<p>
</p>
<p>You might not have carefully read the example I provided? Of my friend who managed admission to a top math PhD program in this especially competitive year with zero financial support from his family – and one with zero individuals in any academic field at all. He worked, OK? He worked to support himself, and simultaneously earned straight A’s at a school where it’s very hard to do. One of the brightest people I’ve met. He certainly couldn’t ace the SAT, because he has little knowledge of English, and this and that – but he managed to take the GRE, managed to take the necessary measures to get by. He’s complained many times about how it was tough to manage. </p>
<p>This guy made it clear with his record that he’s very good. </p>
<p>You are not addressing my central point, which is that we need to admit people whom we *know * are talented to the best extent possible. Even with all the measures being taken, a school like MIT certainly seems to admit several students out of certain very good schools. I happen to know a graduate student at my school who went to one of the very good schools and was an MIT undergraduate, and can see from his description what was good about that school. I don’t mind looking for talent among those less socioeconomically well off, but as I posted on the MIT forums once and discussed there, there really doesn’t seem to be a good way to judge “talent” for its own sake without the accomplishments that would otherwise indicate it. </p>
<p>And last, I really don’t think we’re arguing on my central concern – which is that in the end, even among a group of well off individuals going to a good private school, I don’t think admissions is necessarily picking out the most talented/driven – there is quite a bit of stuff in many applications that seems more like a personality survey to me than anything else. That is the stuff I want out, in favor of simple essays, that gauge what the applicant hopes to do in the future, and perhaps discussion of his/her background, since I do favor looking for talent in all backgrounds, however it may appear. </p>
<p>I just do not favor admitting a student without significant evidence of potential to match another’s, or just to intrinsically promote diversity. Now, if you have tons of ways of measuring potential beyond looking at traditional achievements, I’m willing to listen, but quite a few posters have agreed it’s a very, very hard task. Take the friend I wrote about – entered community college with not even precalculus background. Which among us could’ve spotted he was going to be such a terrific mathematical mind without explicitly talking to him and witnessing him do math? Even he thinks it would be roughly impossible – I think he entered college expecting he’d study sociology or something. </p>
<p>This is why, only in some scintillating cases do I think it’s wise to promote diversity. Else, let these students go to other schools, which are still good, and then go to top grad schools. Better than rejecting someone with tons of talent demonstrated through work in high school, along with achievement at the USAMO level…ready to jump into very complex work at the top schools, and to interact with their faculty.</p>