MIT going test required again

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Fhttps://mitadmissions.org/blogs/entry/we-are-reinstating-our-sat-act-requirement-for-future-admissions-cycles/?fbclid=IwAR28Zqq9r2Vlqt0VDgamZP8Cmx0xNn1KhVMnHcT6VmgCG_4ij_OUYNEZIsQ

"We are reinstating our SAT/ACT requirement for future admissions cycles"

This protects the kids as much as it does admissions fairness.

What many parents here fail to understand is that any kid with good access to appropriate math classes, textbooks and internet service who needs to prep much to get over a 750 on the math SATs is probably toast in any halfway rigorous STEM program, and roadkill at MIT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fhttps://mitadmissions.org/blogs/entry/we-are-reinstating-our-sat-act-requirement-for-future-admissions-cycles/?fbclid=IwAR28Zqq9r2Vlqt0VDgamZP8Cmx0xNn1KhVMnHcT6VmgCG_4ij_OUYNEZIsQ

"We are reinstating our SAT/ACT requirement for future admissions cycles"

This protects the kids as much as it does admissions fairness.

What many parents here fail to understand is that any kid with good access to appropriate math classes, textbooks and internet service who needs to prep much to get over a 750 on the math SATs is probably toast in any halfway rigorous STEM program, and roadkill at MIT.

Exactly. My very high stat kid did not get into MIT this year and there is a part of me that is glad. Even though he got a 780 on the Math SAT his first try at age 15 and A's in DE Multivariable Calc and Linear Algebra AND planned to minor in math (major in CS). Even with all that, I was a little worried that MIT might be too hard/stressful.

These TO people gaming their way in are crazy. Roadkill is right.

[Anonymous]

Now the College Board needs to bring back the SAT from the 1980s, back when only a handful of kids in the country got 1600s each year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Now the College Board needs to bring back the SAT from the 1980s, back when only a handful of kids in the country got 1600s each year.

You idiot, a current kid who scores 1500 woud do just as well on an old SAT from the 80s. The kids are better educated, the test has not gotten easier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fhttps://mitadmissions.org/blogs/entry/we-are-reinstating-our-sat-act-requirement-for-future-admissions-cycles/?fbclid=IwAR28Zqq9r2Vlqt0VDgamZP8Cmx0xNn1KhVMnHcT6VmgCG_4ij_OUYNEZIsQ

"We are reinstating our SAT/ACT requirement for future admissions cycles"

This protects the kids as much as it does admissions fairness.

What many parents here fail to understand is that any kid with good access to appropriate math classes, textbooks and internet service who needs to prep much to get over a 750 on the math SATs is probably toast in any halfway rigorous STEM program, and roadkill at MIT.

Exactly. My very high stat kid did not get into MIT this year and there is a part of me that is glad. Even though he got a 780 on the Math SAT his first try at age 15 and A's in DE Multivariable Calc and Linear Algebra AND planned to minor in math (major in CS). Even with all that, I was a little worried that MIT might be too hard/stressful.

These TO people gaming their way in are crazy. Roadkill is right.

Wrong. A TO admit will be in the same class as your "high stats" kid and will thrive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How does legacy only benefit the wealthy? Our generation is filled with Ivy and Ivy equivalent grads who went there as middle and lower middle class kids and are now well-educated but not tycoons. I went to Penn on a Pell grant. These kinds of legacy kids are a dime a dozen and barely get a bump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fhttps://mitadmissions.org/blogs/entry/we-are-reinstating-our-sat-act-requirement-for-future-admissions-cycles/?fbclid=IwAR28Zqq9r2Vlqt0VDgamZP8Cmx0xNn1KhVMnHcT6VmgCG_4ij_OUYNEZIsQ

"We are reinstating our SAT/ACT requirement for future admissions cycles"

This protects the kids as much as it does admissions fairness.

What many parents here fail to understand is that any kid with good access to appropriate math classes, textbooks and internet service who needs to prep much to get over a 750 on the math SATs is probably toast in any halfway rigorous STEM program, and roadkill at MIT.

Exactly. My very high stat kid did not get into MIT this year and there is a part of me that is glad. Even though he got a 780 on the Math SAT his first try at age 15 and A's in DE Multivariable Calc and Linear Algebra AND planned to minor in math (major in CS). Even with all that, I was a little worried that MIT might be too hard/stressful.

These TO people gaming their way in are crazy. Roadkill is right.

Wrong. A TO admit will be in the same class as your "high stats" kid and will thrive.

You think a kid who bombs the SAT will have the same level of academic success as a kid who gets 800 M at age 15? You are completely delusional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now the College Board needs to bring back the SAT from the 1980s, back when only a handful of kids in the country got 1600s each year.

You idiot, a current kid who scores 1500 woud do just as well on an old SAT from the 80s. The kids are better educated, the test has not gotten easier.

Wrong, they re-centered the test in 1995 to give kids a 100 point boost and it’s been that way ever since.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Now the College Board needs to bring back the SAT from the 1980s, back when only a handful of kids in the country got 1600s each year.

