Let's hope the "tiger mothers" don't get their hands on this!
Harvard even played down the difficulty of its entrance exam in ads, reprinted above, that it placed in The New York Times in September 1870, noting that of the 210 candidates who took its test the June before, “185 were admitted.”
In other words, nearly seven out of eight candidates who sat for the exam made the cut, a statistic that few selective colleges these days would pay money to broadcast.
What is the reason that when different powers of the same quantity are multiplied together their exponents are added?
If I wanted to attack legacy admissions, I'd do it by looking at how many women are included in that category; my intuition says damn few.
One thing that struck me about coming to study in the US was that so much of it seems to be tested through these little multiple choice bubble screens, with scores often normalised against a class distribution, and good students expected to score Bs or As (ie, >80% or so) by answering all of the relatively simpler and less complex questions and using triage strategies to select the best responses within limited time.
I'm pretty sure he's referring to entrance exams, which would SAT+SATII+Personal bullshit essays.
with scores often normalised against a class distribution, and good students expected to score Bs or As (ie, >80% or so)
« Older Mad as Hell | master of information Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments