<p>I would think adcoms would also look at how early those scores were achieved. I agree with both moms.</p>
<p>I don’t think this is what Ben meant. Yeah, his quote says that one probably sacrifices a lot to get a good SAT score. So what? </p>
<p>I agree with him, and this is why. If a good SAT score is all an applicant has, the ADCOM members will be able to tell. Where are the high grades? Oh, and what about the EC activities? (If you’re studying for a test all summer or after school, you’re not doing anything else.) What about that teacher recommendation? Obviously, the SAT is important (and some students don’t really have to study for it to do well), but it is not everything. They are building a community. The SAT tries to predict how well you will do in college academically. However, the results do not (and cannot) tell the future (thank goodness).</p>
<p>I don’t disagree with Ben Jones that you have to bring a lot more to the table than good SAT scores, BTW. And I don’t even mind (too much ;)) that MIT didn’t like what my son brought to the table, but I do resent the implication that many 2400’s reflect mere grinds. My kid got good CR scores because he loves to read, you could argue he should have been on the student council or in the spring musical instead, but that’s not his idea of fun.</p>
<p>Actualy almost every info sessions we attended put the emphasize on secondary school report, namely GPAs. And if you have chanlanged yourselves enough to take advantage of the courses that your school provides to you. The SAT score is important, but most cases they use it to measure the kids from different regions/schools, since the grading system in each school are so different. … and so on so forth. … bottom line as I was once told by my kid (lol) the GPA measures one’s ‘diligent’, and standard testing score measures one’s ‘intelegent’. So basically adcom look at both. … I know some high intelegent kids just proud of themselves by ‘not studying’ but get top test score. But it is hard for them to take several rigorous course with tons and tons home works to get 'A’s. The unfinished or delayed home work would drag your grades down. Not necessary you don’t understand the materials. … I suppose the professional adcoms shall be able to tell the difference. ‘grind’, ‘intelligent but lazy’, ‘inteligent and still will to work hard if circumtances call for’, etc. etc.</p>
<p>mathmom: Your son sounds absolutely awesome, and I’m sure he is. Did you ever ask him if he knows Daniel Neill?</p>
<p>MIT lost a great one.</p>
<p>Mythmom, I’ll try to remember to ask him, he’s home this week, but of course he’s not up yet. :)</p>
<p>Of course we think he’s a great kid, but he has his deficits too. He was not by any means a perfect candidate.</p>
<p>"I agree with him, and this is why. If a good SAT score is all an applicant has, the ADCOM members will be able to tell. Where are the high grades? Oh, and what about the EC activities? (If you’re studying for a test all summer or after school, you’re not doing anything else.) What about that teacher recommendation? "</p>
<p>I’m sure everyone here agrees with this. But based on other things Ben has said, you might as well expand his statement and say that you can’t count on getting into MIT with 2400 + 800 SATII’s, A+ average (like getting the high grade) in the most rigorous courses, recs that say you are the best student they ever had, plus some academic competitions. Not only that, you could expect to be rejected in favor of a candidate with much lower scores, B’s in math and/or science, and who doesn’t have any spectacular academic accomplishment (e.g., something like building a nuclear reactor from scratch) to make up for it. And I’m not even talking about AA here.</p>
<p>Both Quantmech and I have worked at or attended MIT in the past, and it seems that something has definitely changed. Admission has always been holistic, but it seems to emphasize different qualities. </p>
<p>The primary reason for me making posts like this is so that if candidates like that get rejected from MIT, maybe they are less disappointed by it if an MIT grad tells them there is a lot of BS in the admissions process. And also, they are less prone to change their approach toward school. Yes, this happens. I’ve talked to a few very high achievers who didn’t get into MIT who considered changing from science to something more practical (like finance) since, in their view, they were not really the potential elite. I’ve heard this from USAMO and USAPHO qualifiers, and I think it is really unfortunate.</p>
<p>I wanted to second a few of the most recent comments by collegealum314:</p>
<p>I actively support Affirmative Action, because, where I live, there is evidence of ongoing discrimination that has to be overcome. I also support evaluating a student’s accomplishments in the context of the opportunities available to him/her (with special consideration for student-generated opportunities). </p>
<p>I entered this thread to remark that there may be nothing at all wrong with a student who doesn’t get into “top schools,” defined for the purposes of my comments as HYPSM+C. To the remarks by collegealum314 that “you might as well expand [Ben’s] statement and say that you can’t count on getting into MIT with 2400 + 800 SATII’s, A+ average (like getting the high grade) in the most rigorous courses, recs that say you are the best student they ever had, plus some academic competitions,” I’d like to add: and you can’t count on it with all of those qualifications, plus excellence of character, plus considerable success in hands-on, long-term building projects of the high-school engineering variety–since this is MIT (Mens et manus) that we’re talking about.</p>
<p>The strong student I mentioned earlier didn’t slip into self-doubt, post decisions. I don’t much fault any who did, though; they’re 17 or 18 and just don’t have much experience or perspective. I’d be upset if we lost a strong student to the fields of science and engineering, because that student (erroneously) put too much faith in the ability of admissions committee members to project future accomplishments, based on undergraduate applications.</p>
<p>I’ve said (pages ago) that I believe that a strong student can obtain an excellent education at 50 to 100 different universities in the US alone, so in some sense, it’s not a problem if a truly stellar student is not admitted to any of HYPSM+C. But neither is it entirely fallout-free.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Simple. Because there’s a lot more to a successful application than a couple of test scores. Scoring well on these tests is certainly a big plus but it is by no means a free pass to admission. Anyone who thinks they should be admitted solely on the basis of a few numbers is seriously mistaken.</p>
<p>For parents whose children are expecting admissions decisions in the next few weeks, I wish your children–and you–all the best!</p>
<p>Given the topic of this thread, the following comments are directed to the small number of top scorers who have other exceptional qualifications, yet might not receive the news they’ve hoped for, and to the parents of these students. (Emphatically, I don’t want to jinx anyone!) </p>
<p>There are a large number of applicants. There will be at least a few cases where a student is rejected, and there is nothing wrong with the student or the application, whatsoever. I’ve advanced a few possible explanations in posts #817, 818, 820, 822, 824, and 826, but I’d like to expand on #826, “the uncertainty principle.”</p>
<p>To the students, I suggest that you rely on the opinions of the adults you know, and not on the opinions of the admissions committee members who know you only through your application (in particular, see collegealum314’s most recent post).</p>
<p>To add to #826: It’s always difficult to make predictions, especially if they involve the future (credit: Yogi Berra?)</p>
<p>To give an example, further down the road: In my field, when a top-50 to top-100 university hires a new faculty member as an Assistant Professor, we’re betting a lot on the person’s success; positions in any department are a limited, critical resource, and one will be tied up for six to seven years. Also, it costs a university between $350,000 and $1,000,000 for start-up (mostly equipment, sometimes lab renovations), depending on the person’s subfield. Six or seven years later, if the person does not gain tenure, the start-up costs are essentially lost to the university. If the faculty member has found a position at another university, the equipment might be sold to his/her new school, but at a very deep discount. So we have a strong incentive to hire carefully.</p>
<p>Also, we have a great deal of information. We know the track record of the person through four to six years of a Ph.D. program and a post-doctoral appointment (typically of two years). We know the publication record, and we know which advances were due specifically to the efforts of the faculty candidate. We have detailed letters of recommendation from experts in the field, who have worked with the applicant closely, over many years. We’ve often heard multiple presentations by the applicant at national meetings. We have a research proposal, and a two-day interview process.</p>
<p>With all of this, my department’s faculty have been successful in selecting people who eventually earn tenure about 2/3 of the time. I was told at one time that the University of California, Berkeley, intended to tenure everyone they hired in my field, and wound up tenuring about 50%. Harvard had no intention of tenuring everyone, and used to have a tenure rate of about 2% (although I think it’s improved since then).</p>
<p>Admittedly, when a university is deciding on tenure, it’s a major commitment, the standards are very high, and the numbers are much, much smaller than in undergraduate admissions. But, given that groups of people in the field, with strong incentive to pick the best researchers available, and with very detailed information about the applicants, still guess wrong part of the time, I think it’s clear how difficult predictions really are (even my own have error bars 
).</p>
<p>Another reason a top scorer might not be admitted:</p>
<p>The top scorer foolishly neglected to become a professional magician (MIT, this year) or rodeo clown (Harvard, a previous year) before applying. Those applications were probably fun to read, in contrast with the eye-glazing, ho-hum, “yet-another” descriptions of Intel projects and Olympiad participation, culminating in gold medals. ;)</p>
<p>At least, the future scientific conference presentations by the magician and clown are not likely to be boring. On the other hand, it’s been reported that several people in the audience fell asleep the first time Einstein spoke about relativity in the US. There’s also an interesting discussion of a conference presentation by Francis Crick (in What Mad Pursuit?, if I recall correctly), described as “electrifying” . . . despite a picture of the audience looking, well, less than electrified.</p>
<p>Nothing against the magician or clown. Really! They’re probably more interesting than average as people, and I might very well have picked them, too. But it says something, I think, that it’s this aspect of the application that MIT and Harvard are advertising</p>
