[BostonCard]

Your premise is predicated on the idea that an admissions department should optimize applicants on the basis of (measurable) academic achievement.  There are two problems with this. The first is that at the top end of the curve, applicants are nearly indistinguishable on that metric. It has often been stated that Stanford could fill its entire class with students who have a 4.0/1600 (or is it 2400 now?). The second is that I don’t think doing so is desirable.  There are certainly other places (eg China and Korea) where admissions to elite schools are based primarily or solely on test scores, and I think that results on enormous unhealthy pressure on high schoolers to cram for the test, and I don’t think it optimizes for long term success, because it devalues other important skills for life.  I think a multi-pronged path to college admissions, which places an academic floor, but otherwise allows prospective students to demonstrate that they have the drive, ambition, and dedication to demonstrate excellence in a chosen field, whether that is athletics, arts, scientific inquiry (such as the science fair), volunteerism, or something else, likely produces a better aggregate collegiate class than one calibrated solely to optimize academic achievement.

BC

[BostonCard]

Your premise is predicated on the idea that an admissions department should optimize applicants on the basis of (measurable) academic achievement.  There are two problems with this. The first is that at the top end of the curve, applicants are nearly indistinguishable on that metric. It has often been stated that Stanford could fill its entire class with students who have a 4.0/1600 (or is it 2400 now?). The second is that I don’t think doing so is desirable.  There are certainly other places (eg China and Korea) where admissions to elite schools are based primarily or solely on test scores, and I think that results on enormous unhealthy pressure on high schoolers to cram for the test, and I don’t think it optimizes for long term success, because it devalues other important skills for life.  I think a multi-pronged path to college admissions, which places an academic floor, but otherwise allows prospective students to demonstrate that they have the drive, ambition, and dedication to demonstrate excellence in a chosen field, whether that is athletics, arts, scientific inquiry (such as the science fair), volunteerism, or something else, likely produces a better aggregate collegiate class than one calibrated solely to optimize academic achievement.

BC