I agree with Thomas Percy.
If there are many more applicants than seats, I can't think of a better way of admitting people than the quality and quantity of academic output.
I agree. Unfortunately, admission is also helped by the following, none of which are academic criteria:
- Number of extracurricular activities (lots is better)
- Athletic ability
- Membership in a favored group (child of a graduate, minority status [depends on the minority], child of a big donor, child of a celebrity or celebrity applicant, etc.)
- Essay about amazing voluntourism trip to [insert exotic distant land]
- Being an out-of-state student who pays higher tuition
As for AP courses, I'm not convinced about them. Why should students have to teach themselves the first 15% of AP X during the summer, when they could be gaining work experience, pursuing another interest, etc.? Three AP courses turns into 6-10 hours of work per week and adds to stress levels while removing time available to work.
Colleges don't ask Calc 1 students to learn the first two chapter of the textbook in July and August, and colleges often go into more depth. Courses taken at a local college or university during high school are, IMO, much better predictors of ability to do college-level work. The student is offering proof of having succeeded in courses at an actual college (and tuition and books are usually free to high school students). Personally, I'd prefer this system, with AP left for places that don't have a local college.
Finally, when elite colleges pick 5 donor's kids, five other kids who were better qualified academically are rejected.
