<p>Raises hand. Notorious linear thinker QM! :)</p>
<p>I have said that I don’t mind how Harvard chooses its students. They could choose the men they admit based on a combination of SAT I total + (height in inches times 400). Fine by me. Steven Pinker apparently does not like how they do it currently. I doubt that the way Harvard admissions operates was completely misrepresented to the Harvard faculty.</p>
<p>My comment about Oxford and Cambridge was just directed at JHS’s remark that Harvard’s mission is much like the missions of Oxford and Cambridge. I have to disagree somewhat. Oxford and Cambridge students have to show up for their tutorials, essays in hand, or they risk being “sent down,” i.e., kicked out. The Harvard students who are prioritizing other things over attending classes are losing some of the benefit of contact with the faculty.</p>
<p>I have to point out that Q thinks H is looking for movers and shakers and some NYT coverage- but that’s how Q sees it. As Hanna, who knows, and PG noted: many goals. And, tailored in may ways. As someone else pointed out, even many types of “movers and shakers.” It’s not all hierarchical, Supreme Court Justices and CEOs, the guy or gal pictured in Newweek (of all [places.) </p>
<p>“Is there someone in the world better at nonlinear thinking than Steven Pinker?” Thing is, I imagine these were his random thoughts, carried forth into an article, intended first to counter Deresiewicz. He has an idea, ok? Just an idea, not even necessarily an informed indictment, no matter his status. Nothing (nothing) says he has scores of faculty behind him. </p>
<p>Read him again. And what Rapelye said.</p>
<p>ps. No more std tests, puh-leeze. Go get your fill over where the hs kids fret over whether 9 AP tests is enough. You don’t need a freaking new test to see which kids got off their duffs and engaged in more than the same old/same old pursuit of high school accolades, per high school values. You do need to see representative apps, not just from your own or your kids’ perspectives, to see what patterns there actually are and what steps out as a different level, a spark. All this hypothesizing about what we think utterly brilliant means-- but that’s just talk. </p>
<p>“Isn’t it reasonably accurate to say that Harvard’s mission has always been to be to America what Oxford and Cambridge were to the British Empire? Preserver of culture, generator of knowledge, creator of networks among and between the nobility and talented commoners, example for the world, and certifier of executive talent for the nation.”</p>
<p>Yes, I think so. And don’t forget that Oxbridge admit not just based on academics; there is an interview component. The personality traits HYP are looking for can be perfectly evident in an Oxbridge interview that’s ostensibly about the subject of study.</p>
<p>I heard they quiz you on subject matter in your field of study during the interview. I wouldn’t say it’s ostensibly about the field of study; it is about the field of study.</p>
<p>If you are unprofessional, I would guess that would be noted too and would count against you. But this is a far cry from the ivy league model of holisticism.</p>
<p>I think I only know two utterly brilliant people. One attended an MIT type school undergrad, and earned a PhD at a top 10 university in a tech field, and ended up at an IAS-type post-grad program. This person is able to do things that most people (99.999%) cannot. </p>
<p>The other attended an Ivy undergrad, and earned a PhD in a tech field at a Cal-Tech type school. He developed a project into a proposal for a tech company and was selected for “genius” type grant by a foundation that supports these types. He ultimately sold the company and is now knocking around in academia looking for something that interests him.</p>
<p>I suppose that there are some of these types that Harvard turns down (neither of them went there), but if so its only because their talent wasn’t quite so apparent. I think Pinkers assertion that 90%+ of the class is admitted on some basis other than academic merit doesn’t hold water. </p>
<p>Oh no! The Oxford interview is nothing about personality traits, except in the most superficial sense. The purpose is mainly to determine whether the “dons” in the colleges would like to work with the applicant or not. So someone who is really unpleasant or arrogant is probably <em>doomed.</em> But the interview is conducted by academics, and it is essentially academic in content. In order to make the interview seem less like an obstacle to students from schools that do not send many people to Oxford or Cambridge, Cambridge put some videos of (sample) interviews on the web. These are not interviews with actual applicants–rather with applicant stand-ins, recruited from among their current students, I think. I will try to locate the link, but it will be a while.</p>
<p>Brief summary: A kid who had PLENTY on his resume to show he had extraordinary math talent, including multiple math competition prizes and, most notably, completing Math 55 at Harvard as a high school junior was rejected at Princeton and Harvard, leaving him no choice but to go to MIT (boo-hoo). </p>
<p>This case absolutely goes against everything I believe about Harvard, Princeton, or wherever admission. What I think happened is that the kid’s many friends on the Harvard faculty knew he wanted to go to MIT, and that his mother was driving the project to apply elsewhere, and they made sure he couldn’t be pressured into something he didn’t want. But that’s just my speculation.</p>
<p>And I should add that I did a little Google-stalking to find out what this obviously brilliant guy was doing five years on from the controversy. Answer: working for a sophisticated, math-oriented private wealth management company in New York City. Hmmm . . . .</p>
