<p>How is an interview considered an objective criterion?</p>
<p>mathmaniac:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>That's an incredibly ignorant thing to say. I doubt Einstein "unremittingly worked in hopes of being admitted to a top college"</p></li>
<li><p>Chill out. If they're not up to standards, they won't be selected. What's wrong with giving hopes and second chances?</p></li>
</ol>
<p>The interviews being referred to (the ones that take place for Oxbridge, at least) are extremely rigorous and not as much a "getting to know you" type of thing as they are in the US. The interviews in the UK are strenuous and involve on the spot, intended major-specific questions. It's basically a face to face examination!</p>
<p>@ee33ee: Don't get me wrong - we work because we're passsionate about something. But for most of us, what we're passionate about will become our future. In the present day society, going to a top college is usually associated with having a better standing after finishing our education. Which is why by working towards being accepted to a top college, we're working towards guaranteeing ourselves a better future.</p>
<p>Sorry if that seems ignorant to you.</p>
<p>Answer to your second point - it's just not fair :P</p>
<p>I have seen tapes of UC interviews and have heard tales from Oxbridge friends. I still fail to see how it is an objective process. I can imagine that they could immediately sense a brilliant sociopath and reject him/her.</p>
<p>I guess what gripes me is that there seems to be some sense that doing things outside and in addition to tests and classwork falls under a subjective rubric, when tests and classwork are objectively judged. I would wager that nothing is strictly objective, can't be and shouldn't be.</p>
<p>@neumes: I guess, I agree, I see your point. Nothing is strictly objective. </p>
<p>It's true that we always hear stories of people who kiss up to teachers in order to get an A, thereby falsifying the objectivity of the GPA. And about the SATs, I understand that the test conditions of the test center might not be appropriate or someone may not have been in the proper test taking mentality on the testing date.</p>
<p>I think I'm going to go back to the AA thread, instead :P</p>
<p>Objective like the gaokao</p>
<p>Subjective - no doubt. A system that admitted students based on numerical values would ignore all of the unique talents some people have, and all of the subtleties in an application that can make a person outstanding. Yeah, some people cheat on their essays or whatever, but how big of a percent is that really? Like, 2%?</p>
<p>SUBJECTIVE</p>
<p>Many people here seem to favor the so-called "objective" system of using GPA and SAT scores (and in some cases, even rank). Well, are they really objective? </p>
<p>Unfortunately, not all high schools are created equally. Neither are all "A's." That is, the degree of difficulty of achieving an "A" varies greatly from school to school. Does a 4.0 in a noncompetitive public school trumph a 3.8, or even a 3.7 or 6 from a very competitive private high school? So how can the system be completely objective? </p>
<p>...Now before someone screams out "CLASS RANK," I must say... class rank is not objective either. Take my school as an example. It is a very competitive high school with less than 100 people per class. I'd say the top 30 kids are extremely brilliant and capable. Their grade point averages is separated by less than 3 percent (we use the % system). But someone must be number 1 and someone must be number 30. Now is that fair? </p>
<p>This is why college admissions cannot be completely objective. How are we to compare people from one school to another? Who truly deserves a spot? There is too much gray area to make a clear cut and be "objective."</p>
<p>Admission process should be objective because at the end of the day college is all about keeping a high GPA and doing well in the midterms and finals.</p>
<p>^ Sheesh, how naive can you get? You're telling me that for admission at top schools, all that matters is your GPA?</p>
<p>I knew vaguely about college entrance exams but didn't know the term "gaokao" so looked it up. Thank goodness US college admissions aren't based on a single exam. Wikipedia (should I trust it) said that some kids who fear the exam apply to foreign colleges, which can cost 10 to 15 times as much. Why would people want the same format for American colleges? If people from abroad want to apply to US colleges, why not accept that their admissions procedure may be what makes the colleges what they are?</p>
<p>I think schools have to use subjectivity with enlightened objectivity. </p>
<p>For all good schools, it is safe to say that they could easily fill out their entire class with perfect kids-- 4.0 GPA, 2400 SATs, and a slew of community service that would require extra pages on the common app. These kids have been prepped their whole life to succeed in a objective admissions process and most get college counselors and such just to be sure. </p>
