[ghgdynb1]

I get it, and I actually agree that the culture you describe isn't a good look.

What I'm going for is more the idea that if you consider the best alternative I can think of to the "holistic" approach, you get selecting applicants purely based on entrance exam scores. In such a world you'd be punishing a kid who plays with Arduino out of interest. Any energy devoted towards something other than test prep is energy wasted.

In the American system, as I'm coming to see it, the kid who plays with Arduino is punished less. The test won't take you all the way anyways, and you even get a little "refund" on attention sunk into some types of activity which qualify as extracurricular.

[908B64B197]

> In such a world you'd be punishing a kid who plays with Arduino out of interest. Any energy devoted towards something other than test prep is energy wasted.

For course selection too. You'll have students picking out classes because they are known to be easy and not because they are curious about it. Because they have to keep their GPA at a certain level.

[mochomocha]

Yes... It's a balance. I don't think tests-only admissions are the panacea either to be clear. The key problem is how to introduce some level of subjectivity in the admission process without creating doors wide open for corruption or cottage industries to "prep your application" with semi-fake accomplishments demonstrating your "soft skills".

[dkdk8283]

All gatekeepers are subject to corruption. This is a human issue.