<p>I honestly could never tolerate clowns or magicians. Not as insufferable as mimes, I suppose. If H recruits for mimes my D will definitely not attend even if accepted. You have to draw the line somewhere.</p>
<p>This thread tends to exaggerate, IMHO. Few perfect applicants are rejected, and few applicants are accepted on the grounds of their ubiquity or odd talent. The real danger isn’t to the 2350-2400, but to the 2260-2350 that get lost in the supermarket.</p>
<p>If the Op has read many posts on this issue, then the op knows people here think there are many many other factors than just the scoring of standardized tests. I can name a few, but not all, to refresh op’s memory. </p>
<p>Schools factor in gpa, difficulty of classes, EC’s, past legacies, student’s address(IS or OOS), some look at student’s nationality, some look at racial, political diversity, some consider artistic, musical, athletic, or other abilities, limited seating, limited endowments, poor inverviews, and of course a biggie- random chance.</p>
<p>I think bottom line it’s simple: there are far more applicants who are extremely well qualified to attend America’s top colleges and universities than there are places at the table. Consequently at some point, after the unqualified, the barely qualified, and the clearly-qualified-but-not-extremely-well-qualified are weeded out, adcoms are still left with a very large pool of extremely well qualified candidates. At that point it ceases to be a competition as to which among the extremely well qualified are marginally even more qualified than others. A certain randomness sets it, along with a lot of subjective factors over which candidates have just about zero control. The applicants do begin to look alike; that favors those who offer something truly distinctive. And even if you offer something truly extraordinary—say you’re one of the world’s ten best piccolo players—you may be out of luck if they’ve already offered admission to ANOTHER of the world’s ten best piccolo players, and the next applicant in line is one of the world’s 25 best tuba players.</p>
<p>I heard words of great wisdom on this from an admissions officer at Swarthmore who said (paraphrasing a little): “Look, we get about 7,000 applications a year. At least 6,000 of them are from candidates who are well qualified to be here, any of whom would do very well, thrive intellectually, and contribute to the Swarthmore community. It breaks my heart to have to reject most of them. But I take consolation in the knowledge that our rejecting them is not a negative judgment on them or their abilities. My job is to help put together a class that works for Swarthmore, and there are a lot of factors that go into that, most of them having nothing to do with the qualifications of individual candidates. It’s a question of getting the right mix. But those who don’t get in are still great candidates. They’ll all get into great schools, and most of them will do very well, academically and otherwise, at those other schools. That’s the great thing about this country; it’s not so true in most of the rest of the world.”</p>
<p>I think that about sums it up. No one is entitled to admission to Harvard, or MIT, or any of the Ivies. If you’re rejected despite great qualifications, write it off to chance and move on with your life. And if you do get in, don’t assume it means you’re better qualified than someone who didn’t. Just thank your lucky stars.</p>
<p>This thread, while very helpful, never fails to make a “top scorer” like me feel like I don’t deserve even to apply to “top schools” because my high scores & grades, in conjunction with my lack of exceptional extracurricular activity, clearly indicate that I am dull and passionless. :|</p>
<p>Poseur - did you read THE WHOLE thread?</p>
<p>No, not all 64 pages.</p>
<p>Where would you direct me?</p>
<p>Hey, Poseur, don’t worry about it. I looked at your stats information, and I’m predicting that you’ll be admitted to your top choices. </p>
<p>It’s rare for a “top scorer” not to be admitted to “top schools,” although it does happen–hence the existence of this thread. </p>
<p>To summarize all of my posts on this thread: On occasion, a “top scorer” may not be admitted, even though he/she is in fact excellent in all respects. My posts suggests some reasons for this–partly humorous, partly sardonic, but with a kernel of truth, I think.</p>
<p>Thank you!! I have read your recent posts – & I totally understand that there are far more qualified applicants than there are spots – but I also feel like I’m the typical “perfect score reject” that one hears about so often, since my ECs aren’t on par w/ what (at least on this website) is expected of people with good stats. Over and over, I hear the old, “Colleges hate people with really good scores who don’t spend their time meaningfully!” which is reassuring to everyone with great ECs and everyone without great scores but leaves people like me high & dry. </p>
<p>I almost wish I hadn’t done well on the SAT so that at least I’d have a better idea of where I can expect to get in, since I rarely see people w/ my scores who aren’t huge overachievers in all the other aspects of their lives (& my not-amazing subject test scores only add to the incongruity & unpredictability, since most people do better on their SAT IIs than their Reasoning). But I’m being melodramatic – I did apply to a range of schools, all of which I love, & I’m sure I won’t be disappointed no matter where I end up.</p>