MIT going test required again

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

WTF so you think American Studies, Anthropology, African Studies, Asian Studies, History, Literature, Gender Studies, Political Science, Philosophy, Theater Art etc. majors are as hard as Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, Physics at MIT? GTFOOH

[Anonymous]

Go look at FAANG current jobs postings and come back here once you pull your head out of your butt. Those are exactly the grads they're hiring. Tech bros are great at building systems and coding, but suck at sales, communication, design and marketing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Go look at FAANG current jobs postings and come back here once you pull your head out of your butt. Those are exactly the grads they're hiring. Tech bros are great at building systems and coding, but suck at sales, communication, design and marketing.

yes they hire from top business majors from Sloan, Wharton, Dyson, Haas, Ross, Mendoza, McDonough, Stern, etc.
Also Econ majors from top schools.
Some humanities kids like history gets hired too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:THis is great, wish all major schools do this

They won't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See Harvard.

Test optional will be much more prevalent.

People can slide through Harvard without actually being smart. That's much more difficult at a school like MIT, or alot of other schools. I think more schools will be returning to test required.

How many times does this have to be explained to you: standardized admissions tests do not measure intelligence.

And, you need much more than intelligence to do well in college.

This doesn't really match my experience. The kids who did well on tests were clearly brighter than that kids who didn't.

Your experience is anecdotal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"I have no idea what you're babbling about and you're not doing yourself any favor ranting about "racist, cultural fit type colleges in IT".

*What* are these racist IT colleges?"

I'm guessing they mean places like Purdue and Michigan that take tons of White kids (mainly guys) in and never expose them to anybody else on campus, then send them off to jobs in places where they are no longer surrounded by people just like them from the Midwest.

100%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See Harvard.

Test optional will be much more prevalent.

People can slide through Harvard without actually being smart. That's much more difficult at a school like MIT, or alot of other schools. I think more schools will be returning to test required.

Maybe. The digital SAT will be shorter in length and easier to take. Yes, there will still be an advantage to those who have more money, but overall, you'll likely see a lot more 1500s and "SAT inflation." Then what? Either way, the SAT is losing its "high stakes" relevance.

"easier to take"

What does that mean? Logistically easier to take it? Or are you asserting everyone's scores are going to go up? How on earth would you even know that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See Harvard.

Test optional will be much more prevalent.

People can slide through Harvard without actually being smart. That's much more difficult at a school like MIT, or alot of other schools. I think more schools will be returning to test required.

Maybe. The digital SAT will be shorter in length and easier to take. Yes, there will still be an advantage to those who have more money, but overall, you'll likely see a lot more 1500s and "SAT inflation." Then what? Either way, the SAT is losing its "high stakes" relevance.

"easier to take"

What does that mean? Logistically easier to take it? Or are you asserting everyone's scores are going to go up? How on earth would you even know that?

“The digital SAT will be easier to take, easier to give, and more relevant,” said Priscilla Rodriguez, vice president of College Readiness Assessments at College Board.


Straight from the College Board. You can read and get the gist

https://newsroom.collegeboard.org/digital-sat-brings-student-friendly-changes-test-experience

[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?

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.

Interesting bc the Shaw dad actually gave multi-million dollar donations to multiple Ivies to ensure his kids could get in. The ‘22 grad chose Yale. Guess his own kids don’t need those pesky standardized tests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See Harvard.

Test optional will be much more prevalent.

People can slide through Harvard without actually being smart. That's much more difficult at a school like MIT, or alot of other schools. I think more schools will be returning to test required.

How many times does this have to be explained to you: standardized admissions tests do not measure intelligence.

And, you need much more than intelligence to do well in college.

This doesn't really match my experience. The kids who did well on tests were clearly brighter than that kids who didn't.

Your experience is anecdotal.

Read the article, MIT has research that shows including SAT/ACT better predictor of success at MIT than grades alone. The UC study a few years ago found the same. Nothing anecdotal about it. I would not be surprised to see other schools that were overwhelmed with applications on the test optional world to make similar decisions.

[Anonymous]

A: where do you go?
B: MIT
A: oh! what major?
B: History

That's kind of a bummer

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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."

excellent.

For people saying how some families game the system by hiring expensive tutors, counselor, essay prep, etc... that's no worse than relying on legacy to give you a bump. At least with hiring tutors, the student still has to put in the effort. Even if legacy students put in the effort, their legacy status gives them a bump. That is much worse than people hiring expensive tutors, which middle class people can also do if they scrounge up the money. But legacy only benefits the wealthy.

yes, I think the legacy admissions is a racket and needs to go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:THis is great, wish all major schools do this

They won't.

then kids keep applying 30 schools with the maximum uncertainty lottery system.

[Anonymous]

Interesting, that. Oliver Wyman wanted my child’s test scores. For an internship…

I guess I’m behind the times if this is a thing now. Maybe it’s part of some algorithm?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A: where do you go?
B: MIT
A: oh! what major?
B: History

That's kind of a bummer

That would be what my kids called “Big L”. However, better switch to history than be the bottom at engineering 😄