quote]
i think she meant the writing section, not cc
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh... yes, this makes much more sense. Sorry.</p>
<p>But still... the goal is to admit people, not reject them.</p>
<p>"Mini - indeed, we have 1000 spots for almost 11,000 applicants. But if I looked at the process the way you've described it, I couldn't do this job. How does one equate answering questions on CC with "using whatever means necessary to reject 85% of the applicants"? Try as I might, I can't make the connection."</p>
<p>I know full well that your job is about accepting the best possible CLASS for MIT, and that your job is extraordinarily difficult. And I appreciate that fully. I also know that you could fill a second or even a third class at MIT with rejects virtually as academically talented as those you accept. </p>
<p>I think it is wonderful! that you'll take the time to help out. I imagine it gives great pleasure to be able to do so, given that for every happy person (and family) you accept, there will be 5 or 6 disappointed ones. But while from MIT's perspective you are in the business of building the best possible class, from students' and parents' perspectives (as you well know) you are in the business of figuring out whom to reject, especially as you have to do that far more often than accepting.</p>
<p>So, a fair question is, since you do it so often, how do you know which perfectly qualified and talented candidates to reject? I will fully understand if you decide not to answer directly, but I think I'm only asking the one question the answer to which virtually every parent on this board wants to know.</p>
<p>Ben, there is some corroborating evidence of the report of Cujoe: </p>
<p>From Education Week: June 8, 2005
<a href="http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2005/06/08/39sat.h24.html?rale=l4RcsgF70mPtCaS2ek8aL%%5B/url%5D">http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2005/06/08/39sat.h24.html?rale=l4RcsgF70mPtCaS2ek8aL%</a></p>
<p>
[quote]
Colleges Hesitate to Embrace SAT Writing Test
By Vaishali Honawar </p>
<p>Three months after the debut of the SAT writing test, some colleges are expressing concerns about its validity, and many have decided not to require the scores, at least for the time being.</p>
<p>**Among the institutions that will not consider SAT writing scores, at least not for the next admissions cycle, are the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Georgetown University. </p>
<p>MIT will not consider writing scores for the fall 2006 admissions class and will take them into account the following year only after a campus panel of experts reviews the test and ensures its validity, said Les Perelman, the universitys director of undergraduate writing. ** </p>
<p>Mr. Perelman, who studied more than 50 sample SAT essays, said he believes the new section does not allow time for students to plan and revise their essays and is therefore not a realistic test of their writing ability. </p>
<p>Editing and revision are very important for writers, he said. We know that the difference between professional writers and novice writers, the single most important characteristic that differentiates them, is the extent of the substantial revision they make on essays. </p>
<p>Mr. Perelman added that he was also concerned that the College Board, the New York City-based organization that sponsors the SAT, advises scorers to overlook factual errors in essays. </p>
<p>Their justification for that is that this is a test on writing and not a test on information, he said. I personally think you cant separate the two.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It seems that for the SAT Writing to return to its prominence at MIT, it will have to overcome the mighty resistance of Les Perelman. :)</p>
<p>Mini, I see where you're coming from now and apologize for reading your previous post incorrectly.</p>
<p>Alas, you've described (perfectly) the hardest part of this job. There are simply too many "perfectly qualified and talented candidates." Personally, I have lobbied hard for many applicants who have not been accepted. It is heartbreaking.</p>
<p>I'm not good at rejecting people. In fact, I hate it. Primary readers often "bond" with the applications they read - thus the importance of the selection committee - otherwise we'd admit everyone.</p>
<p>The average application is reviewed by approximately 10 staff members by the time it's been through selection. Decisions are made through discussions (sometimes quite lengthy ones) that involve the larger group.</p>
<p>To answer your question, we admit the people who the entire group feels compelled to admit. The candidates who are rejected are hardly ever actively rejected - they're simply the candidates who aren't admitted.</p>
<p>But almost every rejected candidate has a "following" - a subset of the selection committee that is devastated at the rejection.</p>
<p>This is why we're all rather depresssed at the end of selection. As proud as we are of the class we've admitted, it takes some time to recover from those we weren't able to take.</p>
<p>Xiggi - there are many potential flaws with the essay section of the new SAT, which is why we won't be paying much attention to it this year. But keep in mind that the essay only represents 30% of your SAT W score. The truth is, no one knows yet how this test will correlate with other components of an application, which is why many schools are willing to diminish its importance for the coming cycle.</p>
<p>But we'll see the score regardless. In most cases, we'll ignore it, even if it's substantially lower than the others, and chalk it up to the flaws in evaluating the essay. But if we see 800/800/200, we may wonder what's going on (since the essay only counts for 30%).</p>
<p>I'm really speculating here - but this is how I think things will go in selection. We'll ignore it unless it's ridiculously low. </p>
<p>(But even then, we may ignore it. ;-)</p>