|
|
|
|
|
|
by jcaldas
1181 days ago
|
|
|
I have always seen Ivy League admission controversies as stemming from the fact that the number of "perfect" (as measured by objective criteria) candidates is so high versus available spots, that there are only two solutions: * Select candidates randomly from a pool of perfect candidates. * Select candidates based on additional, subjective criteria. The first approach seems inherently fairer, but schools went with the second approach. It's hardly surprising that all sorts of biases creep in. I once read that a candidate was rejected because, having an enormous amount of extracurricular activities in his CV, was deemed "too intense". |
|
|
While “too intense” is poor wording (and perhaps shorthand), I’m guessing that the activities had the following traits:
1. Limited to unspecified “participation”, the substance of which was not verified or confirmed in other parts of the application. Typically elite schools are looking for leadership roles as well as moving the needle in some way.
2. Looked like resume/application boosting since no one can reasonably participate in a quality manner in this many activities.
In certain communities, especially in the NE corridor, racking up mostly low-engagement ECs is a hobby.