Let's hope the "tiger mothers" don't get their hands on this!Why? The stuff at the beginning is esoteric to contemporary students, but I don't think it's that difficult. The Latin grammar stuff didn't look any tougher than what I remember being on the Latin AP. It's just not what's being taught in school anymore, for the most part: the fact that I took the Latin AP makes me a weirdo. And I suspect that the average 2011 Harvard admit could have aced the math portion when he or she was in eighth grade.
Harvard even played down the difficulty of its entrance exam in ads, reprinted above, that it placed in The New York Times in September 1870, noting that of the 210 candidates who took its test the June before, ¡°185 were admitted.¡±Right, but the whole point of focusing on obscure points of Latin and Greek grammar is that it ensured that most smart young men couldn't even take the test. You had to receive the right sort of education even to get in the door, and then they could set the bar really low in terms of what test scores were necessary to get in. The point of Harvard wasn't to be selective. It was to be exclusive. And of course, the instant that upwardly-mobile Jews started acing the exams and getting into Harvard in disproportionate numbers, they instituted the quota system and rigged the admissions criteria to ensure that they accomplished what Greek and Latin exams could no longer pull off: making sure that a Harvard education was reserved for the right sort of student, not for the brightest or most accomplished ones.
In other words, nearly seven out of eight candidates who sat for the exam made the cut, a statistic that few selective colleges these days would pay money to broadcast.
If I wanted to attack legacy admissions, I'd do it by looking at how many women are included in that category; my intuition says damn few.Weird. I went to an Ivy, and that's not my impression at all. I have lots of issues with legacy admissions, but I think both young women and young men benefit.
One thing that struck me about coming to study in the US was that so much of it seems to be tested through these little multiple choice bubble screens, with scores often normalised against a class distribution, and good students expected to score Bs or As (ie, >80% or so) by answering all of the relatively simpler and less complex questions and using triage strategies to select the best responses within limited time.Were you at a big state school? I doubt that's a very common method of assessment at Harvard. You have to remember that there's a lot of diversity in the American educational system, and State U isn't really equivalent to TCD.
I'm pretty sure he's referring to entrance exams, which would SAT+SATII+Personal bullshit essays.I don't think so, because if so, then this stuff doesn't make sense:
with scores often normalised against a class distribution, and good students expected to score Bs or As (ie, >80% or so)At any rate, Harvard admissions pays a lot less attention to SATs than many less-selective schools do. They may use SATs to weed people out, but merely having excellent SAT scores isn't going to get you into Harvard. As they are fond of saying, they could fill their class several times over with people with perfect grades and perfect SAT scores. Harvard relies on "holistic review," which means that the bullshit essays (and bullshit recommendations and your bullshit extracurricular activities, not to mention whether you're a legacy) count for a whole lot, too.
« Older Mad as Hell | master of information Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by shothotbot at 9:49 AM on April 9, 2011