Top schools are more than fairly niche, especialy at the very top of the very top like MIT, which is extremeley niche.
Source: I was a poor kid who got into UC Berkeley based largely on my SAT II scores.
Any poor kid seriously considering applying to MIT or Cal is high information enough to be aware SAT IIs exist.
Do ya'll understand how patronizing and insulting this bigotry of low expectations is to brilliant trailer park trash kids like 1990s me?
PS I'm rich and early retired now thanks to (Bitcoin and) setting/enforcing high standards for myself, not lowered expectations.
I didn't have $20 to spend on an SAT prep book, so I checked some out from the HS library. It wasn't hard, it simply took initiative.
SAT IIs let applicants pick an area in which they can shine above and beyond the genereic g-weighted diagnostic.
My gifts are largely verbal, so the Writing subject test was my once-in-a-lifetime to demonstrate objective superiority to my peer group, regardless of income and race.
My SAT IIs were obviously vital to the package presented to the admissions committee because I lacked two key things critical to UC's usual stringent paradigm. One, my GPA was below Cal's 4.0+ standards. Two, I didn't take a single AP test (Dad's attitute towards APs was the same as Driving School: "It was free when I was in HS so I'm not gonna pay for that").
I approached getting into Cal FROM OUT OF STATE like a hacker: telling the system what it wants/expects to hear. That entailed a deep dive on how admissions officers think and weigh applications. Every single trade-off I made in HS was in light of that strategy. Job or heavy extra-curriculars? I'll just be broke and stack trophies. AP Econ/English/Bio or Debate? I'll suffer in Honors/Regulars and stack moar trophies. Dating or academic decathalon? Same. Prom or debate tournament? Ditto.
From this point going forward it is no longer a usual extracurricular item. The school that they are applying to has specifically told all applicants that they don’t want to hear about their subject test score. It would be unusual to include it, not to mention blatantly violating application submission instructions, which applicants are expected to carefully follow.
In any case, his name is “cognitive elite.” If he is who he says he is, then he would have find other ways to prove his eliteness/worthiness if subject tests were not being considered for any applicant. He had the initiative to study for that test. If he knew that it would have been a waste of time to study for it, then maybe he would have taken that same time and initiative to do something else to make his application stand out.
>If he is who he says he is, then he would have find other ways to prove his eliteness/worthiness if subject tests were not being considered
No, that's completely wrong and totally incorrect!
The SAT II Writing subject test was the only way for me to make up for lack of AP English, which is basically a prerequisite for the school hosting the world's top English and Rhetoric departments.
>maybe he would have taken that same time and initiative to do something else to make his application stand out.
Nope, I would have simply crossed MIT off the very short list (Stanford, Cal, MIT) of extremely niche institutions fortunate enough to be considered within my purview for eventual attendence.
MIT's anti-meritocratic, clown-world decision to ignore SAT IIs makes me furious. To hell with MIT and their woke, filthy Epstein-tainted staff/faculty/endowment. They are pulling up the class-mobility ladder on kids like me while pretending it's for the sake of social justice.
It just seems to me that MIT has looked at their data and saw that subject test scores are not a key differentiator between students who do well at MIT and students who do not. You’ve already mentioned MIT is niche. Is your alma mater with the top English and Rhetoric departments dropping these tests, or is MIT doing so? If subject test scores are not a differentiator of success at MIT, why should MIT make students go through with them, especially if that time and effort can be put towards doing other things that actually are better indicators? Maybe programming projects, etc, or whatever their case may be. Call it woke but maybe their actual numbers support their decision?
>MIT has looked at their data and saw that subject test scores are not a key differentiator between students who do well at MIT and students who do not.
Objection. Assumes Facts Not In Evidence.
Following the OP link reveals no such analysis, only a statement SAT IIs are being suddenly being ignored because "We believe this decision will improve access for students applying to MIT." That's coded language, 100% typical for their woke, clown-world admissions functionaries.
>maybe their actual numbers support their decision?
Maybe we should be verifying the actual numbers instead of swallowing whatever just-so story MIT plops out to justify the woke thing they wanted to do anyway.
After reviewing other HN articles from MIT admissions, such as “Picture yourself as a stereotypical male” (which includes the blatantly racist gem "A Good Night’s Sleep, A Hearty Breakfast, and Being White"), along with "Black Lives Matter...until they don't", and the Epstein fiasco, it becomes very clear MIT doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt.