<p>^And that’s what I really makes me sad. Of course you have a right to make oodles of money, but wouldn’t be nice if academia could hang on to a few more of these minds? We went to an MIT thing in the NY suburbs and were shocked that not one of the engineers was working as an engineer they were all doing investment banking. I’m sure if we’d gone to one of these shindigs a little less far from Wall Street we would have had somewhat different results, but still it was a bit shocking!</p>
<p>If you take a look at the math component of the interview, the question that is asked is more than fair to students with weaker backgrounds. It would be a relatively easy AP Calc question.</p>
<p>“I heard they quiz you on subject matter in your field of study during the interview. I wouldn’t say it’s ostensibly about the field of study; it is about the field of study.”</p>
<p>Oh goodness! I interview people and I ask them about their expertise in various matters in my field, too, but it’s pretty darn easy to evaluate them for creativity, intellectual curiosity (a big one for me), drive for results, leadership potential, team-player ability and a whole host of other things from how they answer the questions. Even if the questions are “just” about “have you ever done xyz and how do you go about doing it.” </p>
<p>I think some of you would likely come across as administering an SAT if you were interviewing people. Just looking for “correct answers,” without any ability to read context. </p>
<p>No Pinker is correct. Only 5-10% are purely academic admits. Like people who have published advanced scientific research, done well in math, physics, chemistry, biology competitions/olympiads, did exceedingly well on AP exams (if offered) with 5’s on nearly every exam, took college level coursework, and on the humanities end published novels, won literary competitions, debate competitions etc. (although debate competitions awards are likely highly subjective). Sure the most talented of this group of people are taken, but the secondary level accomplished ones aren’t in favor of the “well-rounded” student who has “passions” he’ll ditch the moment he steps foot on campus (see how the majority of Harvard students go into lucrative fields such as finance/consulting, med school, business, and law).
Holistic admissions was started for the pure intent of keeping Jewish students out of these elite colleges; I have no doubt that these mechanisms have been adapted to deny seats for Asian students; just compare the % of Asian students at caltech and MIT (roughly 35% to 20%), two comparable STEM institutes except that one of them doesn’t do affirmative action. … </p>
<p>That said, I think holistic admissions makes life much easier for the student if more uncertain; it simply requires far less effort than the 5am-11pm grind that would be necessary if an entrance exam was the only thing used as a criteria for admissions, not to mention it’s far less monotonous. Standardized testing today is far too easy to be that meaningful with way too many people getting scores of 2300+ which means its impossible to distinguish the truly meritorious academic students from the average well-rounded who can also get a high score. If it is going to be given more weight in the admission process, then it needs to be far more difficult. I think if holistic admissions became name-blind, gender-blind, and didn’t consider legacy then it’d be fine because it is much easier on the student. </p>
<p>Oh, before it was to exclude Asian Americans and now you want to reach back to a questionable- and long past- era when it was used against Jews. How do you know so much about Harvard? Or other elites? Please don’t just say “it’s obvious” or “I heard.” Enquiring minds wan to know. </p>
<p>“I wouldn’t say it’s ostensibly about the field of study; it is about the field of study.”</p>
<p>Depends who you ask. That is not my understanding. All kinds of personality traits are being judged. There has been a lot of criticism of class favoritism as a result.</p>
<p>Let’s put it this way. Every Oxbridge applicant from the UK takes A-levels and O-levels in the specific subject of study as well as related fields. These are complex, serious tests with student-provided written answers, not the American multiple-choice fluff. You can’t game them or guess; either you can solve the problem and explain the rule or you can’t. So why is it worth academics’ time to ask a math question in person when similar questions are on the test? It only makes sense if they’re judging the soft skills. Otherwise it’s a giant waste of time.</p>
<p>I seriously doubt that the Oxford and Cambridge “dons” are judging the “soft skills.” They are looking to see whether the applicant is someone they would like to teach, which is a bit different. That is not necessarily communicated by the results on A levels. You can see from the video that they want to see how the applicants think–they want to see the thought process that goes into working out the answers, and not simply the answers in a completed form. When “extracurricular” is mentioned in the video, the reference is purely to extracurricular <em>academics.</em></p>
<p>They also want to see how carefully the applicants listen to the questions, and whether the applicants ask for clarification if they encounter a term that they do not know–that is emphasized in the video as well. One might classify these as “soft skills,” but I think of them as true academic skills.</p>
<p>Nor are the dons looking for “leadership” in the American sense. One Oxford don told my spouse that he could always tell the Americans, because about 90 seconds into a conversation with him, they were trying to lead him somewhere. That wasn’t a compliment.</p>
<p>If I were interviewing job applicants, I would be focusing on many of the characteristics that are important to PG, too. However, in terms of interviews for university admissions, the Cambridge admissions video makes me think that I would have really enjoyed that process, and I would have enjoyed interacting with people who were selected that way.</p>
