A fair glance at all.
Why assume 20 readers? Harvard, last year around 43k apps. In the past (when closer to 32k,) they admitted to a pool of 50+ reviewing. And some of us feel, at H, up to 50% don’t make it past first cut (which is not a “quick glance.”) The Ivy I know best just about doubles it’s staff, in review season.
No, that’s not Purdue. But Purdue has nearly 30 employed reps, to begin with. Add in some faculty and seasoned extra readers. Call it ten weeks (say, mid-Dec thru Feb.) 53k/30 reps/50 days = 35/day. Reality is, many work weekends during this time. And most of the year 'round AO’s will complete a large proportion of their first reviews before the final deadlines, to allow second reads (sometimes more) by another staffer Of course, they lose time in meetings, re-reading apps/notes to cull for the smaller number they will recommend in committee, and those committee meetings. Etc. But that’s just counting the 30 FT reps, not the extra.
Most apps are double read, a “second read.” But that doesn’t translate to 220/per staffer/day.
220/day for 12 5-day weeks x 20 reps would be 250,000+ apps.
Why assume and pull random numbers?
As it is, too many kids never hit what makes them a match, assume it’s just like getting high school accolades or that lightning will strike…or, as on CC, that it’s all a crapshoot, so why take the time to expore deeper than what the kid wants.