Grad schools all about GPA, LSATs

It sure would be nice to think, as Mr. LeeNatali and the admissions officers quoted suggest, that grad schools look at the "big picture" when admitting students. For the most part, however, it's simply false. Perhaps most glaring is the inclusion of the law school admissions rep, considering a substantial portion each incoming James E. Rogers College of Law class is selected only on the basis of GPA and LSAT scores.

The idea that graduate and professional schools have the time or inclination to thoroughly vet each candidate on the basis of "soft skills" or extracurricular largesse is laughable. Countless grad schools cannot even interview applicants because of the sheer volume. True, you often hear the trope about selecting "the most interesting students," whatever the hell that means. Looking through a few guidebooks, however, you realize two things: One, these folks already have the GPA and test scores in the top percentiles, and two, most of us could not possibly compete with their accomplishments.

What's that, you helped organize a fundraiser for tsunami victims? Well meet Jane Doe here, who established a hospital out of the ruins. Oh, you served in Iraq? Thanks for your service, but Billy here has three purple hearts and single-handedly taught children in Falluja how to read.

Certainly, it would be nice to see a less competitive, more worldly undergraduate class, one more interested in learning than achieving. Unfortunately, those "hyper-focused" students are simply playing the game under the established rules. Moreover, Mr. LeeNatali's admonishment sounds more like the guy we all know who still bugs us to burn the hippie lettuce with him when we're trying to move on with our lives. I may sometimes resent the super-achievers among us, but most of the time I have only grudging admiration. They are what this country is all about, and in no small part why we still dominate the planet. God Bless America!

Matthew Seaton
biochemistry senior

Bollywood more than Hollywood

In response to Mr. Green's ethnocentric article titled "Bollywood," I offer a few important points of clarification for anyone interested in understanding the Bollywood film industry. Firstly, Bollywood is not, and has no desire to be, Hollywood. For the more than 400 million people who live in abject poverty in India, the film industry serves as an important medium for escape. The song and dance routines Mr. Green so plainly mocks hark back to the days of 1940s Hollywood to elicit a dream-like world where for three or so hours people can lose themselves, forgetting the trials of their everyday lives.

Secondly, Bollywood is the largest film industry in the world (by number of films produced each year). While Mr. Green may not be familiar with the names of such famous Indian movie stars as Hrithik Roshan or Sha-Rukh Kahn, they are household names throughout many parts of Africa, the Middle East and all of India. Such actors certainly put the popularity of our most famous American actors to shame.

The shear magnitude of the industry also speaks volumes of its cultural pervasion. The fact that so many people around the world spend a large portion of their disposable income to see the latest feature is a testament to their significance. To equate a single fusion piece of cinema with an entire industry is a bit extreme.

That being said, I encourage viewers of Bollywood cinema to take into consideration its cultural contexts before making brash judgments.

Pankaj Raval
economics and sociology senior