But why? why can't it be an option? question is, there's only a few things in life you can control, SAT and grade being one of them. How do you work on something that you have no control over?
Because universities have decided (rightly, IMO) that just taking the applicants with the top GPA and SAT scores and no other criteria doesn't give a very vibrant student body.
Chances are a school like Harvard already has more "top student" scorers in this fashion than they can accept.
> How do you work on something that you have no control over?
"God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, Courage to change the things I can, And wisdom to know the difference."
There are plenty of things you can work on that colleges love to see. Volunteering, neat science projects, interesting life experiences, sports and performing arts, etc.
To me that's crazy, to say "I know you're smart and worked hard to get the best GPA but don't bother applying to these schools since you're not vibrant enough."
I'm not saying the school has to take everyone, but we're focusing on discrimination here. How is that not discrimination? "We're not letting you in because of the intangibles, what is that intangible? We can't tell you."
How do you even measure vibrancy? So if a student excels academically that means he/she is not vibrant?
Because universities have decided (rightly, IMO) that just taking the applicants with the top GPA and SAT scores and no other criteria doesn't give a very vibrant student body.
Chances are a school like Harvard already has more "top student" scorers in this fashion than they can accept.
> How do you work on something that you have no control over?
"God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, Courage to change the things I can, And wisdom to know the difference."
There are plenty of things you can work on that colleges love to see. Volunteering, neat science projects, interesting life experiences, sports and performing arts, etc.