Recommended for you

When UCSD’s set evaluation system first introduced its algorithmic weighting for interdisciplinary projects, I thought I’d mastered the game. I’d spent years dissecting systems—engineering, finance, even behavioral psychology—believing clear rubrics could tame complexity. But failure, as they say,

…became my unexpected lesson in systems beyond math. The algorithm scored my collaborative design project not by technical rigor alone, but by how well it communicated intent across disciplines—something no rubric could fully capture. I learned that real understanding thrives not in perfect scores, but in the messy exchange between logic and empathy. Though I failed the class, the experience taught me to value intuition as much as indicators, and to see failure not as a flaw, but as a signal to adapt. UCSD’s sets may map points and hierarchies, but life’s true value lies in what they don’t measure.

You may also like