I think another way of looking at this is in parallel with Ben Horowitz's dictum, in the context of hiring, to look for strength rather than lack of weakness. I think in school admissions or hiring, there's a trade-off in the end of trying to find the best people in terms of the most impressive lack of weakness in any area versus the most impressive strength in at least one area. The more bureaucratic the process becomes, the more it tends to favor screening for lack of weakness.
There's a corresponding tension on the candidate side in how to prioritize the record of accomplishment one seeks to develop to prepare for a desired school admission or job, in how much effort to devote to shoring up any potential weaknesses versus how much effort to devote to pursuing capabilities and accomplishments centered on one's core competency. Sometimes that choice might take the form of whether to procrastinate less consequential pursuits to focus all one's effort on the most important thing one knows of to work on at that time, and sometimes that neglect of other pursuits can make a difference not just in degree but in kind, like pg talks about in "Good and Bad Procrastination".
The danger is that all college admissions processes are becoming homogenized and over-bureaucratized to the point of excessively screening for lack of weakness, to the point of never fairly considering a candidate's record of profound intellectual accomplishment because all the right boxes on their record aren't checked off, and that students are calibrating their intellectual pursuits accordingly. The glory of MIT in this example is that it avoided that over-bureaucracy of the process at least in this instance.
Obviously you can say well, any really gifted student should devote all necessary effort to a well-rounded education and SAT prep and extra-curricular activities as well as develop clear accomplishments in a core interest, and should be able to do well at it all. There's always a trade-off at some point though; and I think many of the greatest intellectual accomplishments have come from people who didn't consistently devote large chunks of their schedule to a diverse portfolio of widely varying subjects and activities.
There's a corresponding tension on the candidate side in how to prioritize the record of accomplishment one seeks to develop to prepare for a desired school admission or job, in how much effort to devote to shoring up any potential weaknesses versus how much effort to devote to pursuing capabilities and accomplishments centered on one's core competency. Sometimes that choice might take the form of whether to procrastinate less consequential pursuits to focus all one's effort on the most important thing one knows of to work on at that time, and sometimes that neglect of other pursuits can make a difference not just in degree but in kind, like pg talks about in "Good and Bad Procrastination".
The danger is that all college admissions processes are becoming homogenized and over-bureaucratized to the point of excessively screening for lack of weakness, to the point of never fairly considering a candidate's record of profound intellectual accomplishment because all the right boxes on their record aren't checked off, and that students are calibrating their intellectual pursuits accordingly. The glory of MIT in this example is that it avoided that over-bureaucracy of the process at least in this instance.
Obviously you can say well, any really gifted student should devote all necessary effort to a well-rounded education and SAT prep and extra-curricular activities as well as develop clear accomplishments in a core interest, and should be able to do well at it all. There's always a trade-off at some point though; and I think many of the greatest intellectual accomplishments have come from people who didn't consistently devote large chunks of their schedule to a diverse portfolio of widely varying subjects and activities.