<p>Interesting. I know there are people who excel in the field of creative writing, but you seem to be an expert in creative reading. </p>
<p>If memory serves me right, you must be attempting to “paraphrase” what I once wrote in answer to an “editorial” submitted by Palash R. Ghosh in August 2010. Unfortunately, the attempt fails on all counts. Inasmuch as I wrote about Harvard not operating without the knowledge of the post-graduation contributions of past classes and having the courage to make tough selection choices, your points about discrimination and shylocks do miss the mark by a mile. </p>
<p>Most of the selection critera currently in place, listed on the CDS for all to view, have many subjective criteria among them, which is precisely what these colleges want – not in order to be opaque, secretive, sly, or any such thing – but because the subjective elements speak to the entire contribution of the student to the school, including that student’s very academics. The quality of that student’s intellectual effort, his or her inquisitiveness, curiosity, willingness to go beyond grades and scores, and even at times sacrifice grades (easier course for a more difficult course) and scores (one less sitting for a test, and/or more application to a current in-depth course than another timed self-practice exercise), will be elaborated on in the letters of recommendation, as well as by the student himself in the application materials and even personal interviews. An A and a 2400 score can either be a sign of intellectual depth or intellectual shallowness; it stands for nothing in itself.</p>
<p>Leadership (and I would know, as I interview for those leadership scholarships) has subjectively-reported elements to it. We are also assessing how that student sees himself as a leader, what are the qualities of a leader to him or her, and how that compares with institutional views about leadership as understood in the college’s mission statement.</p>
<p>Community service is not “objective,” because it is far more than numerical (how many hours, how many years, etc.). The college cares much more about the value that the student expresses about the comm. svc. (as well as what any supervisors of those activities also offer, if possible), subjectively.</p>
<p>Extracurriculars are only to an extent quantifiable. They are that (particularly when it comes to awards and the levels of those, as well as years of commitment), but there are some e.c.'s which for this application year may be viewed as more “valuable” because the campus is more in need of those, the student has expressed a desire to continue in them, etc. Further, the student’s level of engagement with those e.c.'s (as opposed to merely plugging along tolerantly for years) may come alive in the application, the personal essay, the personal statement, and the recommendations from the high school. Additionally, some colleges allow additional recommendations if the student, while not entering an arts program, submits an arts “package,” along with a dance or music teacher’s rec, which will further verify that student’s advancement in that art form, as well as enthusiasm about it.</p>
<p>As to character/personal qualities (Very Important to MIT, Princeton, & some others), that is hardly something quantifiable, but neverthless it is rather recognizable. Those students who do have it will be mentioned as such in the teacher recs and most often the Secondary School Report.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The Common Data Sets have been published for years.</p>
<p>You know the feeling is mutual. Yeah, perhaps I should be more careful in digging old threads from the depths of CC, but I tried to be as accurate as possible in my “recital” and only use points that were shared in this forum. I posted the link to avoid the “if it is too good to be true, it probably is not true” syndrome.</p>
[quote=xiggi]
Even we could look beyond the fact that there is hardly ANY comparison possible between the UC system and the Ivy League, as they could not have a more different raison d’</p>
<p>It’s been a good trip, xiggi. For you, for my kid. For lot’s of cc’ers. We’ve made good use of what is available here. Oh, and I didn’t mind that you posted it. If it helps, use it. I was just a little embarassed that I had actually posted a “chance my kid” thread. Maybe I was drunk. I certainly had blocked it from my memory.</p>
<p>Curmudgeon - your daughter has a very interesting resume. Did she do 4-H club or participate in a rodeo action with the animals she raised? </p>
<p>I did flunk you for admission on the moving on essays for exceeding the 500 word limit.</p>
<p>Speaking of Texas A&M, an alum from there is said to be never without a job or contacts. They have any college beat on alum loyalty and helping fellow alums with networking.</p>
<p>texaspg, she did 4-H for a long time. She truly sucked at it. She tried chickens and lambs. Some truly funny competition stories with the chickens. She started winning when she moved to cakes and pies at the Fair. </p>
<p>Her app improved from my hideous chance me thread with an ACT re-take, a state championship in b-ball, and some “other stuff”.</p>
<p>Like I have said many times so far, the bias against Asians wouldn’t go away till they become a significant donor community to the Ivies. This is exactly what drove away the bias against the Jews. Same story, different time. The Ivies dance to the tune of who butters their bread.</p>
<p>I hate to disabuse you of your own preferences for a college admissions approach or system, but their system is something that they are prepared to show legitimately produces the kind of class and campus that reflects that institution’s composite priorities. Your very preference is your own bias. Why should they be required to adopt yours instead? </p>
