<p>You are reading correctly, but your mind seems to be processing incorrectly. Why do you presume to know exactly what is “good” and what is “bad”? Are you an admissions officer? Do you work at one of the schools? I admitted multiple times that my posts reflect my opinions on the matter, while you make these preposterous presumptions that waht you think applies to everyone. Unless you have evidence of the lack of a counterexample for your statements, do not write your opinions aas fact. </p>
<p>Secondly, how is calling someone else’s argument “insane” not subjective? Either your logic is clouded, or… well there really isn’t any other explanation, truth be told. And yes, I do know, as a matter of fact, a “stereotypical Asian” who applied t Harvard and Yale but was only admitted to the latter. Also, are you kidding me? Naviance? The information regarding colleges on that site are only general statements that may or may not be accurate. It’s a joke, to be exact. I don’t see what you hope to get out of it, unless you are a high school counselor. Please provide the evidence supporting your naming of those sterrotypes. </p>
<p>Once again, you make a huge generalization that detracts from your already weak argument. You just don’t get it. There’s much more to the process than SAT scores and GPA. Bioboy’s SAT scores are near-perfect, to be sure, but does that mean that he automatically falls into the criteria of every other student with near perfect SAT scores admitted to Princeton? Absolutely not. SAT’s are easy to study for, and thus should not be taken as seriously as the majority of the population assumes. In fact, I would be so bold as to say that the SAT does not raise his chances, because the admissions officer could see from his mismatched EC’s that he probably only extensively studied for it to get a good score. GPA is, I admit, a strong indicator, and perhaps would raise his chances a bit, but my overhanging verdict remains.</p>
<p>I draw those conclusions from my opinion. Why is that so difficult to understand? Do YOU know anything about the Princeton mathematics department? If so, please tell me. If not, for lack of a better alternative phrasing, please stop -ing presenting these rhetorical questions as if you had a deep answer to each.</p>
<p>Yes, those might lead one to assume results, but what is to say an admissions officer views them differently? That is your definition, and so be it. You are not an admissions officer, I presume, and therefore your opinion of what’s important is itself not that important.</p>
<p>Why don’t you analyze, then, the statistics of the applicants? You ignore the obvious possibility that perhaps it is harder for normal applicants to get into than normal Brown undergrad, but perhaps it is a bit easier for an obviously scientifically talented and oriented applicant to get in? You present “facts” without consideration. Blind trust in “established truths” gets you nowhere. In fact, such devoutness is the enemy of progress.</p>
<p>Perhaps you truly are trying to help the OP. But it seems obvious that you are now much more interested in denouncing me. A slippery slope, if you would, as you have begun the descent from barely contributing in the first place to now simply arguing with me. You say you are helping. You are perhaps helping as much as a second front in a war, if you understand my comparison. </p>
<p>Pointing out others’ “errors” is seen as an attempt to seem smart because it is a failproof way to denounce others, thus furthering your standing. Think about it.</p>
<p>Perhaps I was not too clear with that last sentence that you quoted. The second part was that which was referring to you. But as you have stated yourself, arguing semantics is a waste of time, eh?</p>
<p>P.S I am done for the night. Have a wonderful day tomorrow and I’ll see you then!</p>