It definitely seemed like you were putting me down. Why is there anything wrong with defending people from blanket generalizations? Also, my goal was not to insult you, but rather point out what I interpreted as condescension. </p>
<p>My next questions is: have you talked to this girl? Not just in passing, but a real conversation? I bet she would surprise you.</p>
<p>I say this because I am friends with a girl who is most likely a genius. Nominated for THE presidential scholarship, perfect test scores, great musician, great personal qualities, and more. Teachers love her, and I have had several very interesting conversation that were the opposite of shallow. However, she uses like in many of her sentences. It just how she talks. So what?</p>
<p>I didn’t say that every single girl in America speaks like this. I have had plenty of conversations with girls who have many personalities, and most of them don’t speak like this. And obviously, there are girls who speak like this and are intelligent. I did not say this to that extent.</p>
<p>Just stop. There is no need to argue about this. I wasn’t trying to start an argument, I was just making a point to support a bigger picture.</p>
<p>You took it as an insult I guess, and then you turned my argument around and pointed it at me.</p>
<p>Those are just some high school titles. Good for her. You don’t have to give me examples of smart people who talk idiotically.</p>
<p>Why don’t I continue with the threads theme and state that…</p>
<p>Public speaking is not about intelligence, it’s using arbitrarily chosen conventions and for now that includes not using slang terms like ''like", see? I used the word like, but in an interview it would be better not to. </p>
<p>Can we stick with the actual OP? Public speaking is not everything, but it’s a significant factor for many things, and while there are some exceptional cases where autistic kids are geniuses but cannot express themselves, most people will be successful simply based on their ability to communicate.</p>
<p>That is true. But we still communicate with the admissions officers. They learn about our style of thinking and what’s important to us from the organization and topics of our essays. It seems unlikely that an admissions officer at a top school would take an applicant seriously if he wrote gibberish for his essay, even if that applicant had a 4.0.</p>
<p>^ same ■■■■■, and I doubt you would want to be headed by Berlosconi, although if i were in his position… I’d enjoy just half of the things he does</p>
<p>I have two major griefs with the admissions process.</p>
<p>1) Applying to college needs to be harder. I endorse the idea of adding more essays to college supplements; essays that can’t necessarily be recycled. This would in effect weed out the kids who don’t really want to go to the school, but applied anyway “just to see if I could get in”. There is no reason for you to apply to all eight Ivies, and I don’t want to hear about the safety-net ********. </p>
<p>2) Tuition and financial aid needs to be overhauled. Seriously, fifty thousand dollars a year is ridiculous. And the way colleges go about determining “need” is unfair to those in the upper-middle income brackets. Yes, some families make $200,000+ annually, but that doesn’t mean they can dump a third of their income (after taxes) into one child’s college education. How can a school like Harvard, which boasts a ten-figure endowment, justify charging 55k a year?</p>
<p>I think that students should only be allowed to apply to three ivies because i mean, thta would cut down on the number of pointless applications. I mean, are you realy going to say that you love all seven ivies enough to apply. I mean I’m applying to 5 ivies. I could easily get rid of one of the ivies I would never go to even if accepted (cornell) and the other ivy which I probably wouldn’t get into (Princeton). That leaves me with three solid schools taht I like and cuts down on the useless applications that high ivies (Princeton will reject).</p>
I’d enjoy just half of the things he does</p>