|By Thermodude (Thermodude) on Monday, June 07, 2004 - 11:18 pm: Edit|
Just wondering...how important is class rank at MIT...I go to a school that doesn't rank GPA's...i think i'll end up with 2 A-'s this junior year, bringing my rank down to #17 or #18. THe whole thing is that since I took the most AP's out of anyone in my grade, and several of the 4.0's ranked above me have taken zero AP's. If GPA was weighted (like in most schools), I would have been ranked probably #1. Would MIT take this into consideration, or would my rank of #17 or #18 be considered the same as in another school that actually weighs GPA.
|By Jarchivist (Jarchivist) on Tuesday, June 08, 2004 - 12:40 am: Edit|
I don't think it'll matter all that much. MIT really stresses that they look at you as a whole person and that it isn't nearly the same numbers game as anywhere else (otherwise, I would've gotten in on early -- using the collegeconfidential academic index calculation, I was pretty much a sure bet. Darn my inability to write... :D
|By Asfafan (Asfafan) on Wednesday, June 09, 2004 - 11:40 pm: Edit|
So is it true that they rank you among all the applicants by the academic index calculations at MIT? like 1-5 for Standardized scores, GPA, Math, Science, English/History, Personality? (not sure if this is right, I remember someone wrote about this somewhere on this forum...)
|By Jarchivist (Jarchivist) on Wednesday, June 09, 2004 - 11:46 pm: Edit|
No. That's what I'm talking about -- MIT's really into the whole package, and you as a person. And I know enough people who by the numbers shouldn't have have gotten in who got in, and it's good, because they totally deserve to be here.
|By Asfafan (Asfafan) on Wednesday, June 09, 2004 - 11:56 pm: Edit|
ok here, i found it. this is where i read it. Is this true? Misterpeachy sounded like he knows how it works tho.....
By Misterpeachy (Misterpeachy) on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 03:37 am: Edit
Mine were: 800IIC, 800Physics, mid7-something in Writing...Anyways, SATIIs are VERY important, even more so than the SATs, and the "700+ is fine" rule doesn't apply, since MIT applies an algorithm (not surprisingly) with your scores. You may know that MIT has an "academic index" and a "personal index" score for you. Anyways, for the "AI (academic index)" score, you are given a number 1-5 (5 highest). This number is an average of 5 other numbers. These 5 other numbers are 1-Math test score, 2- Science test score, 3-Humanities score, 4-GPA, 5-Class Rank. The numbers are completely taken from standardized exams such as the SATs and APs, so it's an entirely objective analysis (the 100% subjective, though, is the personal index which is usually the real deciding factor). If your school doesnt rank, score 5 doesnt exist. Anyway, for score 1, they put any Math APs, Math SATIIs and your Math SAT 1 into a computer and it compares your scores with those of other applicants from the past 4 years. If your score is in the top quintile (20%), you get a 5. Top 40%, a 4, top 60%, a 3 and so on. Science score consists of Science APs and the Science SATII, under the same alogrithm. My point is that getting an 800 on the Math SATII is crucial, because a 770 will get you a 3 or 4 if youre lucky as an extremely large amount of applicants have an 800, and it is exactly the other applicants you're competing against in a 100% numerical evaluation, not one adcom saying "yeah a 770 is fine for Math SATII". Also, a 780 on Physics would probably set you back to a 3 or 4 for science score, significantly lowering your averaged AI index score, perhaps to a 4, which is good but low. Humanities (Writing) is usually more leniant, but IIC and science SATIIs are tremendously important, as are math/science APs, since it's an increidbly objective, numerical analysis. Although it's ultimately your "personal index" score which determines if youre admitted or not, getting a 5 on the academic index is crucial (note you would only need 3 of 5 "5"s in the subscores of the AI to get a 5, since theyre averaged and rounded.
That's just how the system works. I dont want in any way to convey that getting lower math/science standardized test scores will screw you, since there are plenty of kids with sub 750 SATIIs who get in. It's mianly the "personal index" 1-to-5 score which is the deciding factor, and how much of a match you are for MIT. Everyone who is admitted has a passion for something, and a vehement passion for something dominates a million times over any SAT scores you could have. But since I'm getting you before taking them, I figured I'd give you my spiel. So, my only advice to you is , now that you see how the system works, to study your butt of for your SATIIs, since getting an 800 over a 760 will help a lot!
Good luck, and I hope I could help!
|By Jarchivist (Jarchivist) on Thursday, June 10, 2004 - 02:19 pm: Edit|
Um, this is the College Confidential academic index theory. I have my doubts over this sucker. MIT admissions is obsessed with telling us that our apps were read over a lot of times, and it's be kinda lame if they were just calculating numbers each time. I do agree with the passion being the number one greatest factor, but the calculations?
SAT IIs *are* really important because doing well on the SAT I is pretty much expected.
Anyways, the contradiction is inherent in MP's post -- passion is the deciding factor, and you really can't measure that quantitatively.
My two cents
|By Over30 (Over30) on Thursday, June 10, 2004 - 03:43 pm: Edit|
Read this article. I think it will answer a lot of your questions. This was originally printed in "The Tech." Hope this helps.
|By Over30 (Over30) on Thursday, June 10, 2004 - 03:48 pm: Edit|
You may also want to read this article.
|By Over30 (Over30) on Thursday, June 10, 2004 - 03:54 pm: Edit|
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|