很多医生朋友都说看不懂了，几十年前她们也是靠学习好，在自己去的儿科诊所随便volunteer 一下就上好大学。引用一下，no one expects a high schooler to find cure for cancer , or solve the hunger problem for Uganda.
不要歪曲。 if you have leadership, please evidence. 另外，也不是都需要leadership。聪明的不得了的nerd，MIT Stanford 一样也会要。 学校招生，大概其有一个比例来保持多样性。培养一个领袖，比培养100个螺丝钉强多了。 zhegufei 发表于 2022-06-12 15:33
觉得很有启发。总结一下就是：单个人优秀还不行， 尤其是那种高度同质化的优秀，什么学习好， 钢琴好，运动好之类的。 Will a SAT score of 1450/1600 with a 4.0 unweighted and really good extracurriculars (Eagle Scout, Tennis, etc.) get me into Stanford? Originally Answered: Will a SAT score of 1450/1600 with a 4.0 unweighted and really good extra curriculares (Eagle Scout, Tennis, etc.) get me into Stanford? I’ve been on the admissions committee of a top ten university (not Stanford but one of its major “competitors”) for over 20 years and on the committee deciding finalists for the most prestigious scholarship at arguably the top public university in the country. I can tell you with great certainty that there is absolutely no way to say whether you will be admitted to Stanford or any other top school, even if you have an unweighted 4.0, perfect SATs and ACTs, lots of 5’s on AP tests, several patents, are a nationally known musician or athlete, and are perfect on paper in every way. The reason is that the very top schools could fill ten classes with qualified applicants from each year’s pool, so to get it down to the number for acceptance in a single year means making judgment calls about making a great CLASS, not just a bunch of great individuals. We want every class to have musicians, inventors, politicos, scientists, policymakers, writers, philosophers, religious and atheist, from all over the world who have demonstrated a love of learning, of new experiences, of challenging themselves in every way. You undoubtedly fit that model, so you certainly have a chance of being admitted; however, it depends on who all of the other applicants are and how Stanford (or Harvard or Princeton or Duke or MIT …..) sees you as fitting into the class they are creating. I remember vividly an amazing girl who applied to my university a few years ago - she had an unweighted 4.0 at one of the most difficult private schools in the Washington, DC area; she was class president, a star athlete and captain in 2 sports, a published author, 2nd runner-up at a major international science competition, and had emigrated with her family from Nigeria at age 10 so she had a fascinating life story. I interviewed her in person and she was amazing. However, she did not get in (she ended up at Princeton, so she’s fine), while other students who may not have looked as impressive on paper were admitted. She was a very strong candidate and made it to the “final round” of discussion, but the admissions committee ended up taking other applicants with different talents and experiences because, among other reasons, it had already admitted, on Early Decision, several students with credentials similar to hers. My best advice would be to apply Early Decision to your #1 choice school. It is easier to get in on Early Decision because (1) there isn’t as much competition, and (2) the school knows that you will come there if admitted, making their yield numbers higher. Second, spend a lot of time on your essay — it is very important at the top schools. They look for creativity, deep self-examination, critical thinking (including about one’s self and one’s beliefs), and of course, excellent writing skills. Take care with those you choose to write your recommendations; a great rec from your chem teacher is more valuable than a merely good rec from a Nobel Prize laureate or a famous person who doesn’t know you as well as your teacher does. Geographic location makes a difference, too; all things being equal, a 4.0 student from Montana probably has a better chance of admission than a 4.0 student from New York City. It’s also really important to keep your mind open to other great schools with similar qualities to Stanford. What is it you love about Stanford — the entrepreneurial culture, the weather, the campus, the alumni? Or is it just the name/brand of Stanford that attracts you? More than one school exists at which you would be very happy and successful, so please try not to be so focused on just one. Admissions officers can spot the applicants who are only drawn by the brand very quickly.
