<p>For any of you who hang on to the belief that grades,top test scores, and personal achievement play any role in elite admissions, be sure to read the NYTimes article today on social promotion to college. Amherst now admits students on a "virtual record"; not what a student actually accomplished, but what he could have accomplished in high school had he lived in Greenwich CT! Yes, indeed, the administration viewed one student's 1200 SAT score (a full 222 points below the median of his admitted class) as a perfect 1500; that score the Dean of Admissions at Amherst is sure he would have hit had he been raised in CT. Since his GPA was not disclosed, one can only assume that his grades and those pesky AP exam results underwent the same transmogrification. How exactly do students compete against virtual competition? What a slippery slope results from the abandonment of merit admissions in favor of social engineering.</p>
<p>^i hate advertising spam...</p>
<p>I saw this when it aired.</p>
<p>Just wondering...I find it interesting, for lack of a better word, that the same applicant isn't good enough for Penn, but he's fine for Yale, Caltech and Cooper. I understand each class, at each school, is trying to come up with a diverse class. I get all that but still it makes me wonder how, at least to some extent, there's just randomness to this whole elite school admissions process. </p>
<p>Virtual record? Well Amherst does have to compare each applicant to the others, but to assign exact numbers doesn't make sense to me...way too many variables involved. I'm sure Greenwich has its share of slackers.</p>
<p>Colleges look for different things. And he's in-state for Cal Tech. I think it's more glaring that he managed to get into Yale but did not get into UPenn, Harvard, or Princeton.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Li: "2400"
Reporter: "That's the top score"
Li: "Correct"
Reporter: "But that wasn't enough to get into the top colleges."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Lol. Yet another reporter with no idea a/b the college admissions process talking crap.</p>
<p>ses: Colleges look for different things. And he's in-state for Cal Tech. I think it's more glaring that he managed to get into Yale but did not get into UPenn, Harvard, or Princeton.</p>
<p>He's from New Jersey. Besides, CalTech does not have in-state preferences. Stanford does, but not CalTech.</p>
<p>"What a slippery slope results from the abandonment of merit admissions in favor of social engineering."</p>
<p>Ah, it's the "in the old days things were so much better, merit really mattered back then" argument. Too bad it's not true. There never was a time of pure merit. It certainly wasn't in the time when Jews were kept out of the Ivys because they thought there were too many Jews. It certainly wasn't in the time when G.W. Bush got into Yale and then Harvard Business School. It never existed.</p>
<p>b4nnd20, aren't you going to Duke? That might not be Harvard, Pton, or Yale but that is a top school and on par with some of the ivys.</p>
<p>"textureless math grind"</p>
<p>That is really cruel. </p>
<p>So if an aisan american does well in math competitions they didn't really do anything, cause they're just another "textureless math grind". (sarcasm)</p>
<p>haha OSU, for most people it certainly is a top school but it isn't to Jian Li. as far as i am concerned...i am in-state, where the admit rate there is twice the overall admit rate...so i'm just saying, it wasn't a big accomplishment for me to get in there. 2400 didn't get me very far.</p>
<p>Re Post 29:</p>
<p>No. A person is a textureless math grind if he or she behaves or presents as textureless + a math grind. Any race. Any ethnicity. Any nationality. </p>
<p>A person without interest, variety, ingenuity, or much difference from others in his or her common group, may be textureless -- depending on the particulars of the application. Thus, Bright Well-Rounded (Caucasian) kids were called BWRK's by one ex-counselor, due to their sameness, their textureless identifying quality. They followed a pattern of sameness that was so same that it was dull. Admissions officers had difficulty distinguishing one from any other; that's how textureless they were.</p>
<p>Our family has known a textureless humanities grind (Caucasian) for years. She refused to distinguish herself in any one particular area, but was only interested in beating others. Her college admissions results were exceptionally poor.</p>
