4 ms·

tl;dr: My recent observation is that for US universities it is better to be jack of all trades but master of nothing than having some degree of (relative) exper

tl;dr: My recent observation is that for US universities it is better to be jack of all trades but master of nothing than having some degree of (relative) expertise. You do not declare it officially and yes you have the flexibility to change it but every application asks you what major you want to study. Besides by nature if you are already decided and experienced on the subject it is ridiculous to me to consider another applicant. Let's consider two candidates: 1) Super social kid with strong grades in all subjects and a good debater and organized few charity projects (at least on the paper) but no real programming or above average math experience. 2) Kid with good social skills with top grades in mathematics, physics, chemistry, cs etc. but slightly lower secondary language or history grades. This kid also has a Github account with quite a few commits and is hacking for few years now. Now my recent observation is that (and not only for CS but for all other subjects too) if these two candidates declare that they want to study CS, then the first one is preferred in US and definitely the second one in Britain. Now I understand not declaring your major at the beginning and being undecided but how can one eliminates the ones who already demonstrate work and passion on their subject but accepts the ones who are undecided and have not done on any specific subject. As a result, American universities basically depend on "luck". They think the kid might be good based on generic projects, charity work and conferences. By the way this is not a personal issue. I am accepted to the school I wanted to be in at the beginning but this is an observation through my high school years for over 200-300 well suited candidates for top ranking universities.

karamazov 15y ago
For top schools, the second kid would be preferred - assuming that by "slightly lower grades" you mean a 95/A- instead of a 100/A, and replace "hacking for a few years" with a medal in the International Computing Olympiad, high placement in math competitions, etc. This is a very high bar, and there are many talented programmers that don't do well in classes they don't enjoy and don't participate in competitions; unfortunately, college admissions officers don't have the expertise to look at a student's github account and judge the quality of their commits.
- mathetic 15y ago
  Exactly! (for the second part) I mean why aren't they qualified? Cambridge is getting more applications than each of the top schools in US every year. They interview almost all of them (80% to be precise) and still announce the results in January (though you apply earlier). It is certainly doable and it is more accurate. I do not get this admission officer business not even a tiny bit. I mean if you are undecided and do not fit in any criteria then fine let an admission officer decide on your fate but if you specifically insist on a subject then why not be judged by your future professors. These professors can certainly have half an hour interview[1] with the candidate take a look at your candidate's account. If professors are super busy let graduate students do it or researchers do it. These three groups of people will have a better understanding of a well suited candidate. Think about it this way: You're hiring programmers and you have one of these two options: As a programmer consider their applications yourself or just tell a nonprogrammer to do it. You'd argue this analogy does not work because one does not have to declare his major and you are right if you think about it that way but if you consider a huge corporate structure and a policy, which each and every department should obey then you will see why this makes sense for a university too. Obviously there are criteria that MUST be considered during application process other than your skills and I am all for that but let candidates be filtered by actual graduate students or professors or researchers first. Why? It is because in any case they will have a better intuitive understanding of being a student in "X University" compared to admission officers who are "told" what should the students be like plus they have the degree of expertise to judge the student on their specific subject. And for the first part, you do not have to have olympic medals to get a place in undergraduate division of these universities. Maybe a projet or two but the competition is not THAT intense. I mean there aren't hundreds of olympic students (relevant olypics) applying to subjects every year anyhow AND believe it or not few years of hacking can be more useful than an olympic medal. This is another discussion what I want to point out is my observation strongly disagrees with your interpretation. I tell you 90% of the time first kid is preferred over the second kid one. [1] Please don't say it takes too long, again, in Oxbirdge, each candidate has two interviews for AT LEAST 30 minutes with four professors in total.

karamazov 15y ago

For top schools, the second kid would be preferred - assuming that by "slightly lower grades" you mean a 95/A- instead of a 100/A, and replace "hacking for a few years" with a medal in the International Computing Olympiad, high placement in math competitions, etc. This is a very high bar, and there are many talented programmers that don't do well in classes they don't enjoy and don't participate in competitions; unfortunately, college admissions officers don't have the expertise to look at a student's github account and judge the quality of their commits.

mathetic 15y ago
Exactly! (for the second part) I mean why aren't they qualified? Cambridge is getting more applications than each of the top schools in US every year. They interview almost all of them (80% to be precise) and still announce the results in January (though you apply earlier). It is certainly doable and it is more accurate. I do not get this admission officer business not even a tiny bit. I mean if you are undecided and do not fit in any criteria then fine let an admission officer decide on your fate but if you specifically insist on a subject then why not be judged by your future professors. These professors can certainly have half an hour interview[1] with the candidate take a look at your candidate's account. If professors are super busy let graduate students do it or researchers do it. These three groups of people will have a better understanding of a well suited candidate. Think about it this way: You're hiring programmers and you have one of these two options: As a programmer consider their applications yourself or just tell a nonprogrammer to do it. You'd argue this analogy does not work because one does not have to declare his major and you are right if you think about it that way but if you consider a huge corporate structure and a policy, which each and every department should obey then you will see why this makes sense for a university too. Obviously there are criteria that MUST be considered during application process other than your skills and I am all for that but let candidates be filtered by actual graduate students or professors or researchers first. Why? It is because in any case they will have a better intuitive understanding of being a student in "X University" compared to admission officers who are "told" what should the students be like plus they have the degree of expertise to judge the student on their specific subject. And for the first part, you do not have to have olympic medals to get a place in undergraduate division of these universities. Maybe a projet or two but the competition is not THAT intense. I mean there aren't hundreds of olympic students (relevant olypics) applying to subjects every year anyhow AND believe it or not few years of hacking can be more useful than an olympic medal. This is another discussion what I want to point out is my observation strongly disagrees with your interpretation. I tell you 90% of the time first kid is preferred over the second kid one. [1] Please don't say it takes too long, again, in Oxbirdge, each candidate has two interviews for AT LEAST 30 minutes with four professors in total.