can be lower than 1500, but math should be 720 or so

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Females used to have higher scores because dorm capacity limited admits. My class had 63 F out of around 900 total.

How did males respect women who were in the same course? 837ish M out of 900 total sounds like a class from the 1970s.

Class of 72.
They were pretty dismissive in my course. Nobody would be my lab partner so I did them alone. Got As. One was pretty funny. It was a project lab with a very famous professor. Larlo did not want to work together to build an experiment. So each of us blew glass, soldered, measured, built apparatus, did experiments, wrote up results of data analysis. Mine worked and was selected as a corridor lab exhibit for years. His did not. He managed to recover and did not treat women better, lol.

I went to MIT. We all secretly knew Caltech people were better.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone's DC get in without national awards?

Not from TJ.

Well my kid applied from TJ. No national awards. Nothing really to report in honors/awards. We shall see what happens!

Anonymous wrote:Reading this thread, looks like there is no hope for the unhooked....my daughter applied for business.

Unhooked need to go the "national awards" route. Math Olympiad winners, RSI, ISEF, STS, published cancer research, etc.

Anonymous wrote:So MIT athletes have 1500 SATs?

Yes they do, most are likely higher and a few. Looking at their CDS 100% had an Math SAT over 700 and only 7.7% had a Verbal SAT of less than 700.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I only know one boy who is from an under resourced public school in Ohio who got in. He stood first in his very large public school. Very few APs offered but he took what was available to him. No national awards. Two varsity sports (not recruited) and summer job at fast food restaurant.

This profile fits MIT. They have never recognized legacy, and do seem to want to help with progressive goals such as admitting more first-gen or low socio-economic household students. Pretty much the opposite of DCUM children.

That kid is the definition of a DEI hire.

Reading this thread, looks like there is no hope for the unhooked....my daughter applied for business.

So MIT athletes have 1500 SATs?

Anonymous wrote:I only know one boy who is from an under resourced public school in Ohio who got in. He stood first in his very large public school. Very few APs offered but he took what was available to him. No national awards. Two varsity sports (not recruited) and summer job at fast food restaurant.

This profile fits MIT. They have never recognized legacy, and do seem to want to help with progressive goals such as admitting more first-gen or low socio-economic household students. Pretty much the opposite of DCUM children.

Anonymous wrote:Isn't it almost certainly true that any MIT athlete would not have been admitted without athletics hook? With significantly lower testing and grade achievement? Then why is it appropriate for me to think of them as peers to the non-athlete MIT student or graduate?

Why would you think that? Is it hubris or just willful ignorance? MIT requires a 1500 SAT with a 750M minimum to even start the recruiting process. They also require the highest rigor coursework in all of your classes and a pretty much pristine GPA while being a pretty strong athlete. All around these kids are far more impressive than the grinds who you seem to deem more worthy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every one of these threads should request posters to specify whether the applicant is an athlete or not. I feel very annoyed by recruited athletes getting a boost.

Cry me a river. You need to get familiar with the term "institutional priority".

Why? Because MIT is a business. They get to decide what is important to them and what is deserving per, their interests. They care about their brands, stakeholders, revenue, alumni donations, etc. and their priorities are in service to that. No seats are ‘taken away’ as they were never anyone’s to begin with. No one is entitled to a seat. One has to be a okay with system or look elsewhere. I get the frustration, but it is what it is.

PP is telling you that promoting sports or academics hurts their brand.

Caltech dabbled in this idea and then rejected it. Someone looking for an top-flight engineer knows that a Caltech grad is a safer bet than MIT.

https://tech.caltech.edu/2024/10/08/ug-admissions-athletics/

I think that MIT understands their brand value much better than the PP.

What would make you think that Caltech engineers are better than MIT engineers? I can say from personal experience that you could not tell the difference. They are both develop superbly trained engineers.

Rowing - accepted

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't it almost certainly true that any MIT athlete would not have been admitted without athletics hook? With significantly lower testing and grade achievement? Then why is it appropriate for me to think of them as peers to the non-athlete MIT student or graduate?

If your presumption is that people who are good at math all have poor hand eye coordination then there is no conversion to be had here.

rowing is a grind sport

there three kids from our high school who got into MIT in the last couple of years were girls in sports. Would they have gotten into MIT without the sports? No. Were they smart kids with test scores in the range? Yes.

But good grades and a 1540 doesn't get into MIT. Every kid needs *something* and for these kids it was sports and probably being a female.

There other truth: these schools are not so hard that a hardworking kid with a 1540 SAT can't thrive there. In every school, even MIT, some majors are harder than others.