<p>I mean, there are many employers who I believe have dumb (biased and/or inappropriate) selection criteria for their employees – and here I am not talking about race, AA, etc., but a particular degree not necessary (or even usable) for a particular role or setting, which the employer is listing on his ad as “required” (as opposed to “desirable” or “preferred”). But it’s a private company and the employer has a right to be what I consider (and you might consider) stupid. Further, a whole bunch of employers do a lousy job looking at the big picture, use a microscope instead of a telescope to judge an applicant, and are atrocious interviewers. But it’s legal not to be as competitive as one could be, and to have a different approach to hiring than you or I might have.</p>
<p>What he doesn’t have a right to do – and frankly this is far more of a problem than 198 Asians getting into University X instead of 199 of them – is the rampant, wholesale, age discrimination in employment which is currently being practiced, and has been for about 20 years, in major metro regions. It’s shameful and I think it should be prosecutable: “laying off”/firing/ of only middle-aged workers, for example), refusal to even acknowledge the applications of anyone a young employer suspects might be over 30-35, and specifically advertising for ‘recent college grad’ (not for a position which can be demonstrated a recent college grad is more suited for than any other age is). Also the demanding of dated transcripts with an application is another way they de-select for age.</p>
<p>Yes, the above paragraph is off-topic, but it’s an example of how an employer might be practicing true discrimination vs. ( in the previous example) having a difference of opinion with the public, or his applicants, as to the best selection criteria for his business.</p>
<p>Do you realize that the mix of majors has a lot to do with job and career prospects, so that comparing schools on an entire school basis may lead to misleading conclusions?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>While subjective judgements can easily hide undesired bias that is hard to prove or disprove, “objective” measures can also hide undesired bias (whether or not such bias is intentional). There have been complaints for years that SAT vocabulary words were biased in favor of the kinds of things that the upper class tends to talk about (e.g. golf and tennis rather than basketball). And [this</a> study](<a href=“Publications | Center for Studies in Higher Education”>Publications | Center for Studies in Higher Education) found that SAT I / Reasoning test scores exhibited a good correlation with family income, but added almost no value in predicting university GPA beyond high school GPA and SAT II / Subject tests.</p>
<p>Also, high school GPA can be influenced by teachers’ bias (intentional or otherwise), especially in the grading of essays and term papers and the like.</p>
<p>And again - what never gets answered is – if “their” system produces such crap and is so mediocre because it’s watered down, then why would you want to sully your experience and go there?</p>
<p>And the answer comes back around to “but, look, the prestige.” Well, how do these places get prestige? Because of the strength and qualifications of their student body, and then the fact that that student body went and did fabulous, terrific things and were successful. But wait! I thought they didn’t know how to pick good students, and were just afraid to pick the “real” good ones for fear of offending white liberals!</p>
<p>If they were doing it that wrong – and really “dumbing down” the student body – these schools wouldn’t continue to have the prestige they do, since their graduates wouldn’t go do fabulous things any more, since they were the unqualified pity-party students. </p>
<p>But the drooling over wanting to be a member of the club while claiming that the club membership is chock full of people who aren’t all that – it’s really quite droll.</p>
<p>How sad, to go to a school where no one wants to be an artist, or a theater major, or a minister, or an elementary-school teacher, or an art historian, or an interpreter, or a journalist, or whatever. </p>
<p>I submit that the class where the majority of kids march in lockstep to what they believe is Happiness on Wall Street is the least diverse of all – no matter what the color of the collective skins.</p>
<p>"And the answer comes back around to “but, look, the prestige.” Well, how do these places get prestige? Because of the strength and qualifications of their student body, and then the fact that that student body went and did fabulous, terrific things and were successful. But wait! I thought they didn’t know how to pick good students, and were just afraid to pick the “real” good ones for fear of offending white liberals!</p>
<p>If they were doing it that wrong – and really “dumbing down” the student body – these schools wouldn’t continue to have the prestige they do, since their graduates wouldn’t go do fabulous things any more, since they were the unqualified pity-party students. </p>
<p>But the drooling over wanting to be a member of the club while claiming that the club membership is chock full of people who aren’t all that – it’s really quite droll. "</p>
<p>I think it is past midnight and I am sleep deprived but I am shocked that I actually agree with Pizzagirl on the above!</p>
<p>Increasingly, “moneyed” careers are dependent on graduate level work. The most recent 3 students I personally know who were admitted to Harvard, Princeton, and Brown graduate school – all in science – did their undergrad work at mediocre and mid-level public universities. Definitely not about the pedigree in their case.</p>
<p>'Increasingly, “moneyed” careers are dependent on graduate level work."</p>
<p>I don’t see that at all in my field. The real money comes in the people who spin off and do the whole free-agent-nation lifestyle - starting micro-companies, setting their own hours, doing their own thing and getting paid beaucoup bucks to do so. And in my field, if you have the creative insight, the business acumen and the ability to look at problems in a new way and solve them, no one really much cares what degree you have. I go before big-company VP’s and CEO’s all the time in my line of work; it’s what I have to offer and how I present it in the moment that counts. Some are elite school grads, others aren’t.</p>