UCSD comprehensive review formula

nedad
Wed, 09 Nov 2005 14:43:24 +0000

Kluge, I understand perfectly that huge schools have to be somewhat numbers driven. There’s simply no time to take a holistic approach. But THIS strikes me and everyone I show it to as quite literally absurd: absurd in the sense that it gives the pretense of scientific respectability to the misguided attempt to quantify things that cannot be quantified. Look, I even critique my high school for doing something similar. It pretends that a GPA of 95.1275 is better than a GPA of 95.1274, when the grades that went into making it themselves are subjective.

Yes, you can tell about leadership etc from apps; but why are some things worth 150 or 300 points? It makes no sense.

I am not implying that larger schools are better than small ones, not even remotely. I went to Yale and loved it. But I did get to know the deans and administrators by name; my son knows all the deans, president, etc. because of campus activities, not just because of the essay. Whether it’s Yale or a smaller LAC, moving in the top circles is extremely helpful for a variety of reasons, too numerous to name. This is not an elitist rant, just a fact of life in the 21st century. My family would be in a far different place intellectually, socially, financially, politically, and many other “-ally’s” if we didn’t know both the “average” people in life and the movers and shakers.

Have at it; I expect flames. One flame that does not apply, however, will be any one that says that people who have naturally gravitated to power or top circles are automatically suspect. It may simply be that achievers (in any field, and not necessarily financial, either, enjoy the company of others who do things on their level. And I enjoy the rewards not because of status or material possessions, but because I can help more people with my money!