<p>^but what about kids whose passions happen to lie, unfortunately, in the "textureless" areas? like math? the girl you mention had no spark...but some kids might. it's just sad that some kids get passed over simply because they appear fit a tired stereotype.</p>
<p>but i dont know if that's just an urban legend. i know a LOT of asian math/science "nerds" who are tremendously passionate and accomplished in areas like number theory, robotics, biochemistry, physics, etc. they got into mit and harvard...the stereotype didnt seem to hurt them. and i realized why, when i read their applications. their passion really shone through in their essays. luckily they were blessed with words. that's an example to emulate for all the "math nerds" out there who don't want to be labeled as textureless. you guys aren't doomed to the pile of textureless math grind rejects!</p>
<p>Stanford doesn't give in-state preference I believe.</p>
<p>The people who are math geeks are siimply trumped by people who are BIGGER math geeks. So what if you get an A in all your honors science/math courses and that's your absolute passion? There's another kid out tehre who did all that + has a Siemon award. When youre passion is in a science/math, there is a fierce competition simply due to the nature of those subjects. It gears towards the part of the mind that uses logic, step by step reasoning, and 1 direct answer. Therefore, it's very easy to distinguish who are better and math/science because it's very defined who is the greater talent.</p>
<p>In something like art/essays, the kids who excel in that bring their own unique style. It's easier for them to distinguish from other canddiates since no two people think alike and write alike. </p>
<p>Saying someone got rejected for being "textureless" is an EXCUSE for not being as good at that area as someone else.</p>
<p>b4,
The positive examples you give surely did not present themselves as textureless. Having a particular (single) passion does not in itself render a candidate boring, or without a spark. It's what you do with that passion, that can distinguish you. </p>
<p>In some cases, it may be as poster radron indicated: greater levels of achievement by some "math grinds" than others. Or greater kinds of achievements, varieties of achievements. </p>
<p>In other cases, the achievements referred to may be one but not the only Wow element of the application. The admissions office may be equally, or more impressed, with contributions in different areas which, <em>combined</em> with that same applicant's high-level math ability, makes such an applicant a winner in the admissions dept.</p>
<p>By contrast, look at all the postings in the SAT/ACT forum, from recent test-takers dissatisfied with scores like 770, calling those "bad," & obsessed with retaking a test. Do those posters believe that the difference between 750 or 770, and 800, will keep them out of H or MIT? If so, those posters are misinformed. What will keep them out of top-tier schools is a passion for SAT's vs a passion for individuality.</p>
<p>lol god, this is so different from the usual advantage of "affirmative action" speech. but yeah.. must be nice to be so rich, you cant buy love, but you can buy a spot in the nations top univerisity.</p>
<p>epiphany, thanks for pointing out my mistake. </p>
<p>But textureless math grinds are usually asian. (sorry if this is stereotype, not meant to be)</p>
<p>And the guy in the video was asian.</p>
<p>But yeah, a textureless math gind can be anybody.</p>
<p>I feel sad that young people express narrow-minded and racist thoughts. If you believe that elite colleges value more than narrow interests I suggest you cultivate open minded attitudes. I am a college professor with a Ph.D. who has sent Two children to elite universities. However, the quality of their humanity is most commented on. For myself, I would be thrilled to achieve math and science results like those of the math grinds you deprecate. Ethnic stereotyping has no place in an intelligemt person's world view.</p>
<p>^^I do not see where you can claim "young people expressing narrow-minded & racist thoughts" on this thread. I see people quoting other people; I see clarifications/definitions being discussed, and actually a fairly civil debate occurring.</p>
<p>I feel sad actually that you, a college professor, misread what has been said here.</p>
<p>Its a big game......... theres going to be some inconsistency colleges get so many NEAR perfect applications they need to drop some students, a perfect 2400 on ur SAT does not equal to admission to Harvard rite off the bat... even tough the student seemed pretty qualified.. he should have appealed (can u?) he got into yale anyway dont know wat he is stressing about......</p>