Since GA Tech doesn’t have an interview, or allow for various types of portfolio submissions I would argue it ends up being less holistic than MIT. Also see iconic “Apply Sideways” blog post from @MITChris that backs that up.
S24, looking back at his GT application, sees why he didn’t get in. It didn’t really provide a way for him to show what his passion is. Since the application didn’t have a good way for him to share the info, they probably don’t put much admissions value in things that he does. Reading more about people did get in we also see what ECs they value, which were not his. So though disappointed at first we now realizing it was not a good fit.
Pitt had a more flexible application process where you could upload a pdf “resume”. It allowed him to include pictures of things he had built. It’s one thing to write an essay about the hours you spent crafting a woodworking project, it’s another to read that essay then see the end result as a picture or video and see that the end result does actually look impressive.
Our HS is full of immigrant families who purposely moved here from other areas in order to enroll their kids here (group of charter schools which regularly fill a some of the top US News & World Report high schools).
In my opinion, something that is a little different in American culture compared to educational systems elsewhere is a culture of entrepreneurial creativity, and a general attitude of embracing the idea that anybody can reinvent themselves if you want it bad enough and are willing to work hard at it. In some other countries, your profession IS entirely determined by what you got your college degree in. So let’s say that after 20 yr in a particular profession, you change your mind and want to shift a little to some different type of job or industry…well, in SOME other places, you pretty much have to start over and go back to college.
I am GLAD that there are colleges in the US that are test optional. GLAD that colleges admissions in this country is not entirely dependent on the score you got on ONE test at ONE point in your young teenage life.
My son had a horrible time in middle school because his sporty/alpha male classmates probably would have described him as caring too much about school - he’s now thriving at a very academic high school - he just needed to be with more kids who actually cared about school instead of lacrosse being their main personality feature.
I agree - to me the weakest aspect of the America system is the cost of our public universities. Private schools are private and what they charge is their business, but it is a shame that so many of our public institutions are as expensive as they are.
Agree that cost of publics has gotten out of hand. I guess the question is to identify why, which can be its own thread. How much of this is on the revenue side (diminishing allocations from the state) and how much from the cost side, e.g. administrative bloat and non-educational capex. I doubt it is teaching faculty salary and benefits. A good example is the lazy river at our local state u’s student center.
Our S chose to attend a large public high school - big on sports, and lots of school spirit fueled drama. He was one of those kids that quietly studied hard, prepped for tests, and did whatever he could to make sure he would stand out to the colleges he wanted to attend. So, yah, he graduated with 4.0, 2400 SAT, and 4 subject test at 800 each. After his first few days at Stanford he was ecstatic at how “academics mattered” and how conversations about hard classes, hard projects, and friends launching startups were heard in every coffee shop.
So here’s to those kids. Maybe not loud, or saucy, but quietly doing quite (quite) well.
I guess I genuinely do not see that happening much on here. I think some people, including myself, have differentiated between 1) outstanding scholars who also are strong in other areas (either emotional IQ, ECs, talent, etc.), and 2) outstanding scholars who do not have any other particularly strong areas. [And again reiterating my earlier post if I am included in this accusation of stereotyping - I was not commenting on “outstanding scholars” being doomed to “mid-level engineering positions” - my comment (inartful as it may have been) was specifically about the problem of basing admission on one subject-specific math/engineering test while intentionally ignoring any other attributes or academic strengths and that if someone is exclusively and excessively strong in one math/engineering subject but has so real strength in other areas, that they will likely not rise the ranks in positions that require more breadth.)
I would like someone to cure cancer, solve climate change,and ensure safe drinking water to the poor. Whether those individuals also play the tuba or are president of the drama club matters little to me; I wish our admissions system reflected this.
An interesting snapshot in this regard was my 20th HS reunion. It was eye opening for our class as to whose academic investments opened doors and whose glory days kind of lingered at HS. (Yes many of the quiet studious types ended up doing quite well and rounding out their personas/charm gracefully and organically. They were actually the ones that were the most socially active during the event)
Wrt to admissions, I did find it interesting that basically all of the finance, physician (including an MD PhD) and silicon valley types had gone to non-Ivy schools. We had one Stanford with an MBA and another who was a prof. Our Harvard was in BusDev for a tech company. Following year Harvard was also a prof while the previous year’s was in entertainment performance. A Dartmouth got an MBA and was in finance but the rest ranging from Yale to Brown were working for non-profits to being in the military.
Ultimately it was a complete crapshoot as to whether the Ivy+ schools helped those from my class more than some other school would have. Now it’s one class at one HS from many moons ago, but it’s obvious this admissions thing is very hard and unpredictable. The most predictable results were the more technically minded pathways that attended top to midrange schools.
There is no best method but ours is one of the most shrouded. Some may say that recent events have borne out that that is a negative as it allows for bias amongst other things. So for me I’d vote that it “works” but I don’t like the flavor.
I think everyone wants that - and central to that is creativity and out-of-the-box thinking and problem-solving. Which is why many schools look to outside factors in their admissions process. Someone who is good at both music and science, or both drama and science, might be better equipped to look at entrenched problems from a new angle.
Of course, that is not at all the perspective of those actually admitting students to the phd graduate programs where they will acquire the skills to cure cancer or solve climate change. Graduate programs evaluate one on expertise and promise in the proposed field of study and research related thereto. Tuba playing not considered.
Not really, and that is basically my point. I think on this thread people some people are equating someone with one really high test score on a niche STEM test as meeting the definition of an “outsanding scholar”. I am saying it takes more than excellence in one area to meet that definition in it’s truest sense and that you will miss most “outstanding scholars” if you hyperfocus on one math or engineering subject-specific exam (again - this was the proposal suggested above).
Well he attended Julliard, Harvard and Columbia, so someone in those admissions departments thought he was a great addition to the school, even if he wasn’t the top scorer on a math exam.