觉得很有启发。总结一下就是：单个人优秀还不行， 尤其是那种高度同质化的优秀，什么学习好， 钢琴好，运动好之类的。 Will a SAT score of 1450/1600 with a 4.0 unweighted and really good extracurriculars (Eagle Scout, Tennis, etc.) get me into Stanford? Originally Answered: Will a SAT score of 1450/1600 with a 4.0 unweighted and really good extra curriculares (Eagle Scout, Tennis, etc.) get me into Stanford? I’ve been on the admissions committee of a top ten university (not Stanford but one of its major “competitors”) for over 20 years and on the committee deciding finalists for the most prestigious scholarship at arguably the top public university in the country. I can tell you with great certainty that there is absolutely no way to say whether you will be admitted to Stanford or any other top school, even if you have an unweighted 4.0, perfect SATs and ACTs, lots of 5’s on AP tests, several patents, are a nationally known musician or athlete, and are perfect on paper in every way. The reason is that the very top schools could fill ten classes with qualified applicants from each year’s pool, so to get it down to the number for acceptance in a single year means making judgment calls about making a great CLASS, not just a bunch of great individuals. We want every class to have musicians, inventors, politicos, scientists, policymakers, writers, philosophers, religious and atheist, from all over the world who have demonstrated a love of learning, of new experiences, of challenging themselves in every way. You undoubtedly fit that model, so you certainly have a chance of being admitted; however, it depends on who all of the other applicants are and how Stanford (or Harvard or Princeton or Duke or MIT …..) sees you as fitting into the class they are creating. I remember vividly an amazing girl who applied to my university a few years ago - she had an unweighted 4.0 at one of the most difficult private schools in the Washington, DC area; she was class president, a star athlete and captain in 2 sports, a published author, 2nd runner-up at a major international science competition, and had emigrated with her family from Nigeria at age 10 so she had a fascinating life story. I interviewed her in person and she was amazing. However, she did not get in (she ended up at Princeton, so she’s fine), while other students who may not have looked as impressive on paper were admitted. She was a very strong candidate and made it to the “final round” of discussion, but the admissions committee ended up taking other applicants with different talents and experiences because, among other reasons, it had already admitted, on Early Decision, several students with credentials similar to hers. My best advice would be to apply Early Decision to your #1 choice school. It is easier to get in on Early Decision because (1) there isn’t as much competition, and (2) the school knows that you will come there if admitted, making their yield numbers higher. Second, spend a lot of time on your essay — it is very important at the top schools. They look for creativity, deep self-examination, critical thinking (including about one’s self and one’s beliefs), and of course, excellent writing skills. Take care with those you choose to write your recommendations; a great rec from your chem teacher is more valuable than a merely good rec from a Nobel Prize laureate or a famous person who doesn’t know you as well as your teacher does. Geographic location makes a difference, too; all things being equal, a 4.0 student from Montana probably has a better chance of admission than a 4.0 student from New York City. It’s also really important to keep your mind open to other great schools with similar qualities to Stanford. What is it you love about Stanford — the entrepreneurial culture, the weather, the campus, the alumni? Or is it just the name/brand of Stanford that attracts you? More than one school exists at which you would be very happy and successful, so please try not to be so focused on just one. Admissions officers can spot the applicants who are only drawn by the brand very quickly.