Agree. Would be much more fair to the truly exceptional kids, even if it hurt my own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fhttps://mitadmissions.org/blogs/entry/we-are-reinstating-our-sat-act-requirement-for-future-admissions-cycles/?fbclid=IwAR28Zqq9r2Vlqt0VDgamZP8Cmx0xNn1KhVMnHcT6VmgCG_4ij_OUYNEZIsQ

"We are reinstating our SAT/ACT requirement for future admissions cycles"

This protects the kids as much as it does admissions fairness.

What many parents here fail to understand is that any kid with good access to appropriate math classes, textbooks and internet service who needs to prep much to get over a 750 on the math SATs is probably toast in any halfway rigorous STEM program, and roadkill at MIT.

Exactly. My very high stat kid did not get into MIT this year and there is a part of me that is glad. Even though he got a 780 on the Math SAT his first try at age 15 and A's in DE Multivariable Calc and Linear Algebra AND planned to minor in math (major in CS). Even with all that, I was a little worried that MIT might be too hard/stressful.

These TO people gaming their way in are crazy. Roadkill is right.

Wrong. A TO admit will be in the same class as your "high stats" kid and will thrive.

Well we know that you clearly did not score high on the Reading section of the SAT since your critical reading skills are non-existent. The MIT blog post linked on the first page clearly states that students with high test scores performed better while at MIT.

[Anonymous]

Good. Hopefully more top schools will follow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now the College Board needs to bring back the SAT from the 1980s, back when only a handful of kids in the country got 1600s each year.

You idiot, a current kid who scores 1500 woud do just as well on an old SAT from the 80s. The kids are better educated, the test has not gotten easier.

Oof, this is very wrong. Google is your friend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fhttps://mitadmissions.org/blogs/entry/we-are-reinstating-our-sat-act-requirement-for-future-admissions-cycles/?fbclid=IwAR28Zqq9r2Vlqt0VDgamZP8Cmx0xNn1KhVMnHcT6VmgCG_4ij_OUYNEZIsQ

"We are reinstating our SAT/ACT requirement for future admissions cycles"

This protects the kids as much as it does admissions fairness.

What many parents here fail to understand is that any kid with good access to appropriate math classes, textbooks and internet service who needs to prep much to get over a 750 on the math SATs is probably toast in any halfway rigorous STEM program, and roadkill at MIT.

Exactly. My very high stat kid did not get into MIT this year and there is a part of me that is glad. Even though he got a 780 on the Math SAT his first try at age 15 and A's in DE Multivariable Calc and Linear Algebra AND planned to minor in math (major in CS). Even with all that, I was a little worried that MIT might be too hard/stressful.

These TO people gaming their way in are crazy. Roadkill is right.

Wrong. A TO admit will be in the same class as your "high stats" kid and will thrive.

You think a kid who bombs the SAT will have the same level of academic success as a kid who gets 800 M at age 15? You are completely delusional.

What part of optional don't you understand? But you want to insinuate that a kid bombed the SAT. Highly doubtful your "high stats" kid even achieved whatever score you're listing. Either way, the TO kid will be sitting right next to your kid come graduation time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fhttps://mitadmissions.org/blogs/entry/we-are-reinstating-our-sat-act-requirement-for-future-admissions-cycles/?fbclid=IwAR28Zqq9r2Vlqt0VDgamZP8Cmx0xNn1KhVMnHcT6VmgCG_4ij_OUYNEZIsQ

"We are reinstating our SAT/ACT requirement for future admissions cycles"

This protects the kids as much as it does admissions fairness.

What many parents here fail to understand is that any kid with good access to appropriate math classes, textbooks and internet service who needs to prep much to get over a 750 on the math SATs is probably toast in any halfway rigorous STEM program, and roadkill at MIT.

Exactly. My very high stat kid did not get into MIT this year and there is a part of me that is glad. Even though he got a 780 on the Math SAT his first try at age 15 and A's in DE Multivariable Calc and Linear Algebra AND planned to minor in math (major in CS). Even with all that, I was a little worried that MIT might be too hard/stressful.

These TO people gaming their way in are crazy. Roadkill is right.

Wrong. A TO admit will be in the same class as your "high stats" kid and will thrive.

Well we know that you clearly did not score high on the Reading section of the SAT since your critical reading skills are non-existent. The MIT blog post linked on the first page clearly states that students with high test scores performed better while at MIT.

"To be clear, performance on standardized tests is not the central focus of our holistic admissions process. We do not prefer people with perfect scores; indeed, despite what some people infer from our statistics, we do not consider an applicant’s scores at all beyond the point where preparedness has been established as part of a multifactor analysis. Nor are strong scores themselves sufficient: our research shows students also need to do well in high school and have a strong match for MIT, including the resilience to rebound from its challenges, and the initiative to make use of its resources."

[Anonymous]

thank goodness. maybe some of the other schools will do the same. Then this 21-22 cycle will be remembered for the utter chaos it was.