<p>
</p>
<p>why would you think that? makes no sense to me! some pieces of writing are certainly superior to others, and thus, some essays must be superior to others. top schools get poorly-written essays every year, i am sure, like all schools do. i don’t understand your logic…?</p>
<p><<besides there=“” is=“” no=“” such=“” thing=“” as=“” an=“” absolute=“” better=“” essay.=“” so,=“” why=“” not=“” let=“” a=“” computer=“” choose?=“”>></besides></p>
<p>This is a joke right? You’re trying to rile us up? </p>
<p>“Oh, there is no such thing as an absolute ‘better essay.’ So why won’t english teachers just give A’s to everyone?”</p>
<p>I hope no one else falls into your… logic.</p>
<p>Best time to tell us that it was sarcasm…</p>
<p>I heard that Rutgers University does something similar-first it uses a computer to accept all the applicants that have a certain SAT score, then the committee reviews the ones that don’t and evaluates all the other factors on the application</p>
<p>Without looking at anyone else’s opinion- I think its a great option and I think its simplier than we believe. It doesn’t have to replace the whole human element; just some of it. I know medical schools have computers for GPA cut-offs, so with college applications rising- why not? I guess I see computers as kind of “another person” in the vote. What I like about this idea is that its completely objective and there are tangible guidelines. It makes me less anxious to have thoughts about a computer “determining my fate” than I do about a person. I mean- I’m sure other kids have had thoughts like mine- what if I write my essay personally and write in blue ink- wouldn’t that be friendier? or what if I did something with my application to make it more “presentable”? or the worst thought is- what if the admission officers had a really bad day and they were grumpy the whole day so they hated my essay or what if I came in after an “acceptance” so they were less likely to accept me?</p>
<p>Maybe we should do it the way they do it in China; take one big test ([National</a> Higher Education Entrance Examination - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaokao]National”>Gaokao - Wikipedia)), and the top scorer gets into their first choice, the second top, if there’s space, gets into their first choice, and so on and so forth. China is starting to beat America’s butt in academics, especially in math and science; they must know something.</p>
<p>Of course, one of the reasons it works is because the top universities are public, if I remember correctly.</p>
<p>It’s okay to use computers for cutoff purposes (when the cutoffs are clearly stated on their websites), but for deciding who gets admitted?? </p>
<p>you might as well use computers to check if the essays are plagiarized. </p>
<p>Also, computers can’t tell whether this guy is bragging too much, this guy is obviously lying, this guy wrote a deeply touching essay, etc. </p>
<p>@melin720 post #20: Yeah, totally lol You nailed that on the spot. </p>
<p>Seriously, I can’t imagine a computer deciding my fate on whether I’ll be accepted to an Ivy or not.</p>
<p>Obviously they don’t do this because then every single school will be filled with computer science majors who can just write scripts in their applications which screw with the program that’s reading it.</p>
<p>Obviously.</p>
<p>“China is starting to beat America’s butt in academics, especially in math and science; they must know something.”</p>
<p>Starting? 
The Chinese have revered education for a few thousand years. They do indeed know something!</p>
<p>IBM created a chess playing machine that defeated Grandmaster Garry Kasparov, world chess champion 1985-2000, and believed by many chess players to be the greatest human ever to play the game, in 1997. Kasparov was a chess prodigy who rose to fame at age 17 after he won master level tournaments one after another and smashed grandmasters left and right with his stunning tactics and strategy that left many world class players shaking their heads. Five years later, he won the world chess champion title from Anatoly Karpov (WCC 1975-85). </p>
<p>Hydra, another super computer, defeated chess Grandmaster Michael Adams in Man vs Machine in 2005 with a score of 5 wins 0 losses 1 draw. The best chosen human candidate to outsmart the computer lost miserably.</p>
<p>Now, in 2010+, computers will replace admissions officers in reading college applications. Yeah right…</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I’ll start to worry when the number of Americans trying to get into Chinese universities exceeds the number of Chinese coming the other way.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That Wikipedia article isn’t all flattering. The system seems to be plagued with official misconduct and it has affirmative action-style programs that people here absolutely loathe. I’m not sure that this is at all a main reason that China’s students work hard.</p>
<p>“I’ll start to worry when the number of Americans trying to get into Chinese universities exceeds the number of Chinese coming the other way.”</p>
<p>It depends if we’re worrying about our colleges or our country. Bush forced foreign students to return to their countries when they finished their studies; we should find a way to force them to stay! :)</p>
<p>I recommend posting federal marshals at airports to immediately arrest any Chinese students attempting to return to China after their visas expire. It might seem unconstitutional, but it’s not. I promise.</p>
<p>^What do you have against chinese students? What does screwing them over do any good to you?</p>
<p>We won’t be screwing them over. They’ll be able to get amazing jobs working for American companies. They will simply be forced to become citizens and prohibited from ever leaving the United States for personal reasons again. </p>
<p>Illegal? Yes. Unethical? Yes. A massive violation of human rights? Yes. </p>
<p>But at least we won’t need admissions committees anymore. And that’s all any of us can ask for.</p>
<p>Many high-tech Chinese have been returning (or going to) China because of explosive growth opportunities that we once had in the USA.</p>
<p>
… while still keeping active their visas if at all possible so they can one day, send their kids to American colleges.</p>
<p>papex, though Barry Schwartz of Swarthmore, a noted psychologist, has advocated automating the process on the grounds that the supposed subjective human judgment was just random anyway. One reason for not doing so would be that they’d have to make explicit the implicit disadvantage that they were place on Jews and Asians. As the article you linked to points out, the reason they invented all of these subjective factors was so that they didn’t have to admit having a 15% quota for Jews when nearly the entire class would have been taken up by Jews if they had stuck with the objective factors that they had been using. So, now they’d have to list criteria that formally showed the boost they’d be giving to some groups (legacies, URMs) and the disadvantages they’d place on others. This probably would be unconstitutional. I think that was the crux of the Supreme Court decision against the admissions policies of University of Michigan Law School. But, you can get away with the practice that would, if you called a spade a spade, be unconstitutional if you call it seeking a diverse class. I’m not actually against seeking an interesting class (which includes diversity), but I am against hypocrisy.</p>
<p>Perhaps, Jahaba, you could soften your proposal by requiring 5 years of service – kind of like ROTC requires military service after college?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What!? Would you ask Jonathan Swift to soften his Proposal by requiring, say, higher payments to Irish women in exchange for their babies’ flesh? I am offended and shocked that you would even make such a crude comment.</p>
<p>Re Chinese colleges: I just read somewhere that of the top 20 universities in the world, exactly 0 of them are in China.</p>