Let’s go back to the point where he said poor kid. It’s really hard to get those opportunities. Many poor kids have to work through high school or provide unpaid child care for their family, many of those also have to deal with food and/or housing insecurity. It’s extremely difficult to not only have the connections to get in someplace for an internship or a volunteer experience for your scholastic resume but also to be able to get there or have the time outside of work/school/family to do it.
> PS I'm rich and early retired now thanks to (Bitcoin and) setting/enforcing high standards for myself, not lowered expectations.
Awesome!
> My gifts are largely verbal, so the Writing subject test was my once-in-a-lifetime to demonstrate objective superiority to my peer group, regardless of income and race.
Same, though I don't really consider skills like oratory to be a gift; rather I think it's something you simply refine with time and experience.
I was actually the first to score a perfect score (at the time) in my English Placement Exam at the University I ultimately started at, however, my writing legibility is admittedly horrendous and I was docked 2% after I was asked to read it aloud for the inconvenience of the reviewers: yielding a 98%. It was about the Tobacco Industry--I understood this topic well as my childhood best friend's Father was an Exec at Phillip Morris.
But, and I have to ask as I think this follows the Bitcoin meritocracy ethos: wouldn't you have preferred to have your admission be based on your ability to have positively contributed to your field of study rather than some arbitrary score on an exam which, if you were like me had to prep and take several times before you took it serious? And probably purposely forgot 85% of it as soon as you got up and walked out the door?
I mean isn't awesome to see a project where some of the most World renowned Academic Cryptographers (Adam Back) work alongside College dropouts (Peter Todd), and absolute nutters in the best way (Amir Takki) contribute to a project on equal terms and be judged by their skills rather than anything else? Especially when you see how vital its role can be in your financial well being?
That's what I always thought University was going to be, rather than the petty politicking non-sense I saw. Which is acutely seen when trying to get Peer Reviewed Journals to be even approved for review.
I personally have since shunned academia after my experience, I have a BS in Biology and that was enough BS for one life time; but a part of me wonders what I could contribute to my field now that I have experience in Agriculture, Culinary, and (very limited) Aerospace fields as well as a background in Automotive Industry and its Supply Chains.
Side note: I was that guy in class in University setting up study groups among my peers for notes, homework assignments, and lecture recordings because I had to work during school hours and I couldn't attend class nor afford the required texts; so I understand very well what having to over-perform despite not having the supposed 'bare essentials,' is like as my upper division years were during the financial crisis.
>wouldn't you have preferred to have your admission be based on your ability to have positively contributed to...
Uni-bound HS kids don't usually know which field(s) they will study, hence the S.A.T. is a Test for generic Scholastic Aptitude using general intelligence metrics (math+verbal) as a proxy. HS me intended to be a cyberlaw lawyer at Wilson Sonsini but wound up in cogsci, a field HS me wasn't even aware existed! There was NO WAY my admission could have been based on my eventual contributions to cogsci.
Academic achievement was my ticket out of the trailer park so I always took it seriously, starting in middle school when I devoured a book called 999 Words You Need To Know For The SAT. I didn't "purposely forget 85% of it" after the tests, I still know them all and never stopped building on that foundation, serving Master Satoshi well while fighting against the BCashers in the trenches of the Blockchain Wars.
Bitcoin's meritocracy is an extension of the hacker ethos (on the internet no one knows your a dog...etc) and yes, I love it. I idolize Back and adore trollish Todd, and while Amir's cringe black flag left-wing anarchism is tedious it's forgivable given the obvious sincerity.
If your Uni experience was "petty politicking non-sense" SFYL, but that's on you. Should have transferred and done STEM at a different/better institution.
I did 3 years then dropped out for financial reasons. The degree meant nothing to me; the Promethean knowledge base and powerful lifelong social network are what I wanted. But I'll always be an academic at heart.
Source: I was a poor kid who got into UC Berkeley based largely on my SAT II scores.
Any poor kid seriously considering applying to MIT or Cal is high information enough to be aware SAT IIs exist.
Do ya'll understand how patronizing and insulting this bigotry of low expectations is to brilliant trailer park trash kids like 1990s me?
PS I'm rich and early retired now thanks to (Bitcoin and) setting/enforcing high standards for myself, not lowered expectations.
I didn't have $20 to spend on an SAT prep book, so I checked some out from the HS library. It wasn't hard, it simply took initiative.
SAT IIs let applicants pick an area in which they can shine above and beyond the genereic g-weighted diagnostic.
My gifts are largely verbal, so the Writing subject test was my once-in-a-lifetime to demonstrate objective superiority to my peer group, regardless of income and race.