<p>Originaloog, you might want to read at least a biographical sketch on Einstein. He was pretty amazing even at an early age.</p>
<p>Swarthmore College? Never heard of it.</p>
<p>^ Oh, you know, just one of the top three LACs in the country.</p>
<p>Just a note to all new members, saying that you haven't heard of a college does not make you look smart or knowledgeable. In fact, it does the opposite, making you look like an absolutly ignorant fool. We DO NOT CARE if ** YOU ** haven't heard of it. But alas, it's just as well, because with an attitude like that, you probably couldn't get in anyway.</p>
<p>^I think Hi-Power was joking.</p>
<p>edad (post #142): You missed the point.</p>
<p>I strongly agree with posts #140 and #141.</p>
<p>Einstein was gifted but unlike many today's gifted students, he was not under the suffocating pressure to apply to colleges.</p>
<p>"Einstein was raised in a militaristic school that stressed memorization and verbal learning. He did so poorly here that he was not accepted at a noted university, the Polytechnic Institute of Zurich, so instead he went to the Kanton Schule at Aarau. This school followed the philosophy of Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi, who believed that "conceptual thinking is built on visual learning" (Holton, 1996, 389). Einstein later explained his visual nature: "The words or the language, as they are written or spoken, do not seem to play any role in my mechanism of thought. The physical entities which seem to serve as elements in thought are certain signs and more or less clear images which can be 'voluntarily' reproduced and combined" (Holton, 1996, 386-387)."</p>
<p>This is possibly the worst idea i've ever heard. I feel no need to explain why.</p>
<p>Do we really want to lose this:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Do we really want Rebecca? Almost any college would offer a seat
in its honors program to lure such a talented applicant. But
this is the choosy University of Chicago, where the 12 members of
the admissions committee can't even decide whether to let her
through the door. With seven applicants competing for each of
1,011 slots in the class of 2003, Chicago clearly doesn't need
Rebecca. Rick Bischoff, her advocate on the committee, argues
that she has strong leadership skills. He recalls being so
impressed when he first met the young woman that he muttered, "I
sure hope she's smart." In fact, her transcript is very good. And
yet Chicago has already rejected hundreds of applicants with
better grades. Bischoff tosses on the cluttered conference table
a Kelly-green folder that sums up Rebecca in 32 pages. "Look at
the way her teachers write about her," he urges. "Plus, she
doesn't like 'Dawson's Creek'." </p>
<p>Around the room, brows furrow. This is a zero-sum game: accepting
Rebecca would mean curtains for yet another of the nation's most
gifted high-school seniors. One committee member complains that
the girl's answers to application questions don't echo the lofty
academic ideals that Chicago projects in its literature. "Yes," a
pro-Rebecca member fires back, "and don't you get suspicious when
they do?" Bischoff, his arsenal nearly spent, launches what
Chicago admissions counselors call "the don't-give-a-s---
argument." So what if Rebecca will get only C's in math-she, and
not some higher-scoring robot, is the provocateur we want sitting
in class. Dissenting voices crackle, but fall silent when Ted
O'Neill speaks. O'Neill, 52, is a machinist's son who came to
this work after years devoted to the study of Romantic poetry. As
dean of admissions, he has spent a decade urging his staff to
look past grades and test scores. Yes, other kids appear more
deserving. "But we are the University of Chicago," O'Neill
reminds his colleagues. "We can do what we damn well please, so
long as we have good reasons." Moments later, Rebecca is
admitted. </p>
<p>...As March dwindles, it's clear that the line between admit and
waitlist will fall somewhere in the 3-plus-B-plus cluster. But
how to differentiate among the 475 similar files in that group?
The committee meets for a full day to discuss 29 randomly drawn
files. The hope is to find some way of determining whom to accept
and whom to waitlist. Once a border is established, it's
relatively simple-if laborious-to accept virtually all students
above that line and waitlist those below. To force decisiveness,
O'Neill decrees that the committee can accept only half of these
29 applicants. Soon a pattern emerges. Applicants with great
grades and accomplishments are voted onto the waitlist; those
with some extra spark are accepted. A dutiful student at the very
top of his class creates no special excitement. The next youth,
an immigrant who's written a soul-stirring essay about his
parents' lonely struggle to support their family, is a unanimous
admit. </p>
<p>And those lingering cases? In the last hour of its last meeting,
the committee settles them. David, the heavily mathcentric
student, goes onto the waitlist. Roberto is denied admission; his
first-semester grades were lackluster. Finally, the debate over
Justin, the once troubled applicant who rose from the double-deny
box, becomes the most prolonged of any this year. The admissions
committee weighs his strong first-semester grades and a second
letter of recommendation from his high-school counselor, and
votes to admit him. Justin's resurrection is complete. Among his
supporters is Hernandez, who before had opposed him. Says
Hernandez: "He's turned it around." <a href="From%20a%201999%20Newsweek%20article%20on%20college%20admissions">/quote</a></p>
<p>No, I wasn't joking. I've never heard of Swarthmore College, especially not in pop culture. I had to search Wiki for information.</p>
<p>Reminds me of some of the smaller liberal arts schools in my state. Kids pay $10,000 a semester or more, and get a great education, but out-of-state no one's heard of the college and they are not at an advantage over people who went to a cheaper school.</p>
<p>I don't think they're necessarily bad choices; in fact the education level at them are stellar. But I wouldn't go to one for merely the career opportunities afterwards or to get some BS major. </p>
<p>They're great to go to if you have high career goals and/or want to go to grad school someplace else. But to go to one just to get a career somewhere? Nah.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Do we really want to lose this
[/quote]
Works for Rebecca. Not so well for David.</p>
<p>idad wrote: "Do we really want to lose this."</p>
<p>idad, did you notice in the middle of the article the sentence: "The committee meets for a full day to discuss 29 randomly drawn files." </p>
<p>"randomly drawn files" - if David had been part of another "randomly drawn" group of 29 would the decision regarding his admission been the same? What about Rebecca's?</p>
