<p><a href=“Someone%20found%20out%20one%20guy%20got%20a%20780%20on%20the%20math%20SAT,%20and%20he%20got%20a%20little%20good-natured%20teasing%20from%20the%20rest%20of%20the%20math%20team.”>quote</a> I still think your friend was more qualified than some others that got in, but I don’t think the guy’s accomplishments were so awesome that it would have to be a mistake for him to get rejected.
[/quote]
first of all those people on the math team sound kind of lame… lol. second, remember that this kids achievements were outstanding given the school and the state.</p>
<p>EDIT:
also, not all REALLY, REALLY smart people are the same stereotypical nerd kid who’s a member of the school’s “Varsity” math/science team. i know the movie isn’t real but just think about the movie Good Will Hunting. there are a lot of REALLY, REALLY smart people who do not flaunt their intelligence.</p>
<p>I’m not sure what your point is. I am from the midwest, first of all. And practically all the academic stars were in one sport.</p>
<p>Things like USAMO qualification and even AIME qualification can’t be obtained by just signing up for math team. It takes real, verifiable talent to do this. It’s an achievement.</p>
<p>So MIT was just supposed to take your GC’s word for it that he’s a “genius”?</p>
<p>Sorry, I’m not impressed. </p>
<p>If we are going to take a twisted line of argument, we could say that the people at MIT were too well-rounded to learn every last thing in their AP classes and instead spent time reading about what interested them.</p>
that’s partially your/other poster’s fault. you all got too wrapped up in me calling him a “physics genius.” (<em>cough</em> jealousy? <em>cough</em>)</p>
<p>
regardless of whether or not you buy the kid’s story, you still can’t argue that MIT’s admission process is a meritocracy. you also can’t say or prove that it’s admissions process is any more or less subjective than that of Harvard’s or Stanford’s.</p>
<p>“MattMcGannMIT (20:45:44) [high-level MIT admissions officer]
Your context is absolutely considered, and is quite important. However, just being from Mississippi will not make you inherently any better than someone from California. We will look at your opportunities, resources, challenges, etc, and try to understand your achievements, activities, and goals in the context of your situation. I hope this is helpful!”</p>
<p>that’s partially your/other poster’s fault. you all got too wrapped up in me calling him a “physics genius.” (<em>cough</em> jealousy? <em>cough</em>)</p>
<p>LOl. Yeah, because we never had any recs that said stuff like that.
give me a break.</p>
<p>@kyledavid: OK. I found a quote from Matt McGann, who is one of the top people admissions at MIT.</p>
<p>MattMcGannMIT (21:02:52)
"There is not a legacy preference at MIT. If you get in, it’s because you’re awesome, not because your mom or dad is awesome. "</p>
<p>“you also can’t say or prove that it’s admissions process is any more or less subjective than that of Harvard’s or Stanford’s.”</p>
<p>Stanford and Harvard try to build a well-balanced class and is looking for people that excel in areas other than scholarship, so it would make sense that is less meritocratic in terms of academics. I am also basing my opinions on admissions at my school, where Stanford seemed to throw grades, scores, and often competitions out the window when they were making decisions.</p>
<p>Interesting that he’d say that – is he aware that his institution even says it does consider legacy status in its admissions decisions? (I also find it hard to believe that MIT, as a top private school, wouldn’t give preference to legacies.)</p>
quit sippin on that hateraid and get yourself some koolaid cuz you need to chill out lol. regardless of what you think there are smarter kids than you in this world… the kid was CLEARLY smart because who the heck has the opportunity to choose from going to Harvard, Stanford, and Princeton? ONLY SMART PEOPLE.</p>
<p>EDIT:
SO DOES MIT!!! MIT IS DESPERATELY TRYING TO ATTRACT FEMALES!!! DANG CUZ YOU ARE THE EPITOME OF A HATER LOL!!! “I am also basing my opinions on admissions at my school, where Stanford seemed to throw grades, scores, and often competitions out the window when they were making decisions.” you need check yourself before your wreck yourself… you’re too cocky lol.</p>
<p>Well, Caltech is private and it doesn’t give preference to legacies either. </p>
<p>I think the “considered” box is checked for legacies because the dean of admission reviews each legacy reject to see if a gross error hasn’t been made. Marilee Jones said that this was the policy, but that she never reversed a decision.</p>
