|By Vision (Vision) on Saturday, May 15, 2004 - 03:06 pm: Edit|
What do you guys think the average MIT Applicant is?
I say that as in, what is the minimum requirements that an applicant needs to have for admissions into MIT?
(a bit choppy on the wording)
Anyone wanna start a list to what an MIT applicant is expected of?
|By Zzii (Zzii) on Saturday, May 15, 2004 - 04:04 pm: Edit|
Average MIT Applicant = (1/n)*fnInt(a(x), x, 0, n) where n is the number of applicants and a(x) is a function that gives a particular applicant, x.
Lol j/k. But the point is there is no formula definition of an average applicant. Admissions is a subjective process looking at many things in combination. Just read some of the old posts in this thread and you will see how different everyone's individual situations are.
I know I didn't really answer your question. If you want a real statistical breakdown, look here:
These are just numbers, though, and you can't read too much into them. There are no official "minimum requirements" or "cut-offs." Nor is there a gaurantee that you will get in if you stats are above average.
|By Quain (Quain) on Saturday, May 15, 2004 - 08:24 pm: Edit|
An average MIT applicant is someone who is dedicated to something they believe in. Most often that is science, math, comp sci, etc... Your grades and scores have to be within the ballpark (1400+, 700+ generall). But what really gets you in is the passion you show, in whatever field of interest that you may have...
|By Zzii (Zzii) on Saturday, May 15, 2004 - 11:28 pm: Edit|
I should mention the (mathematic) anology that the admissions rep. used at the info session I went to a year ago:
He explained that admissions was like a coordinate grid. On it, you have your x-axis, which consists of scores, GPA, rank, and in general, academic achievement (generally more objective things). On the y-axis, you have extra-curriculars, essays, interview, and recommendations (more subjective stuff). One without the other won't help you. Some will have higher scores and grades with fewer EC's...others may have lower scores and grades but may show leadership or over-the-top passion in EC's or have great essays. It's a combination of all of this (and probably some luck).
|By Sunflower189 (Sunflower189) on Sunday, May 16, 2004 - 01:29 am: Edit|
The way that the admissions guy explained it to me is this:
You have three rankings - academic, co-curricular, and extracurricular. Academic is your straight stats...GPA/rank, SATs, AIME, etc. Co-curricular is the learning type stuff you do outside of school, like math team or research. Extracurricular is all the other random hobbyish stuff, like student government or swimming.
The last two get mushed together to make your subjective rating which Zzii mentioned. However, strength in one will not excuse crappiness in the other past a certain point.
For instance, one of the smartest '08s in my school got stuck on a waitlist. He had an obscene amount of involvement...with math team, physics team, and computer team. Uber-qualified. If he had had some piddly position anywhere else, even the stereotypical soup kitchen...but he didn't. Don't do that.
Then again, one really kickarse EC will excuse a lot of sins. Make someone on the adcom think, "Duude, that's neat." and you're in.
MIT also appears to have a strong bias towards creativity, and it's now their expressed policy to look for people who have "experienced their lives".
|By Coderdeity (Coderdeity) on Sunday, May 16, 2004 - 11:13 pm: Edit|
The average MIT student isnt average at all.
|By Smillegal (Smillegal) on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 01:31 pm: Edit|
if you get a really low sat score( like a 1100) but you are really devoted in the math and sciences, would you have a chance? ik now that the sat's doesn't measure everything in tan applicant and i am pretty sure that mit doesn't base admissions solely on the sat' s but would they count that against you?
|By Alex614 (Alex614) on Wednesday, May 19, 2004 - 08:49 am: Edit|
With an 1100, and a devotion to math and science, you still have a chance. My friend had the same score, and an average of 580 on all his SAT II's, and he still got in. But it should be noted that he was African American, and so it might have just been affirmative action.
|By Haithman (Haithman) on Thursday, May 20, 2004 - 03:15 am: Edit|
Wow alex did he do anything special?
|By Smillegal (Smillegal) on Thursday, May 20, 2004 - 02:28 pm: Edit|
i mean would a good grade on a research project ( like a semi finalist for westinghouse or intel sts) make up for that score? or a good score on both the amc12, aime, and usamo.. which is unlikely, but still possible..
|By 2bad4u (2bad4u) on Thursday, May 20, 2004 - 07:35 pm: Edit|
I heard of USAMO olypiads scoring in 600's and low 700's. USAMO olympiads get recruited heavily and their score in SAT MAth is probably insigificant since they have proved there math ability and a bad SAT score for them is just a hit at SAT's credibility
|By Teej (Teej) on Thursday, May 27, 2004 - 11:48 am: Edit|
Well when i got the MIT package, i was the first surprised as i had tried just out of luck... I didn't even do a science subject for SAT 2...And i'm kinda skeptical about being MIT material as it's mostly for the sciences...
I remember in the application that an application without sat 2 science scores will be considered as incomplete.... And yeah i did Cambridge A levels, and didn't do science.
I only did physics and chemistry up to Cambridge "o" Levels
|By Smillegal (Smillegal) on Friday, May 28, 2004 - 03:30 pm: Edit|
Would they look at your first sat score? .. I hope not. but if you improved by hundreds of points they won't hold that against you right? right?
Report an offensive message on this page E-mail this page to a friend
|Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.|
|Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only|