Also, the stickness of the promotion in your comment, sounds pretty random too. In the end, the proposition of "... using random processes to mitigate the pathological effects of deterministic models is extremely solid..." seems to hold.
Doesn't being good at resume building, making an impression via various mediums (essays, CVs, interviews..) imply being good at the things required for being "successful" in many of the success-rich arenas (Politics, large companies, the NGO world, etc.)? If someone will work for some charity to suck up to a power-broker to get an internship to put on a resume to get into a college also likely to figure out how to do the equivalent for an executive position 20 years later?
The way I see it, you are presenting these kids with a puzzle. You're not telling them its a puzzle. You're telling them its not a puzzle. Some call it a puzzle & solve it. Some call it a puzzle & cry foul. Some don't call it a puzzle & solve it anyway. Some don't call it a puzzle & don't solve it. Which is most likely to be a judge in 40 years?
*I'm not American & never went through a US style admissions process so I just view it curiously. I imagine that if I had, I would dislike it more.
/cringe
