[jarekr]

They have stats publicly available, so everyone can judge it themselves:

http://www.mitadmissions.org/topics/apply/admissions_statist...

If you look at percentage rates, the self-selection of the candidates might make it look like it is not so rigoristic. But take a look at the absolute numbers, for example for the "SAT Reasoning Test Scores (Math)":

1172 / (1172 + 269 + 108 + 2) =~ 0.76

So 76% of the students enrolled have scores in the best 750-800 range.

[sajithw]

The math portion of the SAT doesn't even cover precalculus (stops at Algebra II). Would you really expect someone who scored below 700 to have otherwise impressive credentials?

I'll agree that the more stellar applicants do tend to have high SAT scores but that's also in part because they are a) stellar and b) the SAT is a trivial test. I still disagree that SAT is a cutoff or benchmark. I highly doubt the admissions committee sees a 600 and throws the student out before reading the rest of their application to look for things that stand out. That said, there are tons of students with 800s that don't stand out at all and get weeded out.

Exceptional candidates will be exceptional regardless of their standardized testing scores.

Edit: Not trying to say that they admit all the exceptional people either. I'm absolutely positive plenty of people get screwed by the limited number of slots despite being more than qualified.

[jarekr]

I think the following sums it up quite nicely:

"Of course you need good scores and good grades to get into MIT. But most people who apply to MIT have good grades and scores. Having bad grades or scores will certainly hurt you, but I'm sorry to say that having great grades and scores doesn't really help you - it just means that you're competitive with most of the rest of our applicants. MIT is very self-selecting in that regard."

From: http://www.mitadmissions.org/topics/apply/the_selection_proc...

[sajithw]

I can agree with that (and with you for the most part). I just maintain that "near perfect" isn't part of the equation.

Edit: I never was really arguing against this (just that near perfect notion). There's a big difference between near-perfect and bad.

[tkahn6]

> Would you really expect someone who scored below 700 to have otherwise impressive credentials?

Errrr. I think I got a 680 and I'm pretty sure I got a 98% in Calc BC and a 5 on the AP. I also know a friend that got a 750 on the Math SAT, dropped out of Calc because he didn't understand it, and I had to tutor him.

[sajithw]

I don't think I said "No one who gets below a 700 has impressive credentials". I was just trying to generalize that higher scoring students are more likely to have other impressive things about them.