<p>Sorry. I left out the phrase “with SAT scores in the low 600s” after "being admitted (referring to the claim that MIT is looking for people with scores above 600). The point is that at the most selective schools “holistic” admissions means "holistic so long as your academic stats are extremely high.</p>
<p>I do not know if in fact there are students at MIT with scores in the low 600s. It is possible that international students have low scores owing to lack of familiarity with the test and the lack of alignment between their curricula and what the SAT tests for. But the important thing is that schools such as MIT are loath to box themselves into a corner by mentioning a specific minimal score. It does not mean that applicants with low scores have a good chance of being admitted. Applicants would be wise to look at the 75% scores of admitted students. Even if some low scorers could be found, it is unlikely that the rest of their profiles–what made them attractive to the school–could be duplicated, or that one would fare as well in another admission cycle.</p>
<p>My two cents. It is very hard to flunk out of places like HYPS for academic reasons (that is true for almost all places). Note that I exclude from my statement M, where a student actually needs to pursue a “hard science major”. If you have average writing skills, there are a bunch of majors that you can muddle along. If you can’t write straight to save your life, you can always do a soft science (or be a creative writing major LOL).</p>
<p>I left out Caltech from the OP. I think most would agree that “qualified” at Caltech is a more consistently high standard than at HYPSM.</p>
<p>One of the reasons that there are no official cutoffs, is that even the most selective schools want everyone to apply – that’s what assures them of their prestigious 10% or so acceptance rates. It would be interesting to see who was actually accepted to HYPSM with sub-600 SATs.</p>
<p>I don’t think that even with no posted minimal scores, HYPSM would admit many with sub-600s scores. Those admitted might be internationals. I did not take the SAT; but I’m not sure that if I had, would have scored even in the 500s, the whole concept of multiple choice being so alien, and my English being quite limited at the time. However, with my bac, I would have been eligible for Advanced Standing at HYPSM :)</p>
<p>Yield has been dropped from the USN&WR rankings; it may be too early to gauge its effect on colleges’ strategies. But given the task of reading 20,000+ or say, 10,000 applications for 2,000 acceptances, I wonder whether adcoms might not prefer the lower number?</p>
<p>
Well, that would depend on how you define “qualified,” wouldn’t it? Which I thought was the original question.</p>
<p>Hate to tell you this marite, but I bet there is only of cursory review given to applications with scores below 600 at these schools. These schools love to have thousands of easily rejected candidates.</p>
<p>According to MIT’s admissions statistics ([here](<a href=“http://www.mitadmissions.org/topics/apply/admissions_statistics/index.shtml]here[/url]”>http://www.mitadmissions.org/topics/apply/admissions_statistics/index.shtml)</a>), last year the admit rate for an applicant with a 600-690 on the verbal section of the SAT I was 12.4%, and the admit rate for an applicant with 600-690 on the math section of the SAT I was 8.2%. The overall admit rate was 13%.</p>
<p>Of course the odds for any given person applying to MIT with a sub-700 score on an SAT section are low. But the odds for any given person in general applying to MIT are low.</p>
<p>As an aside, my fiance got into MIT with a 450 on the SAT II in writing. He’s a white male from Massachusetts from a middle-class family – no Nobel Prizes, wealthy relatives, or exotic ethnicities anywhere in his application. :)</p>
<p>I was hoping that we could restrict the definition of qualified to something less circular than whoever was admitted.</p>
<p>Curious, I did not say anything different, did I?
As for Mollie’s fiance, MIT must have thought he was qualified. Sorry if this sounds to you circular. But qualified is what MIT thinks it is.
But, am I right in thinking that Mollie’s fiance is now in a Ph.D. program? In other words, not only was MIT right to think he was qualified, but he also demonstrated the wisdom of its admission decision and then some.</p>
<p>Do you always think the best political candidate is the one who is elected?</p>
<p>Marite,</p>
<p>I was responding to this comment: “I wonder whether adcoms might not prefer the lower number?” I thought you meant a lower number of candidates not a lower score.</p>
<p>“qualified is what MIT thinks it is”</p>
<p>If everyone takes that attitude this should be a short thread!</p>
<p>Re post 32:</p>
<ol>
<li>we’re talking qualifications, and MIT must see something in applications that mere scores do not capture. So, yes, MIT has the task of educating students it admits so it gets to set the criteria for admitting them. Any problem with this?</li>
<li>The proof in this case appears to be in the pudding.<br>
<ol>
<li>jmmom is correct about the relevance of electoral politics to this issue.
Re post 33. Thanks for re-interpreting it correctly. I doubt HYPSM suffer from the so-called Tufts syndrome and would deliberately admit candidates with lower scores as a general strategy. Where would the stronger candidates go? Caltech can admit only 232 students. :)</li>
</ol></li>
</ol>
<p>You have “suggested,” curious, that a definition of unqualified is someone who fails to achieve your benchmark of “test scores in the low 600’s.” Then when someone provides an example of an admitted student who fails to meet that “suggested” definition - ie, had a test score under 500, you sneer at the counter example.</p>
<p>To me, it is clear that an applicant who was admitted to MIT, matriculated, graduated and has gone on to a PhD program was “qualified.” </p>
<p>I think we can abandon your “suggested” cutoff as to who is qualified and move on to find a definition that actually works.</p>
<p>Unrelated to how we feel about elected political candidates. Which does not “qualify” as relevant to this thread, btw.</p>
<p>Ok</p>
<p>Everyone who is hired is qualified. Do you believe that one?</p>
<p>Why don’t you stick with the question at hand, curious. </p>
<p>And no, I imagine that everyone who is hired is not qualified. That is why some people are fired or encouraged to leave. I don’t even think that everyone who is admitted to a given school is necessarily qualilfied.</p>
<p>The examples we are giving are of admittees who have PROVEN themselves qualified. By performing adequately or, in the case of the example marite cited, well at the schools to which they are admitted. </p>
<p>It’s not helpful, curious, when someone attempts to answer your question in good faith, with an opinion or an example… and you don’t like the opinion or example because it doesn’t fit your preconceived notion… to attempt to deflect the discussion to another arena such as politics or the workplace. And to do so in a way that misconstrues what another poster has said.</p>
<p>It’s not helpful. And it doesn’t work. Others here on this thread are sufficiently “qualified” to see through the weakness of the tactic.</p>
<p>Yes, if that means meets the criteria set by the employer (not yours, not mine).<br>
Competent to do the job? Perhaps. Time will tell. In the case of colleges, a graduation rate of 95% (97 or 98% in some cases) is proof of competence.</p>
<p>
Exactly. (10 char)</p>