<p>
IIRC, we are required to use Bayesian probability on these argmentative threads. THerefore, you can update your probability after the results come out. If you are accepted the probability is 1, if not 0. I don’t know about waitlist. :D</p>
<p>It’s ok, bogibogi, I find the ragging informative.</p>
<p>At this point, I am heartily sick of discussing MIT–and clearly that goes doubled and redoubled for many other participants. </p>
<p>Yet, here I go again: I have never thought that MIT would automatically be the top choice for a student who is interested in STEM subjects, although it probably would be for quite a few students of that type. Despite the informative nature of the “ragging,” it is still not clear to me why my suggestion [made on another thread], which applies to 10-15 demonstrably very able applicants to MIT, has aroused such strong opposition. </p>
<p>I didn’t make the same suggestion about HYPS etc. because their missions are different from MIT’s mission, as are the qualities they seek in applicants. This is not to say that they might not be better choices for some STEM applicants–to say nothing of the many non-STEM applicants, who are doing interesting things now and will do important things in the future.</p>
<p>cobrat, Beliavsky, and I have different viewpoints. I don’t agree with a lot of what they say. However, I do think that cobrat is right about some of the rural areas in the Midwest, at the present time. The rural areas in the Midwest come in many different types. Some are small college towns that are welcoming to people of all national and cultural heritages, and to people of all faiths, or none. But some are not.</p>
<p>Happy Box! Happy Box!</p>
<p>Oh, yeah, LoremIpsum, I know–I can’t empty my mailbox fast enough to prevent it from being full. :)</p>
<p>Moderator’s note: PLEASE READ THE TOS.</p>
<p>NO BLOGS, REFERENCES EITHER - PERIOD. NEXT PERSON TO MENTION ONE WILL BE PENALIZED.</p>
<p>
Much fiercer feuding and somebody may pull up the drawbridge on this thread.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I used to love the Asterix comic books when I lived in Europe.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>According to the link below, your acceptance odds at Brown are about triple the average acceptance rate if you are a valedictorian or scored a 36 on the ACT and two to two-and-a-half times higher if you scored an 800 in one of the sections of the SAT:</p>
<p>[Admission</a> Facts | Undergraduate Admission](<a href=“Undergraduate Admission | Brown University”>Undergraduate Admission | Brown University)</p>
<p>QM - there is a thread somewhere that asks, “USAMO and low GPA, chance me”.<br>
I am paraphrasing and maybe it wasn’t USAMO, but the point is, why should MIT tie itself down to some auto admit formula? I am sure that USAMO dramatically increases your chances of admission, but why should it be 100%</p>
<p>Well, I have always suggested that a student would also have to be qualified in terms of character, as well. So it’s not really 100%. However, I see character as distinct from personality, although I understand that it may be hard to disentangle them, in some circumstances.</p>
<p>As to why I suggest it: I am quite impressed by students who are able to score points on the USAMO (which is entirely proof-based and quite difficult). I haven’t looked at the “USAMO and low GPA” thread, so I can’t really comment on that. It seems to me that scoring points on the USAMO requires not only considerable developed ability, but also the effort that goes into developing it.</p>
<p>I totally understand that some students with high potential will not have access to the AMC tests, which are the first stage to reach the USAMO (although one can also qualify through the USAMTS, over the internet, which allows a month to solve the problems in each round). So I am not suggesting that students <em>have</em> to do well on the USAMO to show mathematical talent. But I am confident that those who do well on it have some unusual (developed) talent.</p>
<p>There was an interesting article a few weeks back in the New York Times magazine section, about the rate of clearing dopamine from from the brain, and reaction to the stresses involved in testing. Part of it involved pop psychology, of labeling the slow clearers “worriers” and the fast clearers “warriors.” However, the article noted that people whose brains cleared dopamine slowly could learn to handle the stress of testing, and excel despite it. I suspect that some of the people who “don’t test well” belong to this group, and have not had the kind of exposure that would de-sensitize them. It will be interesting to see whether the study holds up or not, on further investigation.</p>
<p>xiggi,
Just want to thank you for posting your SAT study methods. I used it religiously and both my kids are at Williams with higher-than-they-would-have-been-without-Xiggi SAT scores. I wanted to send this as a PM but don’t have enough posts to do so, and maybe someone else will discover your brilliant method! My fondest memory was responding to one of those annoying Junior Year phone calls trying to sell an SAT prep course and I responded “No thanks, we’re using the Xiggi method!”</p>
<p>
I can top that. I believe I can confidently post that your younger son’s chances of acceptance at Brown are 100%.</p>
<p>D had 800s in 2 sections. Those were not good enough odds.</p>
<p>Princeton also had a chart showing 21% acceptance for scores above 2300. Did not help although 1/5 sounded quite reasonable.</p>
<p>QM, we never even got to a clarification of what you call character. Nor could anyone ascertain how many were not accepted versus preferring another program and not applying or declining an admit.</p>
<p>And no one can predict 100%. Best is 50-50, as a long ago coworker saw it: you’re either in or you’re not.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If we want to use Late Western Antiquity references in relation to the OP’s story, Suzy Weiss would be closest to a Roman from an elite Roman family bemoaning why she was being rejected by the elite colleges and whether merely wearing the hairstyle or a component of clothing from a Goth, Hun, or Vandal would have helped her admission chances.</p>
<p>Of course, this is where Beliavsky and I part in our outlooks as I’d argue that if one actually examines the actual history…the Goths, Huns, or Vandals would not only be the ones who are disdained/mocked…they’d simultaneously be the ones with the higher GPA/stats. And I am not only talking about their superior grasp and practice of diplomacy and geopolitical strategy in practice compared with their Roman counterparts. 
</p>
<p>The use of lead cookware by wealthy Roman elite families for some of their most favored sauces and cuisines not only because it’s available…but also because lead does impart a sweet taste tends to really do a number on one’s mental and intellectual capabilities. </p>
<p>Sometimes, too much heavy metal as demonstrated by elite Roman families can be a bad thing. :D</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I stand by my prediction.</p>
<p>He’s the one already there?</p>
<p>lookingforward, the qualities that I consider to be part of character are “love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control” (from Galatians 5:22-23). I will add thoughtfulness, honesty, and bravery to that list. I would be happy to add other good qualities of character that I may be temporarily overlooking.</p>
<p>Please note: The reference is the origin of the list in the first sentence. It is not meant to imply any consideration of religious faith or its absence.</p>
<p>You are quite right that I don’t know the numbers, lookingforward, but the people who are making the admissions decisions do know them.</p>
<p>Sorry, I didn’t mean as you define it but as the college does.</p>
<p>
Yes. I merely updated my probability assumption based on that addtional piece of evidence. It’s actually pretty convenient.</p>
<p>Wow, I have no idea how the college defines character.</p>