<p>alh, post 1676, I agree completely.</p>
<p>poetgrl: 
I think we agree on a lot!</p>
<p>I’m wondering what you think about the mission of the university with regard to genius?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It would make more sense for high schools to do class ranking using grade points, not grade point averages, so that a student is not penalized for taking an extra non-weighted course.</p>
<p>Yes ahl. We clearly have both raised geniuses. 
</p>
<p>No, but seriously, Have you ever read the book “Creativity” by the university of Chicago professor, whose name I cannot possibly spell right now, starts with a Ch? I’m unclear as to what a university CAN do with regard to genius. It seems to me that most genius is opposed and misunderstood, particularly by the academy, just because it is almost always such outsider thinking before it is so universally accepted. I also believe, while some professors nurture the few geniuses they encounter, many are very jealous and act much like Salieri in the movie “Amadeus.”</p>
<p>Genius is solitary, even when it is cooperative, simply because it refuses to agree with what it is being told. This is just my opinion. I could be wrong.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you kidding? A point structure would be the MOST gamed thing! Talk about something that would force kids to fit into boxes that don’t fit them. Join the newspaper instead of try out for the play, since newspaper gets you 20 points and the play only 10.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, smart people can be pretty dumb at times.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>UCB - different high schools do this differently. Some rank on unweighted scores and some on weighted.</p>
<p>And some don’t rank at all, knowing the craziness it engenders.</p>
<p>Harvard doesn’t even consider class rank.</p>
<p>And, adcoms don’t take the school’s word about weighted gpa anyway- they look at the darned transcripts.</p>
<p>Here’s the closest I can get you to formula, re ECs.
3-prong.
- what you do to further your own interests or future goals.<br>
- what you do as a member of your group- usually the hs peer group (clubs, competitions, plays, sports, etc.) Can also be your culture group, religious group, etc.
- what you do for your community- becaue you see a need and are willing to commit over time to help make things better.</p>
<p>poetgrl: Just found the book and ordered it. Thanks.</p>
<p>I have known one Salieri and his colleagues made sure he ended up in a position where he could do as little damage as possible. I usually tend to have a much more positive view of professors than most posters on this board. Of course, it really never enters my mind that “genius who changes the world” = Lex Luthor. :(</p>
<p>Yes Alh, I’m sure it didn’t occur to Oppenheimer, either, until he couldn’t look himself in the eye.</p>
<p>this is why, no matter what, all scientists need the humanities, imho.</p>
<p>I get your point and think it is a good one. Although I sort of assume we teach ethics and “being good” to all children regardless of intellectual abilities?</p>
<p>
Maybe Csikszentmihalyi .</p>
<p>The questions at the borders of science, imho, really require some fine tuned philosophical inquiry. Just, for example, cloning? Scientists have a need for humanities, I sometimes believe, at a level even humanities professors do not. This is the irony. No?</p>
<p>Also, QM is one of my favorite poster’s as well, and has, really, quite a fan base around here, I think.</p>
<p>yes Beliavsky-- Csikszentmihalyi (copied and pasted)…</p>
<p>Of course I’m kidding, pizzagirl. But I think the smart, competent kids create these point structures in their heads anyway, and some ranking is self-evident–club president is better than club member. Back in the good 'ol days when my generation applied to college, (at least where I grew up), the ambitious students knew they were supposed to get good grades, good SAT scores (what constituted good was a pretty big range) and that they should participate in two or three activities outside of school. That was it–a very general, macro sense of what it took to be admitted to the better schools an hour or two drive from home. Now you have kids who are asking themselves things like “Does my application show enough leadership? Do I have too many math and science activities? Do my EC’s show my interest in political science as much as they should? Should I self-study for a few more AP tests and which ones? Should I take honors English where I might get a B but it’s weighted, or academic English where I know I can get an A?”</p>
<p>2694^^so true</p>
<p>okay - I think one thing I really have to acknowledge is that I have spent my life in a pretty rarefied environment with much nicer than average people and it tends to really impact my world view.</p>
<p>After adding another 2,000 posts to this marathon-thread, we might get close to the conclusion that it is pretty hard to identify the reasons why the most selective schools accept some candidates, and, except for the people who make the decisions, for anyone to know why others are … rejected. </p>
<p>The past might provide a few hints about what worked in general, but it does not eliminate the individuality of each applicant. What some are trying to do is dissecting minute outcomes through a lens that is built to analyze the movement of Mars. </p>
<p>In the end it is an imperfect system directed by imperfect individuals who measure imperfect candidates. All of that will never espouse the expectation of perfection in uber-selective admissions still held by some.</p>
<p>And to make it worse, think about the impossibility for any of us to artificially create the perfect 17 years old for all four of HYPS and MIT. If each one of us were given a really, really smart 13 years old with athletic and artistic talent to match, what … would we advise him or her to do if the sole objective was an admission at HYPSM? </p>
<p>Except to suggest to say “stay true to yourself” I would not know. If that adage even means anything! :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Maybe, but maybe not. I don’t think you have to be an “evil” genius in order to do harm in the sciences. This is why it is so important to be trained in this type of questioning, imho. The level of thinking which leads a scientist to follow his or her questions into the great unknown is amoral and should be amoral. That’s the thing. What can you discover if you are concerned with the “morality” or humanity of it all? I don’t know. So, I’m sure it requires a step back from time to time, and the framework for thinking about things which the humanities give is useful in this case. JMO</p>
<p>
A prediction?</p>
<p>:)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I disagree. Too much money is being squandered trying to educate people beyond their abilities and interests. Many people are not high school material, much less college material. Charles Murray develops this idea in the book “Real Education”.</p>