<p>On the one hand, class elements and class preferences are difficult to eradicate from any society. On the other hand, the socioeconomic mobility in the UK is actually higher than that in the US.</p>
<p>My DD’s Cambridge interview last year was consistent with QM’s post. In addition, she was told by the two groups of faculty interviewers that they wanted to push until she had reached her boundary. From what I could tell, some of the questions were way beyond high school even undergraduate level. </p>
<p>This is the Cambridge answer to what the interviewers are looking for:</p>
<p>What are the interviewers looking for?</p>
<p>The main focus of interviews is to explore your academic potential, motivation and suitability for your chosen course. Questions are designed to assess your:</p>
<p>problem-solving abilities
assimilation of new ideas and information
intellectual flexibility and analytical reasoning
It’s important for you to remember that interviewers won’t be trying to ‘catch you out’, but will be challenging you to think for yourself and show how you can apply your existing knowledge and skills laterally to unfamiliar problems.</p>
<p>Interviews help selectors to gauge how you would respond to the teaching methods used at Cambridge – interviews are similar in many ways to supervisions – while also giving you the opportunity to experience this style of teaching.</p>
<p>“Supervisions” are the sessions that usually involve two students meeting for an hour weekly with a faculty member, for each of the lecture courses that the student is attending. (There is some variability in this, and my information is a bit out of date, but it’s more or less right.) The students prepare essays or problem sets for each of the supervision meetings.</p>
<p>"One might classify these as “soft skills,”</p>
<p>Yes, I do. Flexibility, assimilation of character traits, etc. are personality characteristics. Coping with a high-stress interpersonal evaluation is all EQ. But more importantly, we’re talking about two human beings in a room. Any psych-major undergrad could tell you that the evaluator is going to make hundreds of tiny judgments, many of them unconsciously, some of them immediately. I’m not aware of any one-on-one interviewing situation where that isn’t true. This is why so many orchestras now evaluate candidates behind a curtain. Even the sound of a man’s or woman’s shoes has been shown to alter judgments about the music, despite the best efforts (and enormous incentives) of the listeners to focus solely on musicianship. Humans just can’t do that when we can see the person we’re judging.</p>
<p>"Sure the most talented of this group of people are taken, but the secondary level accomplished ones aren’t in favor of the “well-rounded” student who has “passions” he’ll ditch the moment he steps foot on campus "</p>
<p>Yes, that’s why there are no debate societies, theater productions, newspapers, singing groups, political action / social justice clubs at all at Harvard. None. These students have all just “dropped their passions” and do nothing but study. Boy, you sure nailed it. </p>
<p>Here is the Cambridge answer to the question: What will I be asked? (at the admissions interview)
What will I be asked?</p>
<p>Interviews are discussion-based and, as mentioned above, predominantly academic and subject-related, so you’ll be asked questions:</p>
<p>relevant to the course you’ve applied for
about the information you provided in your written application
In all subjects, we’re looking for informed enthusiasm and an ability to think independently about your subject!</p>
<p>You’ll probably find some of the questions quite challenging – they’re designed to encourage you to think for yourself and develop an argument or tackle a problem – so don’t panic if you don’t immediately have an answer to a question.</p>
<p>Remember:</p>
<p>interviewers want to find out how you think and apply your current knowledge – how well you can expand on and apply your existing knowledge to unfamiliar problems – rather than how much you know
very often there are no right or wrong answers to the questions asked – it’s the process of reaching your answer that’s generally of most significance, rather than the answer itself
don’t be afraid to consider new ideas but if you don’t understand something, do say so – feel free to ask for clarification at any point if you need it
answer the questions in your own way – the interviewers want to hear what you have to say about your subject; don’t just say what you think the interviewers want you to say or what your teachers or others would want you to say
Subject-specific academic interview
The purpose of this interview is to assess your understanding of your subject and your potential for studying it at Cambridge. You should expect:</p>
<p>a challenging discussion relating to your chosen course, which may include topics covered in your recent academic work and raised in your written application (eg wider reading and work experience)
to be asked to apply your existing knowledge to new situations by discussing problems that you’ve not previously encountered
If you’re applying for a non-school subject such as Medicine or Engineering, you should have some background knowledge of the field and what it involves.</p>
<p>General academic interview
You may also have a general academic interview, where you may be asked:</p>
<p>to expand on the information you gave in your personal statement – so keep a record of what you wrote!
why you want to come to Cambridge, and why you’re interested in your subject
about your wider academic work/interests and what you hope to do in the future as a career. However, don’t worry if you haven’t got any definite plans at this stage!</p>