This test is absolutely brutal compared to the SAT. Imagine if US students were subjected to three days of testing, eight hours each day, that included all the SAT II subjects plus regular SAT subject matter. Oh, and throw in a whole section on Middle English, too.
In Brazil, you're tested on 10+ subjects, ~half of which are open questions and the other half are multiple choice, plus an essay.
Which subject goes in each of those categories depends on the major you're applying for, so you have to decide what you'll want to study in university at age ~17 (or prior to that, really, when you're 15 in High School so you can focus your studies on the harder questions). For instance, if you want to go to Med School (which is an undergrad course in Brazil), you need to know all things Biology, from Nemathelminthes to the Krebs Cycle. Conversely, if you want to go Law School (also undergrad) or major in History, you'll need to know everything that happened between Plato and Gorbachev including really in-depth stuff on Brazilian history. The problem is, all of the High School classes are the same regardless of your intended exam – you have to learn all of the above for school along with everyone else.
And you get to take the same exam for each university you apply to, meaning you basically spend a year taking exams at various dates for all the good universities. Each major has X number of spots available to candidates, to the top X scores get in. Your extracurriculars, who you are as a person, anything on your resume is irrelevant. All that matters is your score.
Want to switch majors? Gotta drop out, take the exam again and restart your university life.
The SAT by comparison is an absolute joke of an exam
> Your extracurriculars, who you are as a person, anything on your resume is irrelevant. All that matters is your score.
Sounds absolutely brutal. That said, I was caught with the quoted paragraph. Why should your extracurricular hobbies or "you as a person" matter? As far as I see, all that should be considered in university admissions is indeed your test scores.
You'll see the term "well rounded" thrown around a lot in discussions like this. The idea is that elite schools (or even just good ones) can take their pick of academic high-performers, so they seek out students who are more than just academic high performers.
They become very interested in questions like "does this person have volunteer experience that might have exposed them to a worldview larger than themselves?", "do they have a sport or hobby they enjoy which might provide them a boon in mental health?", "have they done anything which would require practical application of skills or collaboration beyond raw book learning?"
The same kind of thing comes up in job interviews all the time. As a hiring manager, I'm of course most interested in whether the candidate can perform the hard requirements of the job as described. But I'd also like signals about whether you're at risk for burnout, whether you might have empathy for differing points of view, or whether you can think on your feet in non-ideal scenarios or whether you'll crumble if a plan changes or a compromise must be found.
People are complex, and well-roundedness is a worthwhile goal on its own for a complex world. There are relatively few scenarios outside of standardized testing where raw academic or technical ability is the exclusive measure of a person.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply, this makes sense to me: if you have books full of top qualifying candidates, it can be beneficial to have a secondary selection criteria.
I'm not familiar with an academic system like this so I can't really comment if it's giving good outcomes vs. purely academic selection. My country is small enough to have a single top tier university and multiple second level institutions, so I'm ingrained with the idea you should choose the best academic candidates from a limited applicant pool.
I think it's more about trying to identify people with self-agency and leadership qualities. Schools generally prefer to have an above-average-intelligence alum who changes the world, over a brilliant alum who retreats from it and gains their satisfaction in life from introverted pursuits like learning things.
College itself is where you get a larger worldview. Requiring people have it already seems like a great way to exclude people trapped by family and financial constraints.
Something similar applies to the UK, at least when I went to university there. Almost everything comes down to exam results on a particular day with (essentially) four years of prep work leading up to that day.
Each university publishes the grades they will accept at a minimum for each major so you essentially choose your major at 17, or really 15 as mentioned above, because you need certain subjects with an “A” result to enroll at the university.
At uni itself, almost all classes are mandatory for a given major with only one or two chances to take an elective. Failing a class at any point usually means either dropping out completely or being moved to a less prestigious major (e.g. “general science” instead of a CS degree).
Because maybe you did something interesting in your young life that others aspire to achieve like: front a popular rock band[0], star in a popular television series[1] or a few movies[2][3], or even change a professional sport [4]?
I'm not sure why you linked to these people though? These achievements may be tales to recite to your grandchildren but none of this should come up in academic entrance decisions. These people have chosen a career in entertainment which is completely orthogonal to higher learning.
Many universities aren't just about academics though. They wouldn't have things like, say, theatre clubs if they were. At some level, universities are about helping to prepare young people for life and a career. Certainly a lot of what I got out of the various degrees I obtained had very little to do with specific courses I took.
Yes, different clubs are common and beneficial, and there's a lot of growing taking place during your uni years. But the parent was linking to professional actors, and I fail to see any relation there. The topic wasn't about admissions to theatrical majors in art universities.
I would much rather learn from somebody who has done it professionally at a very high level than some academic (or worse, a wannabe academic) who is all theory and no results.
You see no value to taking a music theory class with a platinum artist in your discussions on song structure? Or maybe the rock star wants to expand his horizons a bit and is also in your Ethics class discussing the effect of Napster on his ability to afford tuition. Or maybe he sits next to you in Econ and wants to use his experience in the music biz as the basis for your group project. etc, etc...
Forget the exam nerds, I'll take the real players every time. YMMV
I'm all for rock stars expanding their horizons if they score better than those nerds. Though the education is even in that case likely better invested in the student aiming to get a career in the field, rather than in a rock star's recreational studies.
The "real players" could also visit as guest lecturers on your music theory class, assuming they have good enough merits on the subject.
At least a couple of them were English Lit majors. But I don't really disagree that well-known actors who attended university off and on are really the best examples.
That said, you might be surprised at the number of people who even go to a school like MIT and end up in journalism or something else that isn't obviously related to what you associate the school with.
>Why should your extracurricular hobbies or "you as a person" matter?
They certainly do at elite US schools. The logic is that there's no shortage of students who could handle the academic work but Harvard or even MIT aren't looking just to admit the students who did best on an exam.
Added: The way it at least used to be done (and I assume this still applies at least somewhat) was that quantitative academic scores are used to set something of a floor but, beyond that, they were just one of the factors that went into admissions decisions. (With weights and other considerations doubtless varying by school.)
My understanding is AP test results are usually used to grant credit for college classes, and not as an admission requirement? I guess it could be a factor in admissions, too, but I recall mostly people doing it to get a bit of a head start towards graduation, rather than to get a better shot at admission. (People passing AP tests are likely to get in _somewhere_, even if not their first choice)
What do you take issue with? The first two are clearly factual. AP tests are limited to a single subject and are 2-3 hours in length.
My comment on grading is also pretty objective, imo. Your AP score is 1-5. And the curve is crazy; when I took AP Physics C E&M I would have gotten a 5 whether I scored 60% or 100%. When reported, though, nobody will know what percentage of the points you scored. OTOH gaokao scores are reported in full.
