<p>Find and listen to the NPR story today that gives an inside view of Amherst's admissions. If you feel UW was arbitrary you have not seen anything. Two words in an essay can get you rejected.</p>
<p>Behind</a> The Scenes: How Do You Get Into Amherst? : NPR</p>
<p>Interesting link Barrons…thanks for posting. I wonder, is one system really more arbitrary than any other? If the human element is involved at any point in the process, there is going to be some arbitrary elements. Since institutions are looking to admit individuals instead of statistical measures, is there anyway to completely remove the subjectivity of the human element in the selection process? Is any system better than another? I’m not passing any judgment, just throwing it out there.</p>
<p>This may be your first real encounter with the “life is not always fair” rule. Or at least not in your view. The issue is how do you deal with that. Sulk, rage and cry or change course and make the best of it. Option #2 usually works far better.</p>
<p>Agreed. What’s your thought overall though? Would you prefer the system attempt to select and admit individuals or that the systems be stripped down and selects statistical measures? Which do you think would bring in the more prepared or attractive candidates? Of course, if you go down the metrics route, you invite individuals focusing on the marks and working to make sure they achieve them. On the other hand, if you stick with looking at each candidate as a whole, you invite the subjectivity of the person making the selection. Neither is perfect. Is either preferred?</p>
<p>That inside “peek” was awesome. Thanks, Barrons.</p>
<p>I prefer the not-stat driven process. I’d use stats just to separate the sure no’s from all the maybes.</p>