I thought this was interesting – I don’t know if this has been posted already on CC.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mollyhensleyclancy/i-saw-my-admissions-files-before-yale-destroyed-them may be a more detailed version for those who can read more than 140 characters at time.
She’s drawing some conclusions without knowing the process. I’m curious how she learned only two got in from the larger Minn public school system, what she knew about the numbers applying from there and how she compared. Plus the kids who applied from non-publics (which includes more than expensive preps.)
Also interesting that one predicted she’d be a “high-impact writer on campus,” and (from Linkedin,) she apparently was active, is now in the field. I don’t think anyone can assume, because she isn’t a first gen, non-white, second language gal, that she wasn’t a good choice.
@ucbalumnus Yes, that version is hotlinked in what I posted. There is also a 4 minute video.
From my perspective it’s not as informative if students who were admitted see their admissions files as it would be for students who were denied admission. Guidance counselors for the “losers” and “winners” from their own school might learn something if they had such access.
I never really thought they checked zip codes so that was interesting. Also that the two reviewers gave her such different scores. When I did admissions as a student rep for grad school (scale of 1-6) we nearly always were very close. The only time we weren’t n synch was when I gave a low score to the daughter of a famous architect who I didn’t think had any real interest in architecture. I was overruled by the two profs who read that folder!
@lookingforward I don’t think she was saying she wasn’t a good choice. Certainly one admissions file is not going to be highly informative about the entire process, and nothing she said was earth-shattering or novel, but it’s interesting. And obviously colleges want to keep the process opaque if they now destroy the files.
@mackinaw I agree. It seems that FERPA gives the right to students to see their own materials, and applicants who weren’t admitted or admitted students who didn’t matriculate wouldn’t fall under that definition.
I found it very interesting, and troubling, that the two readers gave such disparate scores. One would hope that experienced admissions officers would be more in tune. This example (Granted it’s only one data point; I wish that there were more!) illustrates that holistic admissions at highly-selective universities truly is a lottery.
At some schools, if initial two admissions readers give scores that are too different from each other, a third reader is added.
Of course, any subjectively graded process is not 100% repeatable or consistent, although having more readers per application does reduce the “noise” compared to having just one reader per application.
Not a lottery, a context of multiple inputs, different perspectives, and purposely so. And more eyes rest on a file and respond than just the two she saw who rated her. Then, there’s committee.
@ucbalumnus I’ve read that as well. But if I were the dean of admissions, I’d like to dig deeper and try to understand the justification for the disparate scores. That is, was there a bias that needs to be rooted out? Did the readers allocate the same time/effort during evaluation of the applicant?
@lookingforward What do you mean by “more eyes rest on a file”? There MAY be a third reader, as ucbalumnus mentioned, but my understanding is that the committee only hears a summary of the notes and scores, and then there is a show of hands regarding the admissions decision.
I recall a “psychological profile” that I completed for my college, in the summer before I arrived for freshman year. I have no idea what it was used for – obviously not for admission. But imagine if admitted students saw summary scores from such questionnaires.
I also recall 2 specific questions from this.
- Do you like warm furry things next to your skin?
- Who would you betray first, your best friend or your country?
Gawd.
Then again, I remember filling out a health history form for Stanford Law School, after I was admitted (did not attend). And they had one weird question: “Are you missing one kidney or one testicle?” Yes, No. (Imagine if I was missing one of each, or both testicles. How to answer!?)
She’s talking Yale.
Why can’t there be disparate scores? In holistic, there’s a frame but there is no one way, no one formal checklist to view a kid against. That’s the point. (Or part of it.)
Bunnies? 
The college president was not an option?
If you were missing both, then your answer depends on whether you interpret “or” as inclusive-or or exclusive-or. If you were missing two of one kind of organ, then your answer depends on whether you interpret “one” as “exactly one” or “at least one”.
Not that simple, WIYQ. I believe UCB is speaking more to the way the UC does reviews and publicly states so (last time I looked.) At a top private, lots of reviewers can look at a file, depending, and leave comments. In committee, lots of factors are discussed. It’s not necessarily a simple yea or nay or even a show of hands.
@lookinforward You are proving my point about the lottery aspect of admissions. If it’s fine to have disparate scores and to not have a “checklist,” then the following can often occur, based on the subjectivity of the process:
- Both readers agree and give high scores
- Both readers agree and give low scores
- Both readers agree and give mediocre scores
- One reader gives high scores and the other reader gives mediocre or low scores, or vice versa.
The outcomes may differ wildly between 1-4. So, the assessment of the application can be “up to the draw” depending on which readers are assigned to his/her application.
Edit: I was writing this post before #16. If there truly are “lots of reviewers” that look at a file, then I concede that the “noise” in the admission result is less subjective. It’s news to me though that, in committee, there is not ultimately a yes/no decision. The applicant must be rejected or accepted (or possibly waitlisted). Some sort of committee decision is, by definition, necessary, whether it’s by a show of hands or not.
From a practical standpoint, I doubt that there are “lots of readers” for every application. There’s just too many applicants. In the old days at University of Chicago the director of admissions (Ted O’Neill) wrote an article that explained that what happened first was a culling of weak files, which could be done by just one reader. The larger committee didn’t see those files, which were given a code of 5.
Similarly, the especially strong cases, if verified by two initial readers, were not necessarily auto-admit but were set aside for review by the entire committee, and were coded 1. Then the committee as a whole would meet and start with the 1’s and work downward until they had met their target number. Most of the discussion of the entire committee involved the 2, 3, 4 piles of applications, which had been screened by two readers. I’ll see if I can find that old old inside the UofC admissions article. Doubt that I will. But I would venture that something like this is still how it’s done there and at other selective colleges: first identify the 1’s and 5’s, then the real decision work begins. (UofC wasn’t nearly as selective in those years – 1990’s – as it later became.)
Aha! I found the Newsweek article on UofC Admissions that I referred to above. I only went from memory in that post, and for sure got some things wrong. But this may still be informative. LINK: http://www.newsweek.com/inside-admissions-game-164802 P.S. my oldest passed this process in 1996, graduated from UofC in 2000. At the time I “knew” he would be admitted, and seeing this article in 1999 reaffirmed why.