<p>I think this is what Schwartz may have been trying to point out. At some point - it may just come down to chance or a coin toss.</p>
<p>Was there any follow up on how "Rebecca" actually did? Did her dislike of Dawson's Creek lead her to greatness at UofC? I guess I find it somewhat arrogant of a school to put down the high scoring/good grade kids as a dime a dozen. "Look past grades and test scores"? That's the standard for a school that claims to have "lofty academic ideals."</p>
<p>It does show that students who might end up in the do not admit pool, could be admitted under the individual review model. (I believe the Dawson's Creek reference was an attempt at humor during a tough process, not a consideration for admission.) The 29 drawn at random, in my reading, were used to establish common criteria among the reviewers for the remaining applicants.</p>
<p>But idad - </p>
<p>So, in reality, on second read, it's even more of a "crapshoot". The future of the entire 475 is decided based on the students selected, the "random 29", for review on this day. If someone other than Rebecca (someone with the same GPA/stats) was selected for the "random 29" - then perhaps no one would have "fought" for that person and thus everyone with that same 3+,B+ transcript, including Rebecca, might have been denied admission. </p>
<p>Seems like a "crapshoot" to me. Or am I missing something?</p>
<p>I believe Rebecca came much earlier in the process. All, on the bubble applicants are reviewed by the entire committee, but must have an advocate. The random selection lets the individual reviewers know what the criteria will likely be.</p>
<p>My kid was a dancer and auditioned for numerous roles in local productions from the time she was very small; she had to audition to get into her high school. She learned early on that being the most technically proficient dancer was no help --she needed to stand out and project her personality. She very often lost out on coveted roles to some kid who was a much weaker dancer but clearly had more stage presence -- and I think over time both she and I developed a knack for predicting who would get the part. </p>
<p>I don't fault any casting director for making those choices -- as someone who has attended plenty of junior high and high school productions, I know that it as those kids with the extra spark --with that stage presence -- who carried the show. It didn't matter how beautiful some young woman's voice was in the high school musical if she couldn't act and put herself in the role -- and it didn't matter if some kid was slightly off-key if he could. On stage, energy often counts for more than ability, though ability is nice too. </p>
<p>I don't think it matters which 29 files the Chicago ad com started with -- when it came down to the wire they would have ended up choosing the ones with the extra "spark" over the others -- there is just more of a sense that those students will contribute to campus life and make a difference if there is something special that stands out in the application file. The "spark" that works for Chicago may be different than the one that works for Yale... but in the end, that's what each is looking for.</p>
<p>It makes sense to me. I know that unlike an open-call audition, it all takes place behind closed doors so parents and students have no way of knowing what the spark might be. I get a peek sometimes when I have offered to review essays for students -- some are mundane, some are really special. I've only seen a handful of those really special essays, but so far I haven't seen any of those kids get rejected from their top choice schools, no matter how steep the competition. I have no way of knowing whether it is merely their essays or if the rest of the package is equally compelling (I've never asked any of these kids for their stats) -- but the point is, if the ad com is going to pick among a horde of equally competent, equally capable, equally deserving kids for a limited number of spaces, they are going to look for that special "spark" every single time. </p>
<p>Whether a lottery system would change the end results, I don't know. But I do know it would leave the applicants powerless in the process. My d. was often disappointed back in her auditioning days, but she never felt left out or ignored -- she always felt that if she did her best, she had a chance -- and that definitely motivated her, again and again, to put in more energy and effort.</p>
<p>idad - Perhaps I don't understand the "process" described in the article. Do do you have insight? Can you explain it a bit better - maybe I am just misunderstanding.</p>
<p>Reflectivemom:</p>
<p>The article does not make clear (at least the excerpt quoted does not) how many slots remain to be filled.</p>
<p>There are 475 files still to be re-considered (in other words, they were not put in the first pile of admits). How to choose since the 475 are all fairly similar (not absolutely similar and interchangeable) and all meet the minimal criteria for admission?</p>
<p>You take 29 files at random and look at them closely then discuss their strengths and weaknesses. The 29 that were selected at random are not all admitted: only half are. Discussing why some will be admitted and some won't helps establish criteria for judging the rest of the 446 applications. The other 446 do have a chance. </p>
<p>In other words, the article is a counterargument to Schwarcz', purporting to show that UofC takes very very seriously each and every single application: a whole day to discuss 29 applications is a lot of time! And yet, it does not mean that UofC could not have made different decisions: all 475 applications are admissible.</p>
<p>This is the way I read the excerpt.</p>
<p>The way I read the excerpt it supports Schwartz's argument. They spend a whole day on 29 applications ( and who knows how much time went into those applications), and the whole thing is splitting straws. And then, there is no follow up, as far as I know. Did they do a good job that day? A bad job? Where is the data? Why expend the effort?</p>
<p>Calmom's point is a good one, though. I went to a high school jazz concert this week. The most "watchable" soloist was not the most technically advanced. However, anyone in the audience would agree that he put the most heart and soul into his playing. Maybe admissions is like that: the heart and soul factor becomes obvious.</p>
<p>Well I just hope one of the recommenders put some heart and soul into their letters, because Mathson doesn't do heart and soul. Not on paper at least.</p>
<p>Maybe the admission committee will realize that performing artists need to
project their personalities, and mathboys need to be something else entirely.</p>