你看到哪个印度精英抱怨招生不公平吗？ 这就是他们厉害的地方，他们能玩得转白人的游戏规则
如果连学习这么简单的事情都做不好，那么谁他妈的要被你领导？
这确实是不少所谓名校的思路 他们在选未来的社会领袖，而由于人群抱团的特性，黑人领袖只能是黑人，老莫领袖只能是劳模， 所以按照这个逻辑推导出的结论就是：哪怕黑人成绩再差智商再低，只要是黑人这个族群中最优秀的学生，就还是要录取，因为这些未来的黑人精英
但这个思路的问题是 1）这只对哈佛这种学校适用，研究型/理工科院校明显不适用，而现在AA普遍被滥用，被扩大化 2）对于亚裔来说，这种做法损害了我们的利益，所以要坚决打倒 要坚决反对以各种名义搞种族歧视，一口咬死这种做法就是歧视就是政治不正确！
你是不是对admission officer在学校里的地位有啥误解？
印度可是英美式的教育，很多烙印来了几乎可以无缝对接。。。
是吧，看看高院，看看各界总统，是不是只有拜登不是藤的。 看看学校捐款，看看大公司founder, 真没有改变录取标准的动机。
投資預測本來就有風險 不可能100%全贏全猜中 學校文化特質價值也不是單看學術 只是以前公立學校大都只看成績就可以預測是否可錄取 現在公立學校也配合政策就不知未來走向 現紐約連公立名高中( Specialized High Schools ） 入學制度都已從考試甄選改變成抽籤
美国就是走偏了，教育搞得一塌糊涂，就是有人看不见
能说出这样的话的家长我觉得学校不招你孩子真的是对的。
我看印度推藤真没那么猛。
我认识一个被哈佛录取的国内男孩，他是普高的，高中是很不错的老牌强校，就是不少孩子可以去清北那种，不在北京。这个孩子走高考也是可以进这两个学校的，可是他决定申请美国的大学。他标化我觉得很好，托福110+，SAT 1520，不过也许很多家长觉得也一般。他很热爱化学，初中就开始自学大学的化学了，现在在哈佛，修有机化学，四次考试，三次100，一次97，就错了一个化学命名，他觉得IUPAC命名是他最大的弱点。孩子学习好是一方面，他还特别有领导力，高中时候是学校学生会主席，做了很多实实在在的工作，学生都很喜欢他。他中文功底也特别好，也很爱玩，人开朗，有礼貌，不管在国内的中学和哈佛，都是人缘好，老师喜欢。
不要歪曲。 if you have leadership, please show evidence.
另外，也不是都需要leadership。聪明的不得了的nerd，MIT Stanford 一样也会要。
学校招生，大概其有一个比例来保持多样性。培养一个领袖，比培养100个螺丝钉强多了。
老美用这个过去的优异不等于未来的领导者来洗脑而已。这样上层才可以随便选他们想要的人，民众也才会选小布什这种当总统。
他就不让你有个努力的规范。
很多CEO都是印度帝国理工毕业的，美国的藤校，在他们眼里，就相当于我们看留学生去澳大利亚留学
你怎么知道前者就不知道自己想要的不是一直努力争取？像你说的干脆就是用情绪判断了。
其实这事中国做的最好，穷困地区加分，少数民族加分，。。但是大家还是都得考试，有量化指标。
我觉得是有些国娃学习很好，但创造力不够，social问题可能包含很多方面，有可能他写的说的东西太陈词滥调，没有自己的思考 家长应该联系老师深聊，不应该归为种族歧视就不去管了
美国现在烂成这样，就是因为选拨制度的完败！请不要在添了，这个制度已经错了
你其实指出了一个很大的问题。就是现在不限学生申请的学校数，结果一个优秀的孩子申请十几个学校是常事。而学校就害怕给了他最后他也不来。所以其实学校有意选一些看上去不是特别优秀的保证这些人一定来。有些孩子因此就变了家家都差一点，到最后等某个学校有人没来才到他。
这个在我们老外同事里面谈的很多。
那是因为大家不像你那么容易被忽悠。
故意找个特例出来，想证明招生不看种族、性别？
试试看race blind， gender blind，
看看录取结果会怎么样？
你真是被洗脑了。
需要几个精英啊？再说精英能这样批量培养的吗？真的精英那么多他们之间不会打起来吗？这种精英论不过是政治正确并掩盖录取的不公的幌子。
美国强大都是当年强调分数强调教育打下的底。根本不是今天这种胡说八道造成的。你去问问现在50岁的MIT，Cal tech, Harvard,…出来的，他们是怎么过来的。很多学校那些XX study的本科水学位，都是在过去三十年建立的。这些科目根本就不该有本科学位。
同意
社会上会继续慢慢筛选的，去公司做小leader也是leader
