<p>@Decibel you know, its really stupid of you to state the BD college admission procedures in a thread where all are essentially Bangladeshis. xD</p>
<p>oops. my humble apologies. I think I don’t get CC right yet. :o</p>
<p>BTW second post after the 1000 posts!! and the last reply was the 1000th post…this thread is really going on. :)</p>
<p>It’s true that the SAT doesn’t compare, even a little bit, to the IITJEE. Basically, USA has the SAT with their holistic admissions process so they can admit whoever they want without having to give an excuse for rejecting a student. That way they can manage their affirmative actions and financial aid policies as they see fit by rejecting enough students who require aid and enough students who are overrepresented without giving an excuse for that. Even though the rejected students may have higher stats, the admissions committee can use its excuse of holistic admissions to justify its decisions. If you look at the various US colleges, many of them are need-blind. Yet you have to fill in the financial aid forms BEFORE you receive your decision, which raises the question of whether they really are need-blind. </p>
<p>If they used the IITJEE for admission, 90% of US applicants would fail the exam (in fact probably at least half of MIT’s applicant pool would fail it) and they would have no excuse for rejecting the 10% that pass it, but then that would take away the admissions committee’s blank check of being able to admit/reject whoever they want. It’s a sad state of affairs. </p>
<p>I am especially happy to have gotten into a school (Cooper Union) that does not care one bit about affirmative action/financial aid. In fact, Cooper Union does not look at financial aid documents until after the application. Why? Because they give a full-tuition scholarship to each and every single student regardless of anything. Many schools around the world follow this pattern (i.e. if you claim to be need-blind then ask for financial aid forms AFTER the decision). I think it is time more US colleges began to look at this option if they are really claiming to be need-blind.</p>
<p>NP</p>
<p>^ </p>
<p>Dude US can manage the holistic process because the liberal arts colleges usually receive around 5-10k applications and top private universities at maximum receive 40k applicants. The flagship state universities which receive like 50-60k applications operate not so different from the IITs and BUET; they take applicants solely on their SAT+high school GPA. </p>
<p>Also holistic applications give some candidates really a chance. Do you honestly believe a single exam can and will determine your life? I think the big picture matters.</p>
<p>However I also believe that IITs and BUET doesn’t have those options. When you are trying to select the best candidates from such a huge pool, the most cost effective way would be to take one single rigorous exam so that only the best can survive and be admitted.</p>
<p>in my opinion, education systems in both india and us, and i’m sure all education systems throughout the world have serious flaws. for the iits, one may have a bad hair day on the day of iitjee and her chances for getting accepted would completely get ruined. while in case of the us admission process, a really bright future-scientist may get rejected just because she doesnt play conservatory level piano & didnt find a cure for cancer while she was in high school.</p>
<p>@akashdip,exactly</p>
<p>Akashdip that is BS.</p>
<p>Average students at top colleges in US like Harvard, MIT, Stanford etc did not cure cancer or made an enterprise that generated 100 grand on first day or discover a new quark to get there. </p>
<p>See this is a holistic process. When adcomms say they look at everything, they DO look at everything. So for you to land a spot at those colleges, you have to be a holistic applicant as well- be good at everything. Being good at everything doesn’t mean being good at sports, music, physics etc; being good at everything means being good in class, standardized tests, essays, getting good rec letters and being passionate at your activities- i.e. excelling at all the criteria presented in the admissions.</p>
<p>DarthSpawnus,wow I never thought this way,being an holistic applicant,sounds nice.</p>
<p>@DarthSpawnus you really think being ‘good at everything’, as you look at it, guarantees you acceptance into an ivy? hah! then all the ivies & other top lacs would be admitting only asians & germans, seldom of other nationalities. that cousin of mine was a conservatory level flautist, with excellent ecs & academics. he believes, & i agree with him, that he got rejected because of his ethnicity. so cruel. it is a rare student who gets accepted into an ivy only for his academics, unless he has earned himself an international award.</p>
<p>and as far as ‘being passionate’ & ‘excelling at all the criteria presented in the admissions’ is concerned, its utter crap. you think i’m not passionate about piano? you think i’m not passionate about classical guitar? you think i’m not passionate about physics? you think my academics are not upto the mark? still, you’ll find me, one year from now, informing you guys that i got rejected everywhere…</p>
<p>I actually think the US college admissions process lies somewhere in the middle. </p>
<p>One point that gets misconstrued is that the colleges do not want well rounded students. They want a well rounded class. There is a huge difference. They will try to pick the best of each category. For example, they will admit a guy who has a medal in IMO, and they will also admit the guy who has sold 10000 music records. But they will not admit the guy who got full marks in all math tests and also plays the guitar at local clubs. This is what I understood from 2 years of researching US admissions.</p>
<p>If you target the top level universities, u need to be good at everything. In addition, u need to be exceptional in one or two activities. That is the best possible bet for getting the fat envelope. .</p>
<p>@RoughE exactly man. but i think @DarthSpawnus thinks otherwise.