<p>Yet, while these kids seem perfect on paper, they actually are not. Most of them are socially reclusive and have no real unproductive hobbies. Now some of you may read "non productive hobbies", **** your pants, and start yelling how all hobbies should be productive, but thats simply not the case. Being able to put next weeks homework assignment in abeyance and turning on the TV is a sign of being a normal kid experiencing childhood. Some people might kick and shout and say they all play violin or music, but thats not true either. These kids memorize music, reproduce it on its finest points, but never learn to create or experiment. Everything they do has a long term goal. </p>
<p>Now there are other kids who have a lower GPA, lower SAT, or less community service but who have taken the time to actually become a person, to develop a outgoing personality, to take up fun hobbies, or simply just have friends to interact with. They may be a little less imposing on paper, but they make up for it in their personality and other skills, which rarely, in our American "memorization" educational system, actually translate into academic success. These kids are more qualified for the real world, since unlike the brain trusts at top, they realize not everything can be solved by memorizing an equation or sucking up to the teacher. </p>
<p>Overall, colleges need to accept more kids who show a personality and humanity that thinks about issues and cares about things past grades and SAT scores. However, colleges also need to make cutoffs so that kids who are in group 1 can still attend and be rewarded for your work. The ultimate goal however, has to be what happens in college. Kids in group 1 need to be converted into more all around people.</p>
<p>I say this with no authority at all, seeing that I have no idea what the hell I am talking about.</p>
<p>Objective. Academics, are, after all, the main point of college and I think lately people (and college admissions teams) have started to forget that fact in favor of getting a more interesting class. Though I do think achievements/awards and sports stuff and essays should still be considered, just much less than they are.</p>
<p>Personally, I don't think admissions officers have the right nor the ability to judge me as a person from a few pages of ECs and essays.</p>
<p>"Personally, I don't think admissions officers have the right nor the ability to judge me as a person from a few pages of ECs and essays." </p>
<p>Fine. What's your solution? There are 1200 slots at Ivy X. And there's gonna be 25000 apps. Amongst these 25000 are 4000 vals and sals with +2000SATS. Do you suggest a monkey with a dart board or dedicated individuals who seriously pain for the many many qualified people they have to turn away?</p>
<p>And also know that the schools we're talking about: every rejected viable candidate is almost 100% going to be a likely successful undergrad wherever they attend. It's only those who subject themselves to the "race for the top" that have to endure this. It's self-selected torture for sure. But no one is forcing anyone to apply to these schools with -30% acceptance rates.</p>
<p>If you don't want to be judged then apply to a school that admits 80%+ apps. There are many of them (as I've said several times already) and they've done a fine job educating many, many Americans.</p>
<p>JUST DON'T CONDEMN THE SELECTIVES THAT DO THE BEST THEY CAN. That's all I'm saying.</p>
<p>SUBJECTIVE</p>
<p>No one would get in if it wasn't.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Academics, are, after all, the main point of college and I think lately people (and college admissions teams) have started to forget that fact in favor of getting a more interesting class. Though I do think achievements/awards and sports stuff and essays should still be considered, just much less than they are.
[/quote]
The point of college is to grow as a person.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Personally, I don't think admissions officers have the right nor the ability to judge me as a person from a few pages of ECs and essays.
[/quote]
Don't apply then?</p>
<p>Also, this does not make sense. The colleges judge the merits of your achievements (GPA, test scores, ECs, etc.) in the context of your background (school report, family background, etc.). They then use your essays to figure out whether or not their judgement of you is accurate. After all, the essay is your opportunity to essentially judge yourself.</p>
<p>Subjective, because life is subjective</p>
<p>This turned into a really good discussion!</p>
<p>Subjective.</p>
<p>I don't think attending a top college would be as interesting or as fulfilling as an experience if the school were ONLY filled with students who got perfect or near-perfect SAT scores.</p>
<p>Obviously, GPA and SAT scores will weigh heavily, but I do think these numbers should be placed in a context.</p>
<p>Part of the application should give the student space to describe him/herself, and express themselves. How fun would it be, if all we had to do was send our transcript and test scores? I want to have a personal message on my application. We're more than just numbers.</p>
<p>balance</p>
<p>college should give students the opportunity to get better acquainted with the real world. the real world contains a whole variety of people. colleges should have the same variety. subjectivity in the admissions process allows this to happen.</p>
<p>a certain amount of objectivity should also be there so that the students who have worked hard in high school are rewarded.</p>