整个社会对这种同质化优秀人才是巨大的啊。不然码工的包裹怎么那么高？
这个老师的评语就这些吗？家长可以跟老师要constructive feedback 光说这个不行那个不行 不给建设性建议那就是bias
赞positive mind
现在的码工和以前底特律车产的工人没有本质区别
可惜美国社会不是这么run的，底层人民也需要上升渠道。比如dr Carson奥巴马Michael，否则社会就不稳定了。 这社会需求就是不一样的，怎么可能选择标准是blind的。
对，但是大量需要。并且由于工作的难道增大，所需的教育也增大。这就是这个社会最需要的。
几十年前说这话完全同意 现在肯定不同意
LOL，
就是给种族主义找借口呗，
而且还要找的冠冕堂皇！
什么是种族主义？
这就是种族主义！
什么是系统性歧视？
这就是系统性歧视！
你说的对。我对低微的人的定义就是没文化，没钱，没影响力，没道德，利用体制圈好处不正当操作还感觉自己是个屁了。你对此有何不同意见吗
老牌车厂里的老牌员工，就是60-75之间这批人，不乏top 5的毕业生
奇怪了， 人家学历比你低，收入没你高也许是对的， 这没影响力的结论怎么来的？没道德的结论呢？ 怎么利用体制圈好处了？ AO收钱了？ 还有啥不正当操作？讲来听听？ 你既然对ao这么看不惯，那你的意见是大学的招生政策都是好的，就是 是所有藤校的AO都是垃圾？
其他部分也是一样重要，如果不是更加重要
大学里的行政人员，好的还真是不多。拉出去一百个枪毙，最多冤枉一个。大多数人品都比较恶劣，应该说，比教授还差
对，标准化考试就是美国人发明的，就是那个时代奠定了美国强大的基础。
亚裔孩子上名校的是很多， 但我不明白为什么要和亚裔在美国人口中的比例作比较。 难道说亚裔学生在名校中的比例高于亚裔在美国人口中的比例就不是歧视了? 还是我们应该对洋大人允许亚裔学生以高出人口占比的机会入学感恩戴德？所以亚裔孩子必须自己和自己卷， 不应该去动其他族裔的升学蛋糕？
都不知道该说这是“自恨” 还是“可笑的自觉“。 自省党们醒醒吧
今年因为亲戚和朋友的缘故， 接触到了好几个大学升学顾问， 都是白人！白人！白人！（重要的信息说三遍）， 帮助高中生做大学申请的package，做这一行几十年了， 他们的顾客也是各个族裔都有。 都不约而同地在说，今年亚裔， 尤其是亚裔男生的大学申请形势差得离谱， 简直是不可思议。 非常非常优秀的履历， 居然申请不到好学校！这是他们的原话。
所以各位想defend美国大学招生有多么公平正义的， 还是省省吧
收藏了，谢谢🙏
不光需要，而且不够，不然大厂为啥找那么多移民。我们所有人，其实都受益于美国stem 教育的不足。 未必是水平不足，肯定是数量不足。一边turnaway 很多楼主这样的出色的abc, 一边大量从中印招人。
需要blind吗？ EC一拿出来种族不就一目了然了。
自恨” 还是“可笑的自觉“。 自省 这些词还是用在你自己身上比较合适
按照你们的逻辑，亚裔都没几个能上名校了。 如果这么在乎名校，先找找自身原因，不要怨天怨地怨皮肤， 别的华人孩子为何能上而你家上不了？ 或者能如隔壁楼那样自信豁然开朗认为州大比T20好，那也行啊
既沒看出他覺得自己多厲害 也沒看出他多低微
真的這樣做了 至少說明你的devotion 另外 如果真的在阿拉斯加 還能表現得和在紐約灣區這些大城市一樣好 那我是學校也選阿拉斯加的 因為資源差太多了
这不是买股票，现在优秀的人以后优秀的概率更大、所谓社会的领导者是幸存者偏差、社会这么多人，总会冒出来几个。学生不读书拼成绩，那上学做什么？天天去做义工，慈善，跑非洲去扶贫？跑欧洲研究同性恋问题，跑亚洲关注人权问题？美国每年大量吸引全世界的科技人才过来，无不说明了本国的人才培养出了问题，就是自己的基础教育出来问了问题。
hhh
你如果有孩子，千万教育他不要申请美国大学，免得耽误了。
给底层人民一些倾斜，我自己是认可的。
太对了，鼓掌
Thanks for sharing!
说了这么一大段，跟没说一样，ao真的觉得自己最厉害
LOL, 奥巴马是底层人民吗？
奥巴马的女儿们是底层人民吗？
他们的后代是底层人民吗？
Social方面我们真的是需要加强的。不代表学习不重要。但是处理人和人之间的关系，到了大学，工作都是尤为重要的。如果是我会和老师好好聊聊，多听取老师的建议去相应的改善一下这些方面。
问题是这些AO就是一般人，是怎么能看出这个孩子将来最可能优秀的？
或者guan....
