Why does it seem bad to you? To me it seems like the fairest possible method, as long as the tests are reasonably accurate measures of competence. The US metho

Why does it seem bad to you? To me it seems like the fairest possible method, as long as the tests are reasonably accurate measures of competence. The US method on the other hand where colleges try to assess “leadership” and other qualities of that nature makes no sense to me. What in the world do “leadership”, extracurricular activities, sports ability, etc. have to do with academic ability? I guess it’s because in the US, college is seen as a way of sorting people into social classes, just as much as a place to actually learn something (or more). But a sane system shouldn’t care about having “well-rounded” students — it should optimize for having the best 100 students in physics in the country studying together from the best physicists, the best in history from the best historians, etc. > Are these exams usually/mostly multiple choice? No.