<p>Sorry, the kid had a perfect SAT. THere were 335 SAT perfect scorers ( [Teen</a> gets perfect scores on SAT, ACT - USATODAY.com](<a href=“http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2007-09-19-perfect-scores_N.htm]Teen”>http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2007-09-19-perfect-scores_N.htm) ), and maybe that has changed some, but still somewhere around there. Add in SATII’s and valedictorian, and you are talking about an exceptionally small group of students. A single sitting 2400 alone puts you far beyond basic ‘genius’ (which I believe is top .5%). 335 + the 207 36 ACT’s makes 542 out of 4.8 million(total tests taken, not seniors, but it should equal out). 542/4,800,000 = .01129% Or, in other words - well into genius range. Also, this 542 number, out of MIT’s 11374 freshman apps last year would be the top 4.7% of MIT applicants. That is assuming every perfect scorer is distinct(false) and every perfect scorer applies to MIT(very false). So a single sitting perfect score puts this kid easily into the top 2-3% of applicants, even at MIT. Add in that this kid was valedictorian, and he is separating himself further, as certainly not every perfect scorer has that distinction, so put him into the top half of that.</p>
<p>The kid was a ‘genius’ and also was among the tip-top group even at MIT or any other school. So please, spare me this retoric about how unexeptional a perfect scorering 4.0 is.</p>
I suppose it’s possible to say that legacy status is listed as “considered” because it’s asked for on the application. </p>
<p>But as collegealum said, I have personally heard the admissions officers at MIT say that legacy isn’t a factor – the reason they give for the director of admissions reviewing legacy cases is so that when enraged alum parents call up asking why their offspring were rejected, the director can say he/she personally reviewed the file and stands by the committee’s decisions. (As I understand it, the director reads every accepted student’s file also.)</p>
<p>I also distinctly remember Ben Jones saying this on CC itself a few years ago, but I am not having good luck with search keywords at the moment.</p>
<p>EDIT: Despite the small number of people who get perfect scores on the SAT each year, having a perfect score alone does not indicate that a student is a genius. A quarter of MIT’s applicant pool had SAT I critical reading scores above 750 last year, and 54% of the applicant pool had an SAT I math score above 750 (stats [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>). MIT doesn’t discriminate between scores at that level – someone who gets a 770 on the math section of the SAT I is not automatically smarter, or better at math, than someone who gets a 760.</p>
<p>Furthermore, you have to consider the possibility that a kid with really great scores, grades, and ECs was torpedoed by something else in his or her application, such as perhaps a very negative teacher recommendation.</p>
<p>okay, we all know that MIT’s acceptance criterion are very very weird when we compare the ppl who’ve been accepted to the people who’ve been rejected…but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a meritocracy. Just that “meritocracy” encompasses so much more than the ordinary SATs, GPAs, SATIIs, ECs, or even competitions. (if meritocracy was just scores, then NO top american college is a meritocracy!! only big state schools that don’t look at anything else but scores would be.). MIT is probably less extreme with the legacy/developmental admit/athletes thing than harvard, yale, princeton, and the other ivies. So i seriously doubt that the kid you describe as the physics genius was rejected and had his place taken up by someone who didn’t get in because of merit.</p>
<p>
funny, MIT has rejected every woman from my school who, compared to many of the males AND females accepted on CC, were more than qualified to get in. I think they just hate our school. (the girls all went to HYP later)</p>
<p>Not saying otherwise, but I think it is out of line to minimize this kid’s accomplishments as ‘normal’, ‘dime a dozen’, or anything like that. That was my main point. The kid got rejected, and for all I know, should have been, but was still pretty exceptional.</p>
<p>Narcissa - No. .5% vs. .01% of college bound, I think it is pretty clear. Now, that was just using one definition of ‘genius’, and one that could be argued quite easily. Additionally, SAT or IQ or other testing isn’t the best method, and actual accomplishments would be a clearly superior option. However, by a common definition(the most common that I have seen), this person certainly fits in.</p>