<p>^That’s because there’s a big language barrier. </p>
<p>English is considered as an universal language, whereas not all Americans can simply learn Chinese in 2 months. </p>
<p>Admit it, Asians dominate in academics.</p>
<p>Oh, and someone who doesn’t know English can learn it in 2 months? :D</p>
<p>Though I agree, Chinese is way more difficult. Way more. I can’t see Mandarin ever becoming a “universal” language.</p>
<p>“Oh, and someone who doesn’t know English can learn it in 2 months?”</p>
<p>Yes, but not the way we teach languages in the USA!</p>
<p><oh, and=“” someone=“” who=“” doesn’t=“” know=“” english=“” can=“” learn=“” it=“” in=“” 2=“” months?=“”></oh,></p>
<p>Oh, I wonder why American schools teach native speakers 12 years of english in school before sending them to college if Chinese people can cram them in 2 months.</p>
<p>Bullcrap, it would take a few years to get good in english.</p>
<p>Think of serious language study, 16 hours of immersion all day for two months, not one hour per day, with most forgotten in between.</p>
<p>^Yeah and get like two brain surgeries done by end of 2nd month due to immense brain pressure. I don’t think people can handle 16 hours of crazy intense study 2 months straight, dude. They’re gonna forget a lot of the stuff they learn, too.</p>
<p>Immersion programs aren’t “crazy intense study”, they’re… immersion programs. They work on the same principle by which you will pick up basic Spanish after living in Spain for 2 months.</p>
<p>Basic? Yo, basic isn’t enough to succeed in college and get good grades. They make you write a bunch of reports and papers. Basic isn’t enough to impress your professor or TAs or whoever.</p>
<p>Numbers driven schools are one thing, but I think it’s laughable to suggest that a computer, by nature a logical device, could replace Admissions committees without disrupting the principles of the holistic decision process.
Today, a freshman who’ll do anything to get into an Ivy knows statistically, they’re better off with a 4.0/2400. He’ll devote his high school years to enrichment, the ideal combination of service and academia in order to appear favorable for a slot. Whether he ends up at Harvard or a Top 10 school, you can be assured that he’s an exceptional student poised with the tools to make a difference.
Take that same type of freshman, and tell him that a computer will give him his result. He’ll quickly make the leap into trying to beat the system, and technology would be there to help him. In plain speech, people could one day read the key to admissions, and until then, with a simple Google Search, the pieces to the puzzle are waiting to be found. Your Ivy candidates become machines rather than leaders, your personal statement a sad proclamation of readability statistics and buzz words. And who’s to compete? Not the kid with a genuine story and an actual life to show for high school.</p>
<p>I actually meant that more Chinese people know English than Americans (other than native ones) know Chinese, but w/e, English is still an easier language to learn.</p>
<p>@Tres Elefantes and @melin720 regarding my comment : "Besides there is no such thing as an absolute “better essay” "
This is not at all sarcastic. There is no absolute good or bad. This is true for everything whether it is writing an essay, or taste, art, architecture etc. good or bad is dependant on so many factors such as culture, epoch, personal taste etc. Suppose you take an average Indian who is a hot spicy curry eater to the best French restaurant and have him take a “canard </p>
<p>@shawbridge: thank you for your contribution which really addresses the point: Colleges need a tool to build a class in a way they consider adequate for their teaching goals. This is perfectly legitimate and I fully embrace the concept that a class cannot be filled with great test takers only but it must be truly diverse in terms of races, cultures, background, academical interests and so on. Since setting such goals could be illegal, the best they have is “subjectivity” which is the place where all arbitrary decisions can hide.</p>
<p><papex></papex></p>
<p>A good college essay — shows who you are in a good way so that the admissions would get a sense of who you are.</p>
<p>A bad college essay — doesn’t show who you are and is probably a complete BS about something.</p>
<p>Grammar and spelling and structure better be good, too.</p>
<p>No. This is a stupid question. The result would mean a worsening of the elitism in college rankings. </p>
<p>And numbers don’t explain a thing. In fact, the SAT has already been proven to be unreliable in predicting success in college. (Just go to the thread here on CC about kids who FLUNKED OUT first semester and prestigious schools with HIGH SAT scores.) </p>
<p>This is another thinly veiled attempt to push the insidious and odious elitism that permeates a lot of the postings here on CC.</p>
<p>Does the OP really think a computer would accept a person with lower test scores but an oddly appealing essay? Or a disadvantaged background? </p>
<p>There are subjective criteria for which you can’t substitute the judgement of a machine for that of a person. And no one could possibly program a computer for all of the variables and keywords necessary to make a judgement…is the student an oboe player? Tuba player, polo player, or perhaps breeds polo horses… it boggles the mind.</p>
<p>How do I make my own thread on this site?</p>
<p>At the very bottom of some main pages is a horizontal grey button labeled “new thread.” It’s at the bottom of “Parents Forum” for instance, but not on “Discussion Home” page. Anyway, click on that.</p>
<p>Warning–you can edit your posts within a time frame (15 min?) but you cannot edit your headline, so make sure there are no embarassing typos! :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That can be done now or in the near future. The problem is “building a class”, what class? Future big donors?</p>
<p>China has already expelled Google.
[U.S</a>. Steps Lightly in Google-China Feud - WSJ.com](<a href=“http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748703414504575001363855180520.html]U.S”>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748703414504575001363855180520.html)</p>
<p>You know that Adcoms want to protect their jobs and will justify their existence by their act of bestowing admission on the honored few. As an example, aren’t the Columbia adcoms proud of President Obama, and seeking to admit another President who went to Columbia? The Adcoms will never let a computer do that, except to eliminate applicants with very low GPAs and test scores.</p>