Okay ... well, I'm trying here. Really, I am. But you are laying out these rambling, desultory streams of random anecdotes without apparent thought given to any particular line of argument. and coming up with these really weird takes regarding what I'm writing -- I certainly didn't say Eastern was better than WSU, and that litany of colleges was in order of increasing prestige (with a big jump) to emphasize implicitly that it wasn't necessary for the fisherman or car lot owner to have attended any of them, with it intentionally getting more ridiculous as one went down the list -- and pretending not to understand, or maybe really not understanding, any of the points I made about the irrelevance of your prior set of anecdotes.
This latest anecdote of a guy who is a CEO of a biotech company is interesting (and a nice story), but it's not clear what it demonstrates. Have you considered any of these?
- For every anecdote you can come up with of a person who was admitted to something despite bad grades, or who went to WSU and wasn't an abject failure despite a bad college GPA, one could come up with myriad examples of failures and misallocated resources. They just aren't spoken of or noteworthy because they are numerous and comport with common sense and experience. That's why the standards exist in the first place. E.g., my roommate freshman year had mediocre credentials, made it in at WSU, and then flunked out. Lots of people in my high school had shitty grades and have done nothing with their lives. So what? What if one of them had turned it around, went to a community college, transferred to WSU, graduated with 2.5 GPA, then parlayed a car sales job into owning multiple car lots and retiring at 50? Does that mean colleges need more people with subpar grades or that WSU needs to prioritize kids from community colleges who can scrape by in college? Does Harvard? What about the kids with good grades who do, in fact, do very well in life? I deal with dozens of them each day. What are you trying to argue?
- What if the biotech CEO, ironically, had a good GRE score offset the poor grades?
- What if the person who wasn't admitted to the grad program, with that guy who now is the biotech CEO taking her spot, would have cured cancer?
- What if this biotech CEO we're talking about wouldn't have had a drug candidate work out and nobody would have heard of him? What does that show?
- Should Harvard just swap classes with WSU because some people at WSU will do OK in life, even as fishermen or something? I mean, seriously, WTF?
I could list about 10,000 other things here ranging from global competition to predictors of success in college, or give you a million anecdotes about people I've dealt with.
Most importantly, and really, this is all you really need to respond to .... what exactly are you arguing for? That the SAT shouldn't be part of an application, even if all this other stuff you are advocating for would still be considered? What is your proposition you're advocating?