For STEM majors, I tend to lean to the side of the discussion that Standardized Test scores (or some kind of entrance exam) should carry more weight than a non-STEM AO evaluating an essay, but I think the right kind of ECs are very valuable. I’m not talking about kids who join 10 clubs just to mention them on an application, or kids who start bogus non-profits in name only that functionally do very little. Students that focus on one EC, commit a great deal of time to it AND succeed at a very high level (state or national accomplishments) are the kind of people that will succeed in life. Give me an all-state swimmer or pitcher or clarinet player or vocalist or chess player or debate captain who also has a high math SAT score any day over someone who had no significant EC accomplishments.
I believe your examples are closer to my thought on my point3 and point4. These three students spent their time on STEM project and competitions. That says a lot about their aptitude and interests.
In the performing art world, you need audition to prove yourself. You could award winning pianist or dancer, but you still need to “pass the audition”. Why? Because you may not the right fit to the faculty and schools. (Someone says fit in the threads). Yes fit is another factor - weather you’ll be ready for the rigor is also “fit”.
Will Juilliard compare two students with equal academic performance but accept the one who is varsity captain? No they will take the one pass the audition. Is it subjective? Believe it or not even in instrumental performance there are quantifiable measures
Agree but “right kind” is the tricky part. Even though I personally think the “right kind” should be aligned with the STEM.
8% is “high”?
(And don’t forget, some/many of the “internationals” that apply to US colleges attend US high schools. Their parents may be expats working in the States.)
Well, it’s a matter of defining “right.” My son was on the math team, but otherwise the rest of his ECs weren’t STEM related. He was an accomplished musician and participated in several sports at a high level. His music involvement continued by working in the sound department in undergrad. He has a MS in Fluid Mechanics and does very complex engineering, essentially aerodynamics on steroids. Had he not had the ECs in his background, he wouldn’t have been offered the job.
I wasn’t talking about STEM specific ECs. I was talking about any EC that shows that a student can commit to something, put in many hours of work, and succeed at a very high level.
The point is how are those international applications reviewed. Seem their secondary education has proved their merits.
I am shocked that no one so far has mentioned the importance of creativity and out of the box thinking in STEM necessary for the big breakthroughs and new ideas.
The problem with those standardized STEM tests is that they reward rote learning. Proportionately few innovations come from countries that prioritize rote learning.
Google, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, Tesla, Facebook: all founded in the US, some by college dropouts! The fact that Apple sends components out to be manufactured elsewhere has zero to do with US education, and everything to do with the low wages paid elsewhere.
Most people in STEM work with others as part of a team, or lab. You better believe someone who is cooperative, can motivate others, can think outside the box etc will be more successful than someone who doesn’t have those attributes.
I am still in the camp that they do accept by merit. Some people just don’t like their definition of merit.
I have listed the criteria that I personally believe indicating the readiness to handle the rigor. @MITPhysicsAlum has given a few great examples that closer to my thought. If that’s how top engineering school review applications. I think that’s fabulous.
I also didn’t suggest merit = grades/test only approach.
…who got in to Harvard.
All these arguments here basically boil down to the merit-only vs holistic admissions argument - a topic that has been debated and rehashed a hundred times over on various CC threads.
Sorry, not really seeing anything new here.
Indeed bear with me. I am a newbie. I should have read through the articles here more 
Exactly, a school that very much uses holistic admissions, and looks at factors beyond grades and test scores.
Plus, merit only or holistic, the post is predicated on the notion that we don’t produce high level STEM grads in this country. Nothing could be further from the truth. We absolutely do.
Precalculus with trigonometry is now the baseline math expectation that engineering frosh should have completed while in high school. Of course, that may not have been true when your father went to college at MIT.
MIT currently recommends that prospective applicants take calculus while in high school if available, although the listed prerequisites for its entry level math (18.01) are “high school algebra and trigonometry”. However, 18.01 covers all of single variable calculus in a semester (rather than a year like many other colleges or high school calculus BC), so it may be a relatively difficult course for a student who has just completed trigonometry and precalculus in high school (as opposed to calculus in high school but did not pass the MIT placement test to take a higher level course).
That is encouraging.
However does that mean for kids are excelled in STEM probably should also consider good engineering schools overseas if they don’t have non-STEM related achievements. From the threads here, it implies those kids have little chance in selective engineering schools even if they are STEM-awesome but nothing else special? For example a kid might be able to get into Uni of Toronto or Oxford but would never be considered in MIT because no other non-STEM achievement? But all these are great schools with great students/staff/faculties.
Yes, I wasn’t implying that his case was now acceptable, but merely that it could be done. It can’t anymore because he wouldn’t meet the minimum requirements now. There’s a reasonably widely held notion though that kids who don’t walk in with MVC under their belts will be disadvantaged. It may be an advantage, but it certainly isn’t a disadvantage if they don’t.
Please read my post completely I addressed ur concern. Many people do ECs only for the application… afyer getting admission their ECs are gonr! Poof!! So as an employer you are probably fooled by people who made you believe that they had so many interests when in fact they did not and did all this just to look good on paper!
With employers and schools making it clear that they r looking at the candidates holistically they are making everyine look “holistically good” on paper!!
Also schools look at students holistically mainly because it gives them a control who they can reject or select without a looming lawsuit!
Is it practical for a US prestige private university with a high volume of applications? If not, the high volume must be reduced to a smaller more manageable group of finalists by some method (which brings us right back to how to determine the academic merit to determine which applicants become finalists).
Also, during normal (non-COVID-19-affected) times, are such Oxbridge interviews available remotely? The US is a much larger country than the UK, so applicant travel to the university is more logistically difficult and expensive – if applicant pays, it becomes a screen for parental wealth, while if the university pays, that is an additional expense in the admission process (and there could be other non-cost issues for unaccompanied minor air travel, hotel, etc.).