有些人居然还相信这种胡扯。
前面不是有个印度小哥，
就是把自己伪装成黑人，
马上就得到各个大学的青睐了！
Re 美国要是像中国一样培养出大量高分工具人，我们根本没机会来这个国家。
我可没说不能适当倾斜底层。我说的是种族，性别blind.
美国stem教育差，差的就是中小学，大学不差了。另说一个扎心的事实，中印人口基数那么大，就算再不济，千里挑一出来，也是一大堆人，而且轮成绩肯定比这边abc中间水平要高。。
ao确实是一般人，但是人家看的简历绝对比你看的多，比你客观，不服不行
研究社会科学的千千万，早就研究过成功的孩子会啥样。 这学校标准制定好了，ao按照学校制定的标准一项项打分，这也不需要高学历吧。楼里的真不会以为所有的藤校卡abc是ao个人所为吧？今年abc的确录取不好，那原因是什么？
其实读读历史，犹太人也被歧视录取过，不能超过学生比例的10%。后来犹太人使劲捐钱，加上其他因素，才没有quote了。
为啥要和我比了？我又不是吃这碗饭的，我就是问一个问题，AO怎么从这个essay里面看出孩子将来就会优秀，你何必把我踩一下，是不是不踩不舒服？我讨论AO怎么能看出人的优秀，和你有关系么？你拿我来踩是不是很过分？不踩我是不是没法显摆你的素质？
多谢科普
奥巴马的儿女将来确实比你我的孩子更容易成功。学校不是慈善机构，是想招到未来的潜力股，不管是奥巴马的孩子还是一个底层穷人爬上来的孩子，将来确实更可能比中产的学习好的孩子成功。
不说对不对，事实是学校招生就是在挑潜力股，出身名门的孩子和底层爬上来有野心的孩子就是比中产的学习好的孩子容易成功。学校也是在做生意，不是做慈善，肯定想捡现成的潜力股。学生成功了才能大笔给学校捐钱。你中产的竞赛学习好的孩子，就算当了马工一年一百万，也不会捐学校几个钱的。
这不是买股票，家里是billionaire 的人以后是billionaire 继续给学校捐款的可能性更大。 白人和黑人当总统的可能性更大。 现在当高中生能在家长帮助下忽悠到几万慈善捐款，发文章，等等，毕业找不到实习机会的可能性也小。也更可能忽悠到更大的钱。
statistically可以看的。至少没有哪个AO会出现录取的1000个平均水平比没录取的15000个差的的情况吧
慢慢看
顺便说一下认清这个以后，已经放弃爬藤了。我自问，这孩子以后能当总统参议员吗？有魄力当founder吗？像是能拿诺奖吗？经过亲妈滤镜都是nonono, 就不用想AO 怎么看了。 我家普娃，不是竞赛娃也不同意包装，已经躺平，快乐的学车，打工，享受高中生活。
学校当然不是做生意。学校是教书育人，传道授业解惑，培养人才，引导社会发展的方向。学校运作的核心是老师。你去问老师，是愿意把毕生所学教给成绩好的学生，还是愿意去教成绩差的富二代官二代？
这不正说明美国需要的是大量高分工具人吗？难道都指望动动嘴，社会就进步了？
太天真了，private school 是生意， 估计graduate school 教授可以挑喜欢的学生。本科录取教授还不如运动队教练有话语权。
并且没从这个officer的分享里读出什么“莫名厉害”，“高高在上”的感觉啊，不知道这评论的人怎么想的
我家孩子初中毕业，学校发了一堆乱七八糟awards,但是没有任何academic , music 的奖，成功避开了几个优秀的华裔孩子，想起来他们校长那副嘴脸我就觉得恶心。
完全同意你说的
看你怎么定义优秀了
不是天真，是要把未来塑造成我们想要的样子。
真的假的？ junior high里athlete，math，arts，volunteer involvement的奖项我都见过，毕业一个都没有也太夸张了。。是校长特意说我们不需要评选这些还是。。？