At some point when stymied in my career I thought of getting an MBA. I plunked down (while pulling shifts in an exhausting job) with a 20 dollar GMAT prep book and studied for three months. Got 760 out of 800, first try. No fancy tutoring.
This after in high school I never got high grades, because I learn best independently.
This in a sense is the American model, which believes in redemption at any stage. The SAT, GMAT, etc are a great meritocratic leveler.
The European model rarely includes such tests, preferring a much more conformist system which prioritizes early tracking.
I didn't go for the MBA in the end, mainly because it was not really my dream.
The main drawback of the US system is that the main limiter is financial, rather than social.
Well, of course he's still more privileged than others but he definitely makes a point.
While rich kids do get an edge with private tutoring and other support from their parents, well designed standardized tests allow intelligent + hard working candidates without many resources to get in.
If only CV and grades matter, the system is way more rigged in favor of the rich kids.
I think the issues of privilege are worth considering, but I think they’re not the only dimension worth thinking about.
Consider this hypothetical. You’ve got two equally wealthy kids who go to the same private school, take all the same classes, and take the same SAT prep class.
Kid 1 has a perfect GPA and a 90th percentile SAT score. Kid 2 has perfect SAT score and a 90th percentile GPA. If there’s only one spot, which kid should a college admissions office pick?
I didn't go for the MBA in the end, mainly because it was not really my dream.
The main drawback of the US system is that the main limiter is financial, rather than social.