Hacker News Reader

American system of admissions to me seems so weird. Is it only there that unis accept mostly on extra things and not grades/test scores itself?

I'm Polish, here the only thing that matters is your final test scores, and nothing else. And I think it's same in the most of Europe and Asia too, right?

My impression is that American unis care way more about social aspect and so on, which I don't understand (but I guess it's a fine way of looking at things, too.)

It's because a good majority of these schools have thousands of applicants who might as well be perfect across the board grade and test scores wise, so its either they flip a coin, or choose some other standard.

The tests need to be harder, but people would complain.

I didn't study for the ACT at all (literally went in without knowing anything about it) and got a 35. It's a trivial exam.

What a douchey thing to say. You know the average score is like 20 right? Its definitely not trivial

The average for the SAT is 1050 https://satsuite.collegeboard.org/scores/what-scores-mean/wh...

I got a 1040 on the SAT in the 5th grade. The average score is useless for gauging how hard these exams are.

Bragging how you got a 34 on the ACT or 1450+ on the SAT for an elite college is like bragging about clubbing a seal

What you're saying doesn't make any sense, do you just enjoy bragging? Hardness of a task only makes sense in the context of who is doing the task. The fact that you scored highly means it was not a hard test for you compared to the average test taker. I could not determine this without the average score.

The fact that the average score for Harvard and similar for other elite colleges for the ACT is 34-35 means that the national average is worthless for the purposes of elite colleges. Majority of people who would even bother to apply for them are basically perfect across the board grades wise, so its worthless to brag about it.

Bar making exams harder, the only other way is subjective methods. I detest subjective methods, but making exams harder is very unpopular

That's fair; I didn't realize you were only refering to the specific context of getting into a top-15 college.

They're not bragging. They're pointing out that the ceiling is dramatically too low, which has caused elite universities to spend decades creating more and more elaborate and more and more detached and meaningless gatekeeping mechanisms. The national average does not matter in the context of the nation's most competitive schools.

Parent already discussed this but at tier-one schools almost everyone (except legacy/athletic of course) has saturated the test score metric. Most applying have a max SAT or ACT. Most have a 4.0+ GPA. A 34 ACT score is in the bottom 40% of MIT applicants as far as I can tell.

The only thing that distinguishes applicants is the soft social stuff.

Japan and South Korea kind of fixed this problem with cram schools and ridiculously overtuned college admission exams. But e.g. KAIST isn’t really comparable to MIT.

So is this the case of final exams being too easy and unis having to adjust around that?

Or is it that way because of some other factors? I was thinking how much of this is because of historical factors; I assume in times before standarised exams it would be a very convinient way of finding new students. But then, I don't know how it was historically in Europe/Asia.

The problem with the SAT is that too many people can score above 1500. In the 1500-1600 range, you might have only made 1-2 mistakes on the entire test -- it's more luck than skill at that point. You could maybe improve things by having a harder test for the elite schools, but the Asian model is not ideal either. I live in Japan, where many kids will spend their evenings in cram school (after a day of regular school) to prepare for the absurdly competitive college entrance exams. As I recall, South Korea actually restricts air travel on the day of their entrance exams so some kids won't be disadvantaged by being distracted by the noise of the overflight.

It's true that this model is more fair, and that's good, but it still feels wrong. There are way too many professions where you're de-facto locked out if you didn't get the right credentials at the right age, regardless of your practical skills. That results in us putting teenagers through these absurd trials for no real reason.

People are so much more than the single number abstracted from 6 hours of exams.

Each university could provide a custom entry exam to ensure the test is unique and difficult enough to not be gamed as easily

> huge missed opportunity for him to write about something else

When you are locked in and have the grindset there is nothing else.

If he absolutely insisted on writing about Cal AI, I would have recommended that he write more about why he was inspired to build it and the human impact. Instead, he just rattled off metrics that admissions officers will likely know from other places in his app.

Talking about grindsets, ARR, DAU and getting up at 4:30am may be seen as good content for a twitter thread, but most grown adults cringe when they read copy and pasted fortune cookie wisdom memes.

I would agree, talking about actual human stuff related to an actually interesting topic was a wasted oportunity. Nobody actually cares what the numbers on the app are, least of all admissions officers.

> His test scores and GPA are average at the schools he applied to.

Average is quite a bit above the floor though, so that just makes it sound like he should have been accepted.

For ever 100 applicants 3 seats are available. If you are "average" amongst the pool of applicants there are 46 better people than you that won't get in either.

Having elite universities scale up the number of seats available can be done. Grow the pie instead of having the current scarcity mindset. This would actually solve much of the current problems. There is no reason you cannot have the same or better quality of education with more students per university. The only reason this problem exists is that by limiting the number of seats you create artificial scarcity and thus higher value.

Just because it doesn't surprise you doesn't mean it's okay. You have to acknowledge that as an admissions consultant you're part of a small gatekeeping community bubble. Even though I attended one of these schools, I can recognize that universities have been rapidly losing their credibility, and this is only going to accelerate that trend. And by the way, this person is probably more accomplished than I am, even though I am now quite a bit older and my essay was apparently good enough to tick off the checkboxes.

The question you need to be asking is how the university system made an enemy out of someone who is clearly one of the most talented members of his age cohort in the nation. That's a failure no matter how hard you try to explain or justify the status quo. It's time for some real accountability and soul searching from the system, not excuses. Trying to nit pick the essay and pointing out how he should have done X or Y instead is completely missing the point.

Interesting context, thanks for sharing. It sounds like college admissions are broken in the same way SWE interviews are broken.

There was an HN story some years ago about the guy who created homebrew -- a Mac app used by a plurality of Google employees -- being rejected from a job at Google. This seems to follow that pattern: it's not enough that you achieve great things and talk/write about your achievement, you have to stroke the egos of people who could have never accomplished what you did, but still have the power to judge you because the bureaucracy has given them that power.

If the $30M ARR number is true, it's not hard to understand why he wants to talk about it as much as possible. Maybe if you come from family money, you can hear that kind of figure and yawn -- but as someone who came from poverty, I can tell you that this is like if the kid built a rocket out of spare parts in his garage and visited the moon. There's no words for how stunning this is, and everything else in his life must seem trivial by comparison.

I can't understand why the admissions officers would rather read an essay about a kid who volunteered at an animal shelter or something. Anyone can do that.

It has been trendy in Silicon Valley recently to use inappropriate accounting methods to measure ARR.

Joe, a regular guy: Makes $120k at his desk job

Joe, the businessman: Made $20k in 32 days, $228k ARR

Joe, who launched 5 months into development and did 60k in the first 2 weeks: $1.5M ARR

In all three of these examples, Joe's financial outcome is the same. This business does not have any longevity, and all of its revenue is from converting paid advertising of various kinds. It's still impressive, but is most likely a >10x exaggeration on even the lifetime revenue he makes from this. Which is of course circular, because the reason he's doing all this is to make a business out of monetising the audience of people who want to make money.

All of this is clever social climbing, but is clever social climbing the thing that should be rewarded by colleges?

um - I would. Colleges don't want to get panned for hiring a scam artist which is exactly what this is. Unlike VC where that skill is slightly revered.

The app is fake - at best its puffery, and the essay was littered with grammatical errors.