MIT going test required again

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The only thing this will impact is their workload, which will go down. Rest of it will be the same. Asian students will find it about as difficult as it was with TO to get in. Whites too to a lesser degree. Esp. men.

I wonder if other schools will follow for this reason. Is it really sustainable for schools to review 50,000 plus applications every year with minimal data points.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:good

The link didn't work for me but this one does:https://mitadmissions.org/blogs/entry/we-are-reinstating-our-sat-act-requirement-for-future-admissions-cycles/Yes, it makes hiring so much easier. We have to thoroughly test applicants ourselves from more racist, cultural fit type colleges in IT as they have just been good at taking nine classes and dropping all but the gut classes. The objective result also helps us find often overlooked, underrepresented candidates from poorer more disadvantaged areas who put the work in individually. A wonderful reprieve after having to deal with an enormous ego and corresponding finger-pointing to deal with the "shock" of how weak they really are in spite of their genitalia/skin/daddy/delusion. MIT using data-driven correlation for more fair entry is awesome!

I can definitely believe that MIT found that requiring the SAT helped better select high school students who will do well at MIT.

But for companies hiring MIT graduates, wouldn't grades and internships and research tell you way more about the applicant than a single test taken in high school? That is, even if the admissions office picked some students who won't do well in college, can't employees tell who didn't do well in college?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The only thing this will impact is their workload, which will go down. Rest of it will be the same. Asian students will find it about as difficult as it was with TO to get in. Whites too to a lesser degree. Esp. men.

If 100% accepted has a math score between 700 and 800, MIT is saying they'll take who they want within that range to fill out s class. There will always be someone who says a URM with a 750 "took" a spot away from an Asians or white candidate with a perfect score. The overall point is that whoever MIT picks met their prescribed cutoff. TO or not, somebody will have a grievance - or find one. Getting into MIT is still a lottery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, it's about making people happy. Their data points to testing being pretty useless in their pool.

Can you clarify what you are saying?

Their middle 50% being 780-900 is telling us that they have thousands of people with scores that are almost identical. We're talking people who get 1 questions wrong vs. people who got 2 questions wrong.

What's more, a new SAT is going in place. If they were really doing this properly, they'd wait for studies to come out. They aren't, which makes me think this isn't about actually using test scores in the application review. I think this is a way to cut down on shutgun apps and make people like the ones here happy. I am certain there are other sectors that are disappointed with this move.

What this tells you is that MIT believes a good indicator of success at MIT (one of the best STEM schools in the country) is dependent upon scoring very high on the math portion of the SAT/ACT. Normally, I'm a fan of eliminating SAT/ACT test requirements, as I think it definately favors those with access ($$$/Time/etc) to specialized tutoring. However, I would tend to agree with MIT---unlike the verbal portion which can be tutored more easily/taught tricks/etc, the math portion requires good math skills to score well. If you don't already have very strong math skills, it will be harder to raise that score to nearly perfect. And I'd argue if you cannot find a way to earn a 770+ on MATH, that maybe MIT isn't the right place for you---your 4 years will be spent taking math/science/CS classes that utilize those high level math skills/thought processes all the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only thing this will impact is their workload, which will go down. Rest of it will be the same. Asian students will find it about as difficult as it was with TO to get in. Whites too to a lesser degree. Esp. men.

If 100% accepted has a math score between 700 and 800, MIT is saying they'll take who they want within that range to fill out s class. There will always be someone who says a URM with a 750 "took" a spot away from an Asians or white candidate with a perfect score. The overall point is that whoever MIT picks met their prescribed cutoff. TO or not, somebody will have a grievance - or find one. Getting into MIT is still a lottery.

