<p>I mean, there has to be some way to narrow it down. I remember at one ‘admitted student’s day’ me and my son sat down at lunch and the admissions director sat down across from us. He told us a lot about admissions and how it’s done.</p>
<p>Pretty much, lets say the university wants an incoming freshman class of 3,500 students. From their experience, they know (on average) they can get a class this size if they admit, say 8,000 students. Some will choose to go elsewhere, some will get arrested or otherwise lose their spot, etc… Now they might receive 12,000 applications, and unless it is a prestigious school, many more then 8,000 of these applications might fit their criteria. Some of these might automatically get accepted, they have been eyed by the couch as the new star running back, or they exceed the standards enough that it would be crazy to not admit them. But many are qualified, but not qualified to stick out enough. these are subjugated to the whole subjective process. Someone likes your essay on how you shot your first deer more then the girl who wrote how she started an anti-hunting club in preschool but had a .2 lead in GPA? She’s out just because the admissions officer reading her essay is an avid hunter. You should never be so set on one school that if you don’t get in you will be devastated.</p>
<p>Let’s divide people into two groups: those who take this article as gospel because, after all, it was in Daily Beast, and those who know a little better. Hype garners attention.</p>
<p>Really? I would not be surprised if most US universities that are selective (i.e. not the 4% or so that most of the discussion on these forums tends to focus on) use something similar to this type of system by combining high school grades and/or rank with the scores from huge national exams (SAT or ACT) in some formula, then take the top however many they need to fill the class (or separately by division or major) based on expected yield.</p>
<p>Frankly, the thing that scared me the most about the article was the fellow who said that it was really important to be “likeable.” I have an Asperger’s kid who is, quite frankly, not everybody’s cup of tea. I can’t really imagine how one might go about ‘packaging’ my kid to make him more likeable and appealing. I’ve actually thought about trying to get him to wear some clothes to the interviews that scream ‘fun and funky’ rather than ‘stiff and uptight’ and I imagine we will do some practice interviewing with family members and the like so that maybe he can catch himself if he starts perseverating about something obscure, but I live in fear that he’ll be interviewed by some jock who tries to break the ice by talking about the hometown team or something, and my child will say something like “Actually, I don’t give a crap about sports.” And after that, I imagine, it will be all over . . .</p>
<p>I thought I would simply correct a mistake in the daily beast opinion piece (this is an acceptable link on CC, I thought they had to be authoritative?).</p>
<p>Anyway, while China does have the gaokow exam which is the most rigorous standardized test in the world (you can find sample questions out there on the web if you wish to feel stupid, or at least I sure did), it is not true that it is completely objective.</p>
<p>If you are from certain cities your entrance exam score can be lower. This is true for Beijing and Shanghai and it drives many students in other cities crazy as 1 point on the exam can make the difference between getting in or not. See New York Times articles for how utterly crazy the stress is about this exam. Businesses close and parents rent luxury rooms for their child ((remember they only get one so the pressure is even more intense)) near the exam centers).</p>
<p>In addition, China has its own affirmative action programs. Minority students (non Han) are given extra points. This is true, for example, of Tibetan students, so the blanket condemnation of the Chinese government’s treatment of this group, at least from this single perspective, is more open than in the US. California, and some other States, have forbidden the use of race in admission.</p>
<p>The “likeability in an interview” thing and the “need to be well packaged” thing are probably why I encountered some extremely bright math majors in college at a state school (back then, it was nowhere near as selective as now, and admitted half the class by grade and test score formula at the time) who probably would never have passed an interview at a super selective college (unless they got lucky and were interviewed by a mathematician). By “bright”, I mean the kind of student taking graduate level math courses as sophomores or juniors (maybe even freshmen).</p>
<p>it is just like HR @ a company! they need to hire one data entry clerk and they get 150 people apply! so first people’s resume get sorted on a first come first serve, then they call 10 or so to interview ( the rest of the resumes never get read) then they choose the a person. maybe the best person ever had the resume left unread.</p>
<p>colleges like harvard get a ton of 4.0 gpa, near perfect or even perfect SAT , president of this and that. what are they to do? they have certain quotas to fill, then after that each officer has a handful of files to look at every hour and they decide based on their own bias or mood. even the order they looked at them or they will strike someone out of jealousy etc ( I was jealous of that type of person in high school, so I will take it out on this applicant)…that is called life! much of it is random!</p>
<p>I think your comments are right on target. I had lunch yesterday with a dean of a highly selective university and we talked quite a bit about who reads applications. It is a source of concern to the faculty at that particular school that few math/science types choose to go into the admission profession. I have heard this in a number of places around the country.
Thank you for raising this important issue.</p>
<p>Think one major diff between some HR company and Harvard is in the latter you have to actually pay to get your app read. For them to not even read it or take it seriously would be more like theft. That thing about the Buffalo apps also makes me sick. Should be fired.</p>
<p>Just as there is no evidence the Buffalo comment was accurate, there is also no proof adcoms universally do not take apps seriously. This is playing on fears. What one reads or hears should be filtered with some addl info, no? Or, at least, questioning.</p>
<p>@steellord321 I totally agree, if the Buffalo story is true. We all work hard for 4 years of our lives, and for the admissions officer to just toss it aside is disrespectful.</p>
<p>Some colleges probably have multiple admissions officers reading applications, to reduce the subjectivity in the process. But alas that probably costs alot, especially for highly selective schools where many applicants just apply for the hell of it. </p>
<p>Perhaps another way to sort through all the applications with multiple reviewers would be for current students to review them as well. The important thing would be reduce identifiable information. For example, assign a code to each high school, etc…</p>
<p>I am sure we have all run into the situation where someone you know informs you that (Not-Great-Student) just got into (Highly Selective University).</p>
<p>And our first reaction (to ourselves) is always “What!?”</p>
<p>And the reverse happens too. Your acquaintance’s child with the 4.0 GPA and very high SAT score and all the extracurricular activities and yet doesn’t get into Highly Selective U.</p>
<p>It happens. College officials will say there is an art and science to admissions. Maybe more like the “dark arts.” ;)</p>
<p>Highly selective colleges have multiple readers, in order to get multiple perspectives. Decisions are based on the pool of reactions, by a group. Yes, it costs, which is why I personally object to kids applying scattershot to so many schools.</p>
<p>What most people focus on is “We all work hard for 4 years of our lives…” What most don’t realize is that even tippy top kids have trouble pulling together a good app. You don’t get into a great college as some reward for your hs years. You get in because they see the great potential you have at that college, based on what it values.</p>
<p>Note that the institutional goals are different from that of private universities using more opaque and less consistent and repeatable processes.</p>
<p>I can’t take this article too seriously when TWO unnamed admissions officers both say they got food poisoning in Buffalo and then rejected all Buffalo applicants the next day. One person saying this is pretty hard to believe. Two people reporting this makes me think that part is something that the writer made up.</p>
<p>^ I saw that quote attributed to 2 adcoms too, Earthpig. Thought it was maybe an error in the article (?) But it definitely cast doubt on the whole story IMO</p>