<p>I’m not sure that making the initial cut would necessarily reduce stress, but isn’t the college (and others) effectively doing that with its “don’t worry, you’re in” letters? </p>
<p>I think admissions dept must be aware that essays are heavily “enhanced” by parents and in my town by former admissions reps. Interviews would be much more effective. The technology already exists to interview the finalists - it’s called skype and arrangements could be for students who don’t have internet at home. Yes that would stressful but effective to really see how student thinks on his/her feet. </p>
<p>I propose the following - keep ED and RD but offer ES (early screening) who submit at the same time as EA and get their screening results the same time as EA. Same app but no supplemental essay. This will cut down the obvious 50% who will never get in. Those students can focus their efforts on other other options. </p>
<p>Also using admission staff is always better than alumni who do not always represent the college in the best light. My son has had two interviews this season where the alums were lets say “quirky”. </p>
<p>Essays - some enhanced and some others not so - all contribute to unfair representation of the candidates. I felt essays are seen as poor replacement for a FaceTime and alumni interview does not seem to help nor they have much weight it seems. Interview by admissions officers is the best and it is not happening due to cost considerations. Pre screen or multi tier or short list - whatever the label - helps manage the cost and meets the true intent of “knowing the candidate better”. Additionally, Essays as a prompt just ahead of interview (on site and time constrained) might represent the true thinking of the candidate - eliminates the many edits and contributions from others - should be an exercise in articulating thoughts of the candidate and candidate alone.</p>
<p>@AboutTheSame: the Likely Letters are a very small and focused marketing tool. These are sure admits. I think the discussion has focused on the broader group that makes the first cut and merits further discussion, albeit still, many rejections.</p>
<p>I think there’s misunderstanding here. Basic misunderstanding of what adcoms look for- and how it shifts as you move up the tiers. Adcoms and interviewers are judging you against that college’s standards and needs. </p>
<p>How are essays unfair representation? You wrote it, you submitted it. Even when friends and family “enhance” your essay, that is no guarantee they got the point. Now you want adcoms to tell you you are on the right track? Think about what you are asking for. </p>
<p>And, it’s not all about stats. Without the writing, all you get is a shell.<br>
So, what was quirky about the interviews?</p>
<p>I rather not say on what made them quirky. They mean well although some will admit they do it to help their kids get in. </p>
<p>From all the feedback, it is an imperfect process with no easy fixes. I will predict the use of skype interviews will come sooner than we realize - for better or worse. </p>
<p>We already have skype and telephone interviews.<br>
I’m wondering what level of colleges you mean. </p>
<p>Lookingforward - you must be an “adcom”. It’s this entrenched mentality that creates the problem. Too many adcom jobs and college counselor jobs at stake to have any real change. My son applied to 12 schools (five elites). No requirement for online interview. Time to dump the stupid “prompts” and create a more rationale admission process. </p>
<p>The entrenched mentality I see is that all this just can’t be figured out; that stats should be key; that, hey, we over here know Bobby is a super kid, why isn’t that enough? </p>
<p>Best wishes to your son. </p>
<p>I personally think the experience of writting essays and marketing himself was invaluable and worth every penny of application fee. He is now reusing some of these essays with a few changes for scholarship apps. All these schools are stretch schools for him. Only top 2% of class and only 2200 on SAT and mid 700s on Subject tests. The only “elite” schools my son applied to were the ones that he was actually interested in going to. He was not impressed with Harvard’s music program so he didn’t apply. He did not like the campus or the culture “feel” at Cornell so he didn’t apply. The essay prompt for Williams turned him off so even though he wrote it he decided that he didn’t fit into this kind of school so didn’t apply. He seemed to love Princeton and Amherst and liked Dartmouth so he applied to all of these. He thought MIT would be interesting so he applied there. If he does get in he also wants to see what “2nd tier or even 3rd tier” schools offer him for money before making a choice. </p>
<p>We understand that he really doesn’t stand a chance of getting into any of these schools. But that small hope pushed him to apply and push himself a bit, for that I am thankful. </p>
<p>An interesting side effect was that I think his essays were actually better because he knew that the chances were low so he was a lot less stressed about what the school thought. </p>
<p>@tinnova: How is this multistage approach funded, how is it scheduled, who resources it, and what is its impact on diversity?
- While it might enable some cost avoidances, I find it very difficult to believe that a multiple tier approach would not be more complex, more difficult to administer and adjudicate, and impose greater burdens on both the institutions and on some of the potential applicants (and their families). Further, if total costs (substantial overheads and management expenses – interview time and travel will be significant – certainly must be included) were to increase (and since university budgeting tends to be a “zero sum game”), what would you suggest be forfeited to accommodate these additional expenses (financial aid, faculty compensation and support . . .)?
- How would your multi-tier proposal integrate with standard secondary school schedules (possibly beginning is the sophomore year)?
- Who would operate this approach? Admissions offices have already grown steadily, they are expensive, AND part-time workers with the requisite backgrounds would, I suspect, be difficult to attract or retain (how many individuals, who are intellectually qualified to work in elite undergraduate admissions, would accept a “work like hell” from September to March, but then we shall furlough you five or six months approach?). Further, alumni volunteers are terrific and usually very bright/well-qualified, but you probably can’t ask them to do these – many mandatory eliminations – interviews.
- Finally, would this lead to a much more arbitrary “by the numbers” approach, would kids who fail to meet specific GPA and standardized test requirements simply be eliminated – without interviews, essays, recommendations, etc. – likely well before their senior year? Is that fair? Is that smart, in the long-run? Will it adversely impact diversity? Further, how will these institutionally-mandated GPA/SAT/ACT thresholds be viewed by the important constituencies and by the courts?</p>
<p>(T26E4 largely nailed it)</p>