The academic index equation---probably the most crucial part of the article---could have been more clearly explained with, well, an equation (or two). Instead, it is a 626x752px image of words and arrows and nested fractions, and there's a colored box with ordinal numbers spelled out, and it's oriented vertically. Not to mention that the whole thing is a jpeg, so it's full of compression artifacts. Avoiding equations is not only unclear, it may even discourage scientific literacy.
Comments
The academic index equation---probably the most crucial part of the article---could have been more clearly explained with, well, an equation (or two). Instead, it is a 626x752px image of words and arrows and nested fractions, and there's a colored box with ordinal numbers spelled out, and it's oriented vertically. Not to mention that the whole thing is a jpeg, so it's full of compression artifacts. Avoiding equations is not only unclear, it may even discourage scientific literacy.
I find it amusing how a 240 AI is spun to be impressive in this article. Then you see the academic numbers and they're laughable.
What? Unless I'm misinterpreting http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/12/25/sports/25ivy-GF..., it seems that a 4.0 GPA and a 2400 on the SAT doesn't even get you a 240. How is a 240 AI "laughable"?
Sorry, I meant 210. 1300 sat. 4.0 high school inflated gpa. That's the article's example of a smart athlete that miraculously is rejected.