<p>Well, what would you rather MIT do? Admit the 1500 people from the applicant pool with the top SAT scores, period? That’s a terrifying idea, especially when one believes (like I do) that SAT scores don’t really measure much in the way of ability.</p>
<p>What I was saying above, incidentally, was that a 1480 and a 1600 are both 99th percentile, so I don’t think there’s much of a point differentiating between the two scores. Note that I’m not talking about point spreads in a general sense, but their correlation with percentiles (<a href=“College Board - SAT, AP, College Search and Admission Tools)%5B/url%5D”>College Board - SAT, AP, College Search and Admission Tools)</a>. A score of 1480 and a score of 1600 are not really all that different – both scores put you above 99% of the people who took the test. </p>
<p>The reality is that there are far more brilliant and capable candidates who apply to MIT every year than there are spots for them. It sucks, but there it is. And that means that a lot of qualified candidates are going to be turned away each year, even those who believe their qualifications are good enough.</p>
<p>MIT is not, by the way, “purely smart-people friendly.” It is probably better to be a hardworking MIT student than a brilliant one, and the admissions committee takes this into account when selecting a freshman class. They like to see smart people who can get up when they fall down, rather than necessarily perfect valedictorian 1600-types who would crack under real pressure. An important aspect of this is proving to the admissions committee that you can handle a tough workload; some people do that through academics and academic olympiads, some people do that through insane extracurricular schedules. Merit doesn’t just mean GPA, class rank, and SAT score, and believing that it does leads to misconceptions like yours.</p>
<p>My gut feeling, after being here for three years, is that there are just as many dumb guys here as dumb girls. Actually, I think that there are more dumb guys, but my boyfriend is ambivalent about that assertation, so we’re compromising.</p>
<p>And, incidentally, on the value of test scores as the be-all and end-all of admissions worth – I got a 1430 on the SAT four years ago, which I believe would be considered unworthy relative to the numerous 1500+ students who were probably rejected in favor of me. I took the GRE yesterday (which is scored on the same 200-800 scale, but on which it is more difficult to get a very high score because the population being tested is students planning to go to grad school, a more selective group than students planning to go to college) – and got a 1540. Should I have been rejected four years ago because of my 1430, when I’ve clearly gone on to be successful (double-major, 3.5 GPA, publishing a paper in a major journal in my field as an undergraduate)? </p>
<p>The fact is that SAT score is not strictly predictive of success at a pressure cooker like MIT. To cite one more example, a friend of mine (male) got an 1150 on the SAT, was admitted based on his outstanding engineering-related ECs and college courses, and graduated this year as probably the most talented Mech E in his class. Should he have been denied admission since his SAT score wasn’t worthy?</p>
<p>You don’t need perfect stats to be successful at MIT. You need tenacity, determination, and passion.</p>