also, i dont understand why the hell are they inclined to take in a ‘guy who has sold 10000 music records’ for a science course. isnt it ridiculous?! an imo medal seems fine, but what’s music supposed to do in a science class?!
and there is also this sort of racism in the admission criteria-
african-american > hispanics > caucasians >>> asians
just because asians are better than others, it doesnt mean that they shouldnt be given a chance!</p>
<p>Well, DarthSpawnus and RoughE both are correct. Akashdip I’m pretty sure you’ll get into a good college next year, but before that I guess you’ve to do more research on the college policies rather than arguing on the CC.</p>
<p>"@DarthSpawnus you really think being ‘good at everything’, as you look at it, guarantees you acceptance into an ivy? hah!"</p>
<p>No akashdip it doesn’t guarantee you anything. But it makes sure you will get into a good school. Trust me. I got accepted at UChicago and Wharton. And I didn’t do life changing stuff. But was I passionate? 100%</p>
<p>Also read what I meant about being good at everything. I did not say good at everything does not mean you are a math whiz, artist and a soccer star but you are a good high school student, good standardized test taker, a good essayist and a passionate person about your extracurricular activities. </p>
<p>See the problem is passion is an intangible thing. To translate it to tangible substance, you need to convert your passion to productive work. Raw enthusiasm won’t get you anywhere. But output of such passion makes difference. A person who loves math won’t get much attention. But a person who loves math, participates in contests and even won awards? You would love that guy. He is competitive, passionate and definitely a winner. </p>
<p>However when people complain that even after such achievements they got rejected, they forget that there are some important things called essays and rec letters. It’s not about what you are, but about how you express it. Colleges want human beings, not droids which is why these subjective parts matter. </p>
<p>Don’t forget “fit” matters too. Some one who is fit for Harvard won’t necessarily be a fit for Dartmouth or Northwestern even though they are ranked below. Colleges care if you would like their institution and survive happily there. </p>
<p>Also the top schools still reject students even after international awards. And accept those without it. So having one doesn’t guarantee anything dude. </p>
<p>And about race, don’t raise that argument. That has been discussed enough ;)</p>
<p>guys please dont get me wrong. i know you all have been accepted into your dream schools & i’m sincerely happy for that. and i had no intention of insulting anyone or demeaning any school. so forgive me.
i was just upholding my cousin’s case. i believe that whatever happened to him was not, and i repeat, NOT good. he had an almost-perfect gpa, perfect sat scores, joined lots of internship programs, got state & national level medals & certificates in phy & math competitions, received national recognisation for his exceptional fluting skills, you name it. i’ve read his essays & i dont think his recos could have been that bad. he was the student every teacher would be proud to have, a friend every guy would love to have. he was sort of my inspiration during my early years(we dont talk to them anymore, family matters). everyone was like,"<em>his name</em> is sure to get into the top schools". believe me, i havent seen any other student more well-rounded than him. still, he got rejected from the ivies & got waitlisted at cornell & brown. he finally got accepted in cornell and he cancelled his ucsd(or ucb, dont remember which) application for that.
its all so sad & very bad.</p>
<p>the entire point of the huge post above is that if a guy as good as him gets rejected & waitlisted everywhere, what the hell am i, being no more than just-another-guy, to do? where do i get my motivation from?</p>
<p>thank you all of you for your help. and i’m sincerely sorry if the smooth flow of this thread has been disrupted due to my rude, childish posts.
