Let me give an example that took place at Dartmouth during a reading retreat, when the whole admissions office gets together, discusses strategies and priorities for the upcoming year, and then reads through actual case studies from the current year's class. All thirteen of us prepared the five case studies the night before so we could read our write-ups aloud and then see how people voted. The biggest disagreement concerned an extremely subtle case of a girl who came from a very humble background. She knew early on that she wanted to be a veterinarian, and she had started working ten hours a week and all summer for two years in a vet's office to obtain firsthand experience. Veterinary medicine was her passion, and you could see throughout all her class work and activities that she was preparing for a career in the field. All her recommendations stressed that she was very quiet but that when she did contribute to class, she almost always offered a tremendous and insightful thought that really turned the classroom into a live arena for debate. One even referred to her as something like a "creative whirlwind of ideas." Though all her teachers said she was modest and quiet, no one said that she was a low impact person who just blended in with the scenery. On the contrary, they all pointed to the fact that she just didn't blather on and on about what she knew, as some students did, but, rather, that her idea was to follow the discussion intently and then to interject her point as things became more interesting.
What became immediately evident in our follow-up discussion was that nearly all the old-guard people in the office immediately latched onto her teachers' remarks about the quiet aspect of her character, stressing that she would be a low-impact person at Dartmouth and would never add to class discussion because she'd be afraid to speak up. In other words, they totally ignored the body of the recommendations, which stressed that she always had meaningful contributions and that she just waited until the right moment to share her thoughts. Based on this information, only two out of thirteen people voted to accept her.
Let me give an example that took place at Dartmouth during a reading retreat, when the whole admissions office gets together, discusses strategies and priorities for the upcoming year, and then reads through actual case studies from the current year's class. All thirteen of us prepared the five case studies the night before so we could read our write-ups aloud and then see how people voted. The biggest disagreement concerned an extremely subtle case of a girl who came from a very humble background. She knew early on that she wanted to be a veterinarian, and she had started working ten hours a week and all summer for two years in a vet's office to obtain firsthand experience. Veterinary medicine was her passion, and you could see throughout all her class work and activities that she was preparing for a career in the field. All her recommendations stressed that she was very quiet but that when she did contribute to class, she almost always offered a tremendous and insightful thought that really turned the classroom into a live arena for debate. One even referred to her as something like a "creative whirlwind of ideas." Though all her teachers said she was modest and quiet, no one said that she was a low impact person who just blended in with the scenery. On the contrary, they all pointed to the fact that she just didn't blather on and on about what she knew, as some students did, but, rather, that her idea was to follow the discussion intently and then to interject her point as things became more interesting.
What became immediately evident in our follow-up discussion was that nearly all the old-guard people in the office immediately latched onto her teachers' remarks about the quiet aspect of her character, stressing that she would be a low-impact person at Dartmouth and would never add to class discussion because she'd be afraid to speak up. In other words, they totally ignored the body of the recommendations, which stressed that she always had meaningful contributions and that she just waited until the right moment to share her thoughts. Based on this information, only two out of thirteen people voted to accept her.
我跟老大发这个牢骚，他说数学家也要做social butterfly，也喜欢party，party上大家一起做数学题。
要有天生我才必有用的自信，李白当初不也没被看上吗？
内向外向的定义主要在于，能量从哪里获得。内向的人的能量是靠自己，外向的人的能量靠外部。
内向的领导人非常多。要做到领导人，必须有独立思考和抵御外界纷杂的能力。内向完全不是问题。
安静的确不被现代社会推崇。现代社会几乎干任何事都是团队合作。过于安静的人，哪怕个体优异，而且不时有一语惊人的表现，对团队氛围的贡献也是有限的。在好学生如云可挑可捡的情况下，被否不奇怪。
其实现代社会也同时给安静的孩子提供了以前没有的机会。他们通常书面交流没有障碍。可以鼓励孩子多用社交软件跟老师同学沟通，多写作。
只能说人性的弱点，是大家都喜欢和自己同类的人。AO自己就是靠白活吃饭的，怎能指望他真正appreciate 不爱夸夸其谈的人? 最搞笑的是他们口口声声追求多元化，他们只不过追求皮肤上多元化罢了，内心追求的理念只能和他们想的一样，否则就是不热爱社区，没有impact，诸如此类。
举一个例子。我们在北维州，属于维州比较富裕的地带，所以相对维州其他的地区，教育资源丰富一点，标考分数也高一些。我们这里很多孩子想去uva，但是坊间传闻uva因为要搞平衡，不想让北维独大，所以对北维的孩子比较苛刻。对此uva的官方回应是:"我们对任何地区的孩子都没有照顾。uva录得孩子sat 在1300 到1500 之间(打比方说，具体数字记不清了，反正是一个比较大的范围)。我们在非北维地区录得孩子，完全符合我们的入学标准。另外我们每年录得北维的学生，超过北维在维州的人口比例。所以我们对北维没有歧视。" 大家觉得和哈佛歧视亚裔案，是否异曲同工? 我觉得他们如果直接说uva需要服务于全维州，我还觉得可以接受。现在官方出这种逻辑混乱的言辞，让人怀疑AO的水平。
如果一个AO与别人意见不同的次数太多，估计过不了多久他自己就辞职了。剩下的都是思想一致的。
刚看了一个还不错的州大网站，明说老师推荐信不能提供多少有价值的信息，所以他们不看重老师推荐信
如果学business,找工作都难，AO是觉得她不适合这个学校。
学理工专业适合。