> You are making an unfounded judgement call that grades and extra-curriculars adequately measure what the colleges want to measure Unfounded? I don't think so

> You are making an unfounded judgement call that grades and extra-curriculars adequately measure what the colleges want to measure Unfounded? I don't think so. After all, I've gone through admission myself. Anyway, what do you think they want to measure? > curriculums should be tailored to meet student ability > having a unique curriculum apart from other students I agree wholeheartedly. However, our school system doesn't provide that. Our system isn't even remotely in the vicinity of that. We still rely mostly on social promotion based on geography and age, with age groups sometimes divided into 2 or 3 rough subgroups. I'm not impressed. I think it's questionable how much if any value that provides. It's classism rather than individualism. > the average admissions non-advantaged (no affirmative action, etc) successful Ivy candidate is likely 140 IQ+. With 150 not being uncommon. "likely"? Is that just your speculation, or do you have empirical evidence? I know that IQ tests are not required for admission. I'm not a fan of the notion of "IQ". I consider it a kind of pseudoscience. I don't think I've ever taken an IQ test myself, though I don't recall exactly the criteria for admission to the aforementioned gifted program. > That's because you lack context on the history of living standards and poverty. Mmmkay, thanks for playing. I'm done here now. Congrats on the smugness, hope you enjoy it.