<p>It is a "capitilist" system that only truely benefits a small portion of the society
</p>
<p>I'm interested where that "regulation allows massive corruption" came from. Of course there is a lot corruption and bad standards, but that's because there's no regulation. There are regulations by Hu Jintao to limit the Politboro's power and regulations to try to get rid of lead-poisoned toys. And what about America's "bad situations"? Every country has its problems. </p>
<p>I still think that colleges, at least private colleges that do not have garish endowments, want a goodly number of applicants who can PAY tuition first; interesting is a side thing. Sort of like private hospitals, they cannot have all 'no pays'.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And yes, some kids do hard work on test prep and studying to get the same grades and scores. I suspect often these are the kids that find it terribly unfair that EC, essays, or anything else count at all. </p>
<p>couldn't agree with you more. it seems as though a lot of kids on CC would fit under this category.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I couldn't disagree with more. I spend less than an hour a day on homework and am carrying a 4.0, will probably get 2350+ on the SATs without too much prep. And I still think that ECs or other intangible factors such as race, gender, and location should count for half as much as they do. The capacity for hard work and dedication, I think, is a great talent in itself, and I admire all those who possess it.</p>
<p>people always wonder why they get rejected from SCEA Stanford... colleges dont want nerds... the last 4 years at my high school each valedectorian has applied to stanford early and has been rejected with a 2250+ SAT score... they just sit at home and study.</p>
<p>Colleges don't want 4.0 uw 2250+ SAT score nerds...I see a lot of people on this site that are in clubs and EC's JUST to show colleges...</p>
<p>If I was an admissions officer at a top school...I would accept a 3.7 uw GPA 2000 SAT score kid that plays intramural soccer ( not varsity) and volunteers 3 hours weekly than a kid with NO ec's that has a 4.0 uw gpa and 2300+ SAT</p>
<p>nerds rarely get anywhere in life... they mostly major in science/math and make 60K a year out of grad/ugrad school.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If I was an admissions officer at a top school...I would accept a 3.7 uw GPA 2000 SAT score kid that plays intramural soccer ( not varsity) and volunteers 3 hours weekly than a kid with NO ec's that has a 4.0 uw gpa and 2300+ SAT
[/quote]
I think that if Harvard had to chose they would choose the 4.0 guy because the 3.7/2000 is pretty low and his ECs aren't that impressive anyways. but if it was closer, say 3.9 and 2250, then they would choose the 3.7 guy. if you're talking about hyp neither would get in--they would rather have 4.0 uw gpa and 2300+ SAT AND with lots of ECs. there seem to be an infinite supply of them nowadays anyways. </p>
<p>obviously your not getting my drift here... people WITH just 4.0 gpa's and 2250+ SATS wont get into ivies... with 10 percent acceptance rates, it takes more than just numbers. And I was saying if the 3.7 guy wanted to pursue those EC's at the college, then they SHOULD choose the 3.7 guy. the 4.0 gpa nerd won't contribute much to the schools atmosphere</p>
<p>not saying they make people nerds, but they are more likely to use their free time studying than sports, clubs..etc this is just what I've seen at my school so I could be off. The past 4 vals at my school all applied to top schools and had 4.0 uw gpa's, most rigorous couseload, 2250+ SATS, academic awards and all 4 have ended up at UC berkeley and UCLA ( number schools) and have been rejected at numerous top schools.. they were straight up nerds as many of their friends told me.</p>
<p>Our last val( according to my school and him):
2320 SAT
4.0 uw gpa with 10 AP classes</p>
<p>his only EC's were:
member of NHS
president of CSF
robotics club
JV tennis</p>
<p>accepted:
all the UC's (he's attending UCSD)
Tufts</p>
<p>rejected:
all ivies, JHU, Duke, Georgetown, Northwestern</p>
<p>and I don't believe someone that gets 2350+ SAT and a 4.0 uw gpa studies for less than 2 hours a day... it doesn't happen... the person that posted earlier on this thread is lying and is a straight up nerd.</p>
<p>high GPA kids always say they never study cause they dont want to come across as nerds... no matter how intelligent you are you can never get a 4.0 uw gpa with a very rigorous course load by studying less than 2 hours a day. Unless you have photographic memory. People say asians are genetically smarter than other races ( I'm South Asian)...it's not true... they just study 5 times more.</p>
<p>
[quote]
and I don't believe someone that gets 2350+ SAT and a 4.0 uw gpa studies for less than 2 hours a day... it doesn't happen... the person that posted earlier on this thread is lying and is a straight up nerd.<a href="%22nerd%22%20just%20means%20the%20guy%20likes%20math/science,%20not%20that%20he%20studies%20alot%20btw">/quote</a>
lol no? it's definitely possible. and the val's you described would have definitely gotten into every school possible if they were from my school, it's impossibel to get a 4.0 at my school. the vals who haven't basically cheated their way into being val all ended up at harvard or princeton for the past couple years. it really depends on your school. if your school offers lots of APs, but the classes itself aren't very hard, then it may seem like you have a rigorous courseload but you really don't.</p>
<p>
[quote]
People say asians are genetically smarter than other races
[/quote]
hmm they are, but not by much lol.</p>
<p>
[quote]
obviously your not getting my drift here... people WITH just 4.0 gpa's and 2250+ SATS wont get into ivies...
[/quote]
okay i see. well duh if people studied a lot and didn't do anything else i wouldn't want them at my college anyways.</p>
<p>really? you're delusional. just because asians may have a tendency to work/study harder (which can be attributed to culture, anyway), that bears little to no correlation to being "genetically smarter"</p>
<p>okay i see. well duh if people studied a lot and didn't do anything else i wouldn't want them at my college anyways.</p>
<p>haha yeah that's what I've been trying to say. I'm taking 6 AP's right now and I study about 1-2 hours a day... and I have a 3.6 uw gpa and a 4.67 weighted gpa... there's NO way i can get a 4.0 uw gpa with these courses if I studied 1-2 hours a day. I hate it when I walk in bio class and these asian kids that get 47/50 on bio tests say they barely study, but get high test scores... its complete ******** because I know they go home right away and open the books.. no sports... no friends.. no clubs</p>
<p>and yeah... asians in America are the most prosperous than any other race... but that's not what i'm getting at... when people ask why do asians do so well in school... it's mainly because they study MUCH MUCH more than other races do. it's not a stereotype... its a fact</p>
<p>i just thought the OP's original question was really funny... cause it could be one of the dumbest questions I've ever heard regarding college admissions</p>
<p>or maybe I just see the answer more clearly than others :(</p>
<p>
[quote]
I hate it when I walk in bio class and these asian kids that get 47/50 on bio tests say they barely study, but get high test scores... its complete ******** because I know they go home right away and open the books.. no sports... no friends.. no clubs
[/quote]
well i get high scores but i do have friends/sports (varsity tennis) and a few clubs so i guess i'm not completely asian =P</p>