They lowered it from 760-800 to 700-800 to accomotade URMs, Legacies, First Gen, atheletes, etc.
Dumbing down is not good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:good

The link didn't work for me but this one does:https://mitadmissions.org/blogs/entry/we-are-reinstating-our-sat-act-requirement-for-future-admissions-cycles/Yes, it makes hiring so much easier. We have to thoroughly test applicants ourselves from more racist, cultural fit type colleges in IT as they have just been good at taking nine classes and dropping all but the gut classes. The objective result also helps us find often overlooked, underrepresented candidates from poorer more disadvantaged areas who put the work in individually. A wonderful reprieve after having to deal with an enormous ego and corresponding finger-pointing to deal with the "shock" of how weak they really are in spite of their genitalia/skin/daddy/delusion. MIT using data-driven correlation for more fair entry is awesome!

I can definitely believe that MIT found that requiring the SAT helped better select high school students who will do well at MIT.

But for companies hiring MIT graduates, wouldn't grades and internships and research tell you way more about the applicant than a single test taken in high school? That is, even if the admissions office picked some students who won't do well in college, can't employees tell who didn't do well in college?

By and large, if you major in STEM (and why else would one attend MIT), you will need extremely strong math skills. A 700 on the SAT Math section student is likely to struggle at MIT (not all would, but majority would). What I don't get is why MIT would be a school a student would apply to if they were not exceptionally strong in MATH?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:good

The link didn't work for me but this one does:https://mitadmissions.org/blogs/entry/we-are-reinstating-our-sat-act-requirement-for-future-admissions-cycles/Yes, it makes hiring so much easier. We have to thoroughly test applicants ourselves from more racist, cultural fit type colleges in IT as they have just been good at taking nine classes and dropping all but the gut classes. The objective result also helps us find often overlooked, underrepresented candidates from poorer more disadvantaged areas who put the work in individually. A wonderful reprieve after having to deal with an enormous ego and corresponding finger-pointing to deal with the "shock" of how weak they really are in spite of their genitalia/skin/daddy/delusion. MIT using data-driven correlation for more fair entry is awesome!

I can definitely believe that MIT found that requiring the SAT helped better select high school students who will do well at MIT.

But for companies hiring MIT graduates, wouldn't grades and internships and research tell you way more about the applicant than a single test taken in high school? That is, even if the admissions office picked some students who won't do well in college, can't employees tell who didn't do well in college?

By and large, if you major in STEM (and why else would one attend MIT), you will need extremely strong math skills. A 700 on the SAT Math section student is likely to struggle at MIT (not all would, but majority would). What I don't get is why MIT would be a school a student would apply to if they were not exceptionally strong in MATH?

Not all majors are STEM even at MIT.
There are easy majors too for URMs, Legacies, First Gen, atheletes, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, it's about making people happy. Their data points to testing being pretty useless in their pool.

Can you clarify what you are saying?

Their middle 50% being 780-900 is telling us that they have thousands of people with scores that are almost identical. We're talking people who get 1 questions wrong vs. people who got 2 questions wrong.

What's more, a new SAT is going in place. If they were really doing this properly, they'd wait for studies to come out. They aren't, which makes me think this isn't about actually using test scores in the application review. I think this is a way to cut down on shutgun apps and make people like the ones here happy. I am certain there are other sectors that are disappointed with this move.

What this tells you is that MIT believes a good indicator of success at MIT (one of the best STEM schools in the country) is dependent upon scoring very high on the math portion of the SAT/ACT. Normally, I'm a fan of eliminating SAT/ACT test requirements, as I think it definately favors those with access ($$$/Time/etc) to specialized tutoring. However, I would tend to agree with MIT---unlike the verbal portion which can be tutored more easily/taught tricks/etc, the math portion requires good math skills to score well. If you don't already have very strong math skills, it will be harder to raise that score to nearly perfect. And I'd argue if you cannot find a way to earn a 770+ on MATH, that maybe MIT isn't the right place for you---your 4 years will be spent taking math/science/CS classes that utilize those high level math skills/thought processes all the time.

The “specialized tutoring” a ton of kids do is cheap - buy some practice books and work them or online for less than 50 bucks. The DCUM rationale that standard tests should be cut everywhere because wealthy kids game the system is crap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, it's about making people happy. Their data points to testing being pretty useless in their pool.

Can you clarify what you are saying?

Their middle 50% being 780-900 is telling us that they have thousands of people with scores that are almost identical. We're talking people who get 1 questions wrong vs. people who got 2 questions wrong.

