<p>"The admissions directors have made it clear that from their applicant pool they could have two or three full classes of completely different admittees and that you wouldn't be able to tell the difference, either quantitatively or qualitatively."</p>
<p>TheDad says it all.</p>
<p>less than 50% of the kids with perfect SAT I's get accepted, and for example
a 1590 = 45%
1580% = 42% and just gets lower and lower (not real numbers, just an example)</p>
<p>however it still beats Harvard, where more than 2/3 of the perfect 1600's got rejected :P</p>
<p>"however it still beats Harvard, where more than 2/3 of the perfect 1600's got rejected" </p>
<p>Who says that about Harvard? Is there an authoritative source for looking up the acceptance rate for SAT I 1600-holders for either Stanford or Harvard?</p>
<p>
[quote]
The admissions directors have made it clear that from their applicant pool they could have two or three full classes of completely different admittees and that you wouldn't be able to tell the difference, either quantitatively or qualitatively.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Maybe they should do another sort. Since their attitude seems to be "hey, we don't want all those brainy 1600/4.0 students messing it up for our nice well-rounded kids," its no wonder that they can put together three "equivalent" classes. No other country in the world treats its hardest working, smartest kids so shabbily. Not Japan, not England, not Germany, NOT EVEN RUSSIA.</p>
<p>Mensa160, Stanford is known for prefering passion and focus over well-roundedness. Before you talk about the nation's "smartest" kids, why don't you try to understand the subjectivity of intelligence?
I won't try to lecture you on the importance of diversity or anything like that since I'm sure you already know and reject that. But you can't tell me that a majority of the current political, intellectual, and scientific leaders of America would have ended up in an elite college if the admissions systems were based on SAT scores.
GPA scores are very relative to the individual school's (not to mention teacher's) grading system, and SAT I's have well-documented trends toward those who are white, those who are male, and those who are upper-class. (can you say "bourgeoisie"?) The SAT I tests a type of intelligence, not intelligence in general. Designing a different test would very likely result in a test of a different, though equally narrow, intelligence. You can't win with a single number.
I live in Japan (coincidentally the first country on your list), which has an extremely conservative admissions procedure (basically you score well enough on the exam to get in or you're rejected). Their examinations attempt to focus not just on intelligence, but on knowledge. So the process of entering the great universities involves slaving away at your desk for hours every night so that you know everything (and know it fast enough) the day of the test. I've met a lot of people who graduated from these universities. They are all financially successful (probably a direct result of their admission to the university), but very few strike me as particularly intelligent or able to shape the world. Stanford wants the revolutionaries because if it can get its name on their resumes, it adds to the prestige of the school. And while that makes for a guessing game, I think it's much easier to make decisions to that aim when you evaluate an applicant's personality, especially relative to their surroundings, and not just their grades and test scores.</p>
<p>Wait a 1400/2400??? or a 1400/1600?</p>
<p>^^That is from 2005. They had different parameters then. This dead thread should not have been revived. Have requested moderator to close this.</p>
<p>So closed.</p>