to all those accepted, i wish you a very bright carrer.
to all those applying, i hope you make it to your dream schools.
thank you.</p>
<p>@akash: I understand how your cousin feels. I myself was in a similar situation. I had a lot of passion especially for scientific subjects, but I had no opportunity to express it with competitions and things like that because my school did not offer such opportunities. In the end I made it to a great school, yet I know there are many whose stories do not turn out that way. I have no right to make statements about those circumstances because I have never been in their shoes. I can only express my apologies that the system did not turn out in their favor.</p>
<p>It is true that many state schools use GPA/SAT as the only factors in granting admission since there are usually 30k+ applicants and half of them will not even attend the school even if accepted. Thus it makes sense to automate the admissions process in these cases.</p>
<p>However, exams in general are a better way to measure passion than essays or recommendations. Why? Recommendations are largely outside your control. Few students have the opportunity to “choose” their teachers in a way that will optimize their LORs and this would greatly destroy the education system by favoring teachers who are good at exaggerating about their students. This factor depends largely on luck, since the teacher’s writing skill and willingness to exaggerate is often the determining factor in these cases. If two teachers are equally passionate about helping a student succeed, the one with the better writing skill will still be the winner, since in the end of the day the colleges are reading the letter, not the teacher’s actual mind.</p>
<p>Essays are in your control, but they can be BSed. People can fake passion in their essays if their English is good enough, and people can have them written by their parents. Colleges say that they can see through that, but there is no foolproof way of doing so. If there were, colleges would release this ‘foolproof way’ to prove to us that it exists. It is obviously in their interests to do so. Because we have not seen it, such a method does not exist. Thus thousands of kids have their essays written for them and edited multiple times by professors of rhetoric. The market for college essays is growing… some people get cheated, some reap huge benefits in the process. It is a sad state of affairs.</p>
<p>Tests are difficult to BS through, unless you cheat on them. But detecting cheating on a test is much easier than detecting an essay written by someone else or a completely inflated LOR. You just get a camera in the testing room, and make sure the proctors are completely neutral by paying them well enough to administer the test dispassionately. You cannot install a camera inside the mind of the teacher who is writing the LOR. Nor can you install a camera inside the computer in which the essay was typed and submitted.
The only problem with testing is that they cost the most money and time. </p>
<p>Research is also a good way to measure passion but few students have access to research opportunities in high school. Good progress is being made in this direction by giving high school students the opportunity of participating in research, but this is still far away for int’l students.</p>
<p>Holistic admissions would be truly holistic if it could detect every event of your life but unfortunately, commonapp gets a small segment of your life. </p>
<p>And it is also a fact that the holistic admissions gives the US system a blank check to accept/reject whoever they want. This should be an obvious. They gain a monopoly on the entire system of higher private education in the US. Essentially they control who gets the coveted degree and who doesn’t. They are also allowed to “price discriminate” by awarding scholarships based solely on need. That way they charge people the maximum they can hope to charge without making themselves look too expensive for anyone. If they fall short of cash they can accept less poor students and accept more rich students. State schools don’ have this opportunity, that’s why their financial situation is much worse. It is also becoming slowly intertwined with politics. Sometimes alumni make huge donations to schools, but often these donations will be made with the ulterior motive of facilitating admission for some students to whom the donors are acting as a patron. Why do you think rich people donate huge amounts to their alma mater if their alma mater is Harvard/Princeton? It happens not only in the US, but around the world. But at least in other parts of the world, you can detect it easily when you see that a student with poor grades has gotten into a top school since you know that tests are the only factor used in admission. In the US it’s all a big mystery.</p>
<p>Also, you might argue that rich schools have so much money that surely they don’t care about donations that bad but if you think on the margin, it’s a whole new picture. </p>
<p>NP</p>
<p>@NP
you are damn right dude. But you missed the SAT point- it’s a monopoly too. How is it supposed to measure a student’s potential at a college, esp science/acc students?</p>
<p>@akashdip
really felt sad for your cousin’s outcome. But still he got into somewhere.
Hope you and i get in somewhere together next fall.</p>