But how else can you explain rejections received by so many kids who seemingly achieved perfection numberwise? Every year I see many “conventionally perfect” (4.0 and 99%) kids not even getting waitlisted but outright rejected from PA and PEA. Terrible essay? Questionable moral character? Unfit?
Every March 10, looking at the BS result on CC, I feel like shouting “What more could this kid possibly have done - within the limits of what was available to him?” Not everyone has the “means” (beside talents) to stand at Carnegie Hall or learn alpine skiing. And yet, would these schools take that into consideration? I feel it is one thing for us to think what is reasonable, and it is quite another for the AO to select among so many uber-achievers’ files on their table.
And there seems to be no shortage of kids with near-perfect AMC on CC. At least math does not cost money like Carnegie Hall - so AO won’t feel guilty about using it as a criteria. I don’t know if AO actually does it or not; I am just saying I won’t be surprised or feel unfair about his using it, for the AO has to select certain number among so many qualified applicants. I do not know what other metric would be more potent in filling the class’ potential Olympiad team requirement. Grades and SSAT are a dime in a dozen.
If Nadia Comaneci pushes the bar up a notch for her routine, regardless of whether it is healthy or safe or not for her or the rest, she sets a new reference on what it takes to win the competition. There simply is no way to get around this, as we see from what the US college admission game has become today.