What's more, a new SAT is going in place. If they were really doing this properly, they'd wait for studies to come out. They aren't, which makes me think this isn't about actually using test scores in the application review. I think this is a way to cut down on shutgun apps and make people like the ones here happy. I am certain there are other sectors that are disappointed with this move.

What this tells you is that MIT believes a good indicator of success at MIT (one of the best STEM schools in the country) is dependent upon scoring very high on the math portion of the SAT/ACT. Normally, I'm a fan of eliminating SAT/ACT test requirements, as I think it definately favors those with access ($$$/Time/etc) to specialized tutoring. However, I would tend to agree with MIT---unlike the verbal portion which can be tutored more easily/taught tricks/etc, the math portion requires good math skills to score well. If you don't already have very strong math skills, it will be harder to raise that score to nearly perfect. And I'd argue if you cannot find a way to earn a 770+ on MATH, that maybe MIT isn't the right place for you---your 4 years will be spent taking math/science/CS classes that utilize those high level math skills/thought processes all the time.

The “specialized tutoring” a ton of kids do is cheap - buy some practice books and work them or online for less than 50 bucks. The DCUM rationale that standard tests should be cut everywhere because wealthy kids game the system is crap.

You really believe this? UMC parents in the MD/ DC / VA area spend thousands on test prep. There's extensive test prep for high schools like TJ that has a $100 application fee. Test preparation is big business. Add essay coaching, college consulting, etc. That's why parents think they "deserve" a return on this investment for their kids. You're clueless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"our ability to accurately predict student academic success at MIT⁠02 is significantly improved by considering standardized testing — especially in mathematics — alongside other factors"

This is the entire thing.

That’s a nice way of saying “We admitted kids without SAT scores and a bunch of them flunked out.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:good

The link didn't work for me but this one does:https://mitadmissions.org/blogs/entry/we-are-reinstating-our-sat-act-requirement-for-future-admissions-cycles/Yes, it makes hiring so much easier. We have to thoroughly test applicants ourselves from more racist, cultural fit type colleges in IT as they have just been good at taking nine classes and dropping all but the gut classes. The objective result also helps us find often overlooked, underrepresented candidates from poorer more disadvantaged areas who put the work in individually. A wonderful reprieve after having to deal with an enormous ego and corresponding finger-pointing to deal with the "shock" of how weak they really are in spite of their genitalia/skin/daddy/delusion. MIT using data-driven correlation for more fair entry is awesome!

I can definitely believe that MIT found that requiring the SAT helped better select high school students who will do well at MIT.

But for companies hiring MIT graduates, wouldn't grades and internships and research tell you way more about the applicant than a single test taken in high school? That is, even if the admissions office picked some students who won't do well in college, can't employees tell who didn't do well in college?

By and large, if you major in STEM (and why else would one attend MIT), you will need extremely strong math skills. A 700 on the SAT Math section student is likely to struggle at MIT (not all would, but majority would). What I don't get is why MIT would be a school a student would apply to if they were not exceptionally strong in MATH?

Not all majors are STEM even at MIT.
There are easy majors too for URMs, Legacies, First Gen, atheletes, etc.

legacies is the worst racket of them all.

[Anonymous]

Not all majors are STEM even at MIT. There are easy majors too for URMs, Legacies, First Gen, atheletes, etc.

WTF? Do you have any data that supports this ridiculous statement? Have you ever been to MIT? Do you know anything about non STEM majors there? Are you aware that Winston Churchill spoke at the school and said science must also be complimented with strong humanities? I hate MF's who don't know what they're talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, it's about making people happy. Their data points to testing being pretty useless in their pool.

Can you clarify what you are saying?

Their middle 50% being 780-900 is telling us that they have thousands of people with scores that are almost identical. We're talking people who get 1 questions wrong vs. people who got 2 questions wrong.

What's more, a new SAT is going in place. If they were really doing this properly, they'd wait for studies to come out. They aren't, which makes me think this isn't about actually using test scores in the application review. I think this is a way to cut down on shutgun apps and make people like the ones here happy. I am certain there are other sectors that are disappointed with this move.

