4 ms·

You sound a bit harsh, but as someone not from the US, I was surprised that these things count when it comes to getting an admission. Does any particular hobby

You sound a bit harsh, but as someone not from the US, I was surprised that these things count when it comes to getting an admission. Does any particular hobby makes someone a better person? Or a 20-year old without a transformative life experience isn't capable of achiveing the same things? These factors are way to subjective.

saint_fiasco 11y ago
My guess is that the US used to have objective criteria but because University admissions are so competitive everyone studied just for the test and Universities filled with people who were very good at "book-learning" at the expense of everything else. They wanted students to be more varied, more well-rounded individuals instead of robots who memorize books. So naturally, they started testing for holistic well-roundedness and Goodhart's law did the rest.
- mikeash 11y ago
  I always thought it was so they could reject undesirables (wrong ancestry and such) without having to give the real reason.
  - saint_fiasco 11y ago
    I heard something similar too, that Harvard felt they were admitting too many Jews so they started using other criteria instead of just the written tests for admission. Now they are probably using the subjective tests to attract disadvantaged minorities.
    - mikeash 11y ago
      I also thought it was the Jews, I was just a little too timid to say so directly!
eitally 11y ago
It doesn't make someone a better person, but it does make someone a well-rounded person and I think there's ample evidence to support that well-rounded people often become better employees. If university admissions were purely exam-based, the quality of US universities would instantly decrease, as would their international appeal.
- stefantalpalaru 11y ago
  How do you decide what subset of applicants get to enjoy that high quality education that makes them "well-rounded"? This is the problem we're discussing, not if an Ivy League education is good for you.

saint_fiasco 11y ago

My guess is that the US used to have objective criteria but because University admissions are so competitive everyone studied just for the test and Universities filled with people who were very good at "book-learning" at the expense of everything else. They wanted students to be more varied, more well-rounded individuals instead of robots who memorize books. So naturally, they started testing for holistic well-roundedness and Goodhart's law did the rest.

mikeash 11y ago
I always thought it was so they could reject undesirables (wrong ancestry and such) without having to give the real reason.
- saint_fiasco 11y ago
  I heard something similar too, that Harvard felt they were admitting too many Jews so they started using other criteria instead of just the written tests for admission. Now they are probably using the subjective tests to attract disadvantaged minorities.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    I also thought it was the Jews, I was just a little too timid to say so directly!

eitally 11y ago

It doesn't make someone a better person, but it does make someone a well-rounded person and I think there's ample evidence to support that well-rounded people often become better employees. If university admissions were purely exam-based, the quality of US universities would instantly decrease, as would their international appeal.

stefantalpalaru 11y ago
How do you decide what subset of applicants get to enjoy that high quality education that makes them "well-rounded"? This is the problem we're discussing, not if an Ivy League education is good for you.