Rejections

[Peppers]

<p>

I simply find this statement fallacious because who says a “well-rounded” student is most likely to succeed? Depending on which career route you take, you might not have to be “well-rounded” to be successful. For example, I doubt a physics researcher really needs to know the philosophy of Nietzsche and Foucault. Sometimes, “well-rounded” students can find soo many interests that they spread themselves too thin and aren’t truly successful in any of them</p>

<p>Isn’t UCSD trying to find the applicants with the most potential? (And yes, past academic achievements and such do add to “potential” in this process)

</p>

<p>The same argument could follow that academic-strong students will not succeed either. UCSD follows a much safer option to optimize graduation rates if they take in well-rounded students. And as much as I would disagree with this policy, for every 1 person here with 2300+ SATs and 4.2 GPAs who fail to disclose a list of ECs and got rejected, and this makes up a large number of those who were rejected, there are equally 5 or more who were accepted with 2100s and 3.8s with ECs and clear demonstration of well-roundedness. </p>

<p>Even if the argument runs that the school should accept those who have high stats, and that they <em>might</em> succeed in college, what is to say about their chances in the real world? The real world doesn’t embrace intellect like the sheltered institutions we’ve been raised up in do. The real world needs the overall character that a well-rounded applicant can muster. It’s true that some people are good at academics, really good in fact, but what good is that when they graduate Summa Cum Laude and are unemployed? UCSD wants to raise its prestige, but not necessarily from these people. Some people might not be as “smart” as those who were rejected, but that’s what the school is meant to do, teach a new generation of engineers, scientists, productive members of society.</p>