What this tells you is that MIT believes a good indicator of success at MIT (one of the best STEM schools in the country) is dependent upon scoring very high on the math portion of the SAT/ACT. Normally, I'm a fan of eliminating SAT/ACT test requirements, as I think it definately favors those with access ($$$/Time/etc) to specialized tutoring. However, I would tend to agree with MIT---unlike the verbal portion which can be tutored more easily/taught tricks/etc, the math portion requires good math skills to score well. If you don't already have very strong math skills, it will be harder to raise that score to nearly perfect. And I'd argue if you cannot find a way to earn a 770+ on MATH, that maybe MIT isn't the right place for you---your 4 years will be spent taking math/science/CS classes that utilize those high level math skills/thought processes all the time.

Actually, conventional wisdom is the opposite. The math on the SAT/ACT is not that hard. It’s easier to boost the grade on math through tutoring than it is to teach vocabulary and teach someone to read and comprehend quickly. That was certainly my DC’s experience. He’s a bright kid, but not naturally gifted at math, and brought his math score up dramatically with a minimal amount of tutoring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:good

The link didn't work for me but this one does:https://mitadmissions.org/blogs/entry/we-are-reinstating-our-sat-act-requirement-for-future-admissions-cycles/Yes, it makes hiring so much easier. We have to thoroughly test applicants ourselves from more racist, cultural fit type colleges in IT as they have just been good at taking nine classes and dropping all but the gut classes. The objective result also helps us find often overlooked, underrepresented candidates from poorer more disadvantaged areas who put the work in individually. A wonderful reprieve after having to deal with an enormous ego and corresponding finger-pointing to deal with the "shock" of how weak they really are in spite of their genitalia/skin/daddy/delusion. MIT using data-driven correlation for more fair entry is awesome!

I can definitely believe that MIT found that requiring the SAT helped better select high school students who will do well at MIT.

But for companies hiring MIT graduates, wouldn't grades and internships and research tell you way more about the applicant than a single test taken in high school? That is, even if the admissions office picked some students who won't do well in college, can't employees tell who didn't do well in college?

By and large, if you major in STEM (and why else would one attend MIT), you will need extremely strong math skills. A 700 on the SAT Math section student is likely to struggle at MIT (not all would, but majority would). What I don't get is why MIT would be a school a student would apply to if they were not exceptionally strong in MATH?

Not all majors are STEM even at MIT.
There are easy majors too for URMs, Legacies, First Gen, atheletes, etc.

legacies is the worst racket of them all.

https://mitadmissions.org/help/faq/legacy/
"MIT doesn't consider legacy or alumni relations in our admissions process. If you'd like to read more about this policy, check out the blog Just to Be Clear: We Don't Do Legacy."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:good

The link didn't work for me but this one does:https://mitadmissions.org/blogs/entry/we-are-reinstating-our-sat-act-requirement-for-future-admissions-cycles/Yes, it makes hiring so much easier. We have to thoroughly test applicants ourselves from more racist, cultural fit type colleges in IT as they have just been good at taking nine classes and dropping all but the gut classes. The objective result also helps us find often overlooked, underrepresented candidates from poorer more disadvantaged areas who put the work in individually. A wonderful reprieve after having to deal with an enormous ego and corresponding finger-pointing to deal with the "shock" of how weak they really are in spite of their genitalia/skin/daddy/delusion. MIT using data-driven correlation for more fair entry is awesome!

I can definitely believe that MIT found that requiring the SAT helped better select high school students who will do well at MIT.

But for companies hiring MIT graduates, wouldn't grades and internships and research tell you way more about the applicant than a single test taken in high school? That is, even if the admissions office picked some students who won't do well in college, can't employees tell who didn't do well in college?

Well I think you're the only one asking this question, but in fact DE Shaw famously has required all standardized test scores as part of their hiring process. Don't know if they still do. What do you think -- do you think the SAT still has predictive power for applicant quality controlling for other observables? Personally, I suspect that it does.