<p>I've read many accounts from elite schools that state that every single application is read and I'm having a hard time believing it. Do they count the student worker who calculates the academic index as a reader? </p>
<p>I'm just having a hard time believing that the schools with admit rates in the teens take the time to read essays and teacher recommendations of kids with SAT and gpa well below the average. </p>
<p>How can one possible know the answer to this? Might the MIT reader just skip the file of the 2.2 GPA applicant at 4:50PM one afternoon? Sure? Who knows?</p>
<p>I’m guessing the officers go through the application in rounds. Like, first, they skim over all of the applications just so they can throw out anyone who REALLY doesn’t stand a chance (terrible essay, low scores, etc.). A second round comes along and the applicant’s objective scores are placed within the context of whatever situation the have. Those who are cut are those who the reviewer believes they’ll have a hard time in their classes or who’s
Scores aren’t up to par. 4th round is the person who sits down and writes a summary of your application, writing what they believe were hooks and any other important things. They’ll summarize your essay, ECs, etc. finally, the scores and summary are sent to a board room to be reviewed one final time. </p>
<p>Once again, this is all my theory. It was based off of the Amerherst “inside the admissions office” video (or something along those lines</p>
<p>^^there is no evidence for this at all at Amherst and other colleges that disclose the process, In the book that describes the process at Wesleyan (The Gatekeepers), there are usually 2 readers. Each classifies the application as ++, ±, -+ and --. The ++ from 2 readers get admitted after the dean looks them over, the – get denied. The rest get presented at committee. Brown also has 2 readers but they say all files go to committee.</p>
<p>Although I believe all files get handed out (assuming the student meets requirements.) It is possible for a reader to spend only 8 minutes or so on one before moving on. </p>
<p>A friend of mine has done alumni interviews for MIT for years. A group of long term interviewers were invited up by the admissions office one weekend to discuss the process. The alumni interviewers were challenged to rank three applicants and given only 10 minutes each to review the entire application. He was told that was about how long they spent on each application in the first round.</p>
<p>Ten minutes per app is still 5000 hours for a schools with 30,000 applications, just for initial reads. It must feel overwhelming. </p>
<p>The big schools have a lot of readers and regional admissions officers. My impression is that regional boundaries are created based on historical numbers of applications. It’s still a big job, but manageable.</p>
<p>A school may have a reader spend an average of 10 minutes on each application. But a reader might spend only 10 seconds reading an application where the highest academic credentials are a 1.8 HS GPA and a 15 ACT score.</p>
<p>It isn’t one person reading the application, though. If there are 25 readers, that’s 200 hours per person to read each application at least once, so about 5 weeks @ 40 hours per week. (and I gather they may work longer hours to get through.) 50 readers could read 30,000 apps twice in the same 5 weeks. I have read of people hired as assistants, or readers, for admissions offices. </p>
<p>At something like $50 per application, they have funds to hire readers. After the first go-through, all applications with less than a certain score are declined, so it isn’t 30,000 x 4 readers each. </p>
<p>^ I realize that it’s split between many readers. I guess they’re counting the hired guns who essentially do clerical work filling out GPA, rigor, testing rankings for the front of the file as a “read.” If you’ve read any of the books on admissions, Rachel Toor, Michelle Hernandez, et al, you know what I mean.</p>
<p>I just don’t think that’s what most kids are thinking when they think about being “read carefully.” I suppose that first read is mainly a stats check, from which the viable candidates are culled.</p>
<p>I’ve read those two books–but they were published before the internet age. I can’t find a description online, but surely the Common App has a user interface for the colleges? So all the clerical work would be done automatically by the Common App. </p>
<p>Are there even paper files anymore? </p>
<p>Even if they’re “hired guns,” because these are college towns, many of them may have ties to the college, like faculty spouses, grad students, etc. The “hired guns” may have years of experience. </p>
<p>Re Amherst, an interview with the adcom’s director revealed that as of 2006, they statistically group the applicants from 1 to 7, with 7 bring inadmissible. I doubt they read those, and I doubt they spend much time on other low-ranked groups unless there is a major hook. He said they’ll go as low as 1200 on for football and hockey players. </p>
<p><a href=“Bloomberg - Are you a robot?”>Bloomberg - Are you a robot?;
<p>I couldn’t find the article I read about Williams similarly sorting applicants into groups based on stats. Ironically, the Amherst admisdions director above was a Williams alum. Somehow not surprising. </p>
<p>I wonder how an SAT optional school like Bowdoin sorts its pile. </p>
<p>Here’s an article on the admissions process from a 2005 Williams alumni magazine:
<a href=“Williams Alumni Review”>http://ephblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/recipe.htm</a></p>
<p>From the article:
“Two readers examine each folder independently, without seeing each other’s comments, and assess them in three major ways. Each applicant gets an academic rating from 1 to 9 that focuses heavily on his or her high school grades, standardized test scores, the rigor of his or her academic program within the context of the school setting and the strength of teacher recommendations. Then there is a non-academic rating from 1 to 6, assessing a student’s level and length of involvement in school and outside activities. … If the first and second readers’ academic ratings differ by more than a point, they put their heads together to try to reach a consensus rating. In general, all applicants with a combined academic rating of 3 or higher are rejected at this point, unless the first and second readers have identified one or more “attributes” that warrant additional consideration.”</p>
<p>So basically, unless you’re an Academic 1 or 2 (or if you have an attribute like recruited athlete or URM), you are an automatic reject.</p>
<p>I’ve said it many times before - I wish colleges would be much more honest. Enough of this foolishness that everyone has a chance - if you’re not a 1 or 2, you’re rejected after an initial screen by two readers. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Where do you hear that? I get that brochures go to the vast crowd but it’s caveat emptor. Given the easy access of the common data set, if a 3.0GPA student with a 25 ACT applies to CalTech and plunks down his app fee and likely ignores his guid counselor’s raised eyebrows or more direct " you shouldn’t apply there" talks, what can you say?</p>
<p>I vividly tell audiences that they should ONLY apply to my Ivy alma mater if they, after doing careful research and comparison of their own academic history and if they’re considered in the top handful of students in the building right now AND they want to undergo the rigorous app process, they decide it’s worth it. Besides that, I tell them they should not waste resources to submit a “wild shot in the dark” application. But season after season, kids think the admissions committees will be asleep when their file is discussed and they’ll miraculously get in, fooling everyone.</p>
<p>I’ve met/interviewed some of these kids. I wish them well but I wonder if they could tell you where Harvard or Penn or Stanford are located on the US map.</p>
<p>Go speak to the guidance counselors. They’ll tell you jaw-dropping stories of students & parents who insist on multiple apps to unrealistic/unaffordable school after school w/o any safeties or realistic schools.</p>
<p>Could the colleges be more honest? Sure. I’ll agree with you there. But students need to be more honest as well.</p>
<p>All I have to do is look at my school’s naviance data and see that nearly half of applicants to one particular Ivy have sub2000 SAT. None are admitted. I asked the gc about it and she said, “We can only counsel, we can’t prevent them from applying.” </p>