<p>I am wondering if any of you plugged in parents such as Interested Dad etc can anwer this question. With schools such as Amherst or Middlebury getting more than 7000 applications for so few spots how do the admin staff sift through that many applications and give them a fair and thorough review? I am not asking what type of kid gets in,rather what is the process? Are kids assigned a numeric ranking versus other applicants eg a 1 thru 4 rank? What is the basis of ranking? Do the staff have a formula to assign a rank? Then how is top rank winnowed down?</p>
<p>If any of you Admin Deans see this or folks knowledgeable about the process can shed some light it would be educational. It just amazes me that 7000 plus applications can get a thorough and fair review. Thanks for the insight.</p>
<p>Dana's dad-- The Gatekeepers, by Jacques Steinberg, gives a detailed account of the picking of the 2004 class of Wesleyan. It will give you a lot of answers to your questions. Steinberg was given total access to the decision process that year, including following closely the stories of several students.</p>
<p>My eldest graduated Amherst in 2005, so I know just a bit about their process. I am serious, I know just a bit, because it is rather mysterious. But in some combination of what I've read and he heard: one reason Amherst chooses to refrain from ALL interviews of candidates is to totally devote their admission staff time to the app reading process each year. One person is assigned to each student's file and becomes an expert on it, in order to "pitch" it to the rest of the team, while a second back-up reader also reads it just in case anything is forgotten. Although there are some students who have the "perfect SAT/perfect GPA etc." they do NOT create a school full of these kinds of applicants. There's a kind of triage: one pile is for the "perfect scorers" whom one can presume will excel academically at Amherst or anywhere else. Another pile is for those very good scorers who offer much in the way of community contribution. Students at Amherst are all encouraged to do many extracurricular activites to create "college community" when there, so of course that aspect of a candidate's past really matters. They might, for example, end up favoring someone with lesser SAT's if they are outstanding in choral music, because they have a beautiful choir to fill...etc. There's a third group in this triage that at first seems surprising once admitted; perhaps there SAT's or GPA were low, but they offer something so special and needed within the community that it trumps the stat problem. In addition, they are "need blind" and well endowed financially so they sincerely cultivate diversity of race, geography and economic background. That's about all I've ever been able to glean about their process. Somehow, their system works for them, because the student body is capable, friendly, community-minded and with a relaxed sense of humor that is very pleasant, in my opinion. They maintain attention to sports in order to continue to attract 50% men and women; they are very proud of that statistic because some LAC's struggle to attract enough men. When compared to big universities, Amherst came to the conclusion that simply disbanding their football team would be a big mistake. Parents questioning sports budgets were told, "We have to keep offering things that attract boys if you like this 50-50 boy/girl ratio."</p>
<p>Check out the PBS website and do a search on "Amherst admissions". They did a segment on the process at Amherst, including a look inside the decision-making committee.</p>
<p>You mean Amherst admissions is not a "pure" meritocracy? (<em>Gasp</em>) Why that biased, racist committee -- deliberately setting out to exclude certain groups.;)</p>
<p>Thank you, btw, for your informative post! Very interesting. Confirms what some of us have also heard, but this is in more detail & thus quite valuable.</p>
<p>"Parents questioning sports budgets were told, "We have to keep offering things that attract boys if you like this 50-50 boy/girl ratio."</p>
<p>Horse-patooey. With 7,000 applicants for 350 places or whatever it is, all they'd lose is a little bit in their average alcohol consumption. More than 30% of the class is made up of intercollegiate athletes, and you can be sure that while they might do without that alto with the lovely voice, they will never go without a quarterback. Admissions begin with the scholar-athletes, and, when recruitment is successful, most are admitted ED.</p>
<p>"Actually, website adddress has shifted."</p>
<p>Funny, that's the one I visited. But here's a new on:</p>
<p>Quoting Mini
"While biased, this article from the Williams Alumni Review is likely as close as you are ever going to get."</p>
<p>Cynical Mini... I'm shocked you didn't see right through the admissions fluff. That article was written primarily to impress alumns with how selective Williams has become, not to portray the "real admissions" process.</p>
<p>Truth be told, once you get outside of the HYP range, admissions is fairly easy to predict if you know the relative selectivity of the school. Applicant pools at SAT optional colleges are filled with kids "who don't test well", but are "really bright." Most of these kids will not be admitted, save a few football players and legacies. Above the "SAT optional college" rung lies the Williams, Amhersts, and Swarthmores. For the most part, admissions decisions made by these schools are fairly straightforward. Once you get above the 1550 threshold, students are almost always admitted unless 1) Their evilness was somehow exposed in their application 2) They have poor grades 3) Admissions suspects that they will enroll elsewhere. </p>
<p>The extent to which Number 3 occurs depends largely on the eagerness of the adcoms to "investigate" where else their applicants have applied. Some institutions contain adcoms who are notorious for snooping, while others are morally opposed or simply employ adcoms who are too lazy for detective work.</p>
<p>Applicant pools at SAT optional colleges are filled with kids "who don't test well", but are "really bright." Most of these kids will not be admitted, save a few football players and legacies. Above the "SAT optional college" rung lies the Williams, Amhersts, and Swarthmores. For the most part, admissions decisions made by these schools are fairly straightforward.'</p>
<p>They are fairly straightforward. First come the developmental admits (as they should, by the way.) Secondly, the sons and daughters of Senators, Congressmen, Ambassadors, etc. Third, foreign potentates. Then, important legacies. Then they absolutely must fill up the athletic slots (in the case of Williams, more than 40% are varsity athletes - add the jv's and the club sports, and its over 50%.) Then URMs. At this point, you can tally up your "socio-ecs" (far from "need-blind" - they have a clear target - just read the article. Amherst is very far from "need-blind"; besides Questbridge - and by definition, the admissions folks know their level of need, the college Pres. has made it quite clear that Amherst will have more low-income students, which is absolutely impossible to obtain unless you know the need level of the students under consideration, and take it into account in admissions. I think that's a good thing, too.) With half the class filled, or slightly more, then come the really academically talented or really especially talented in other ways, making sure that a good bunch of them come from important feeder schools, so the GCs are mollified and continue to send "raw material". Then (as MikeyD notes) comes the gameplaying.</p>
<p>What is interesting about this process is what an exact science it is. NOTHING is left to chance; there is nothing lottery about it at all. Each and every Williams (or Amherst) class will look virtually exactly like the one that comes before it unless the Pres and trustees specifically ask for something different. The percentage of those receiving aid will not change unless the Pres asks that it be changed; the percentage of low-income students won't change; the number of ice hockey players won't change. (At both Williams and Amherst, the actual number of students in the middle/upper middle quintiles - $40-$92k in family income is extraordinarly small, and made up by a majority of athletes, with an occasional poor legacy or opera composer (my d.) thrown in.)</p>
<p>All of the replies and the articles were fantastically illuminating. Wouldn't it be fascinating to be able to sit in on this annual ballet. This last year and one half we have learned so much about the process by personal research, experiences but also sharing insights and information with folks like all of you. It will be interesting to see where my D gets in as she is one of the 7000 that seem to be applying to the same lacs. Thanks for all of your replies.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Wouldn't it be fascinating to be able to sit in on this annual ballet.
[/QUOTE]
You can.</p>
<p>Check websites and newspapers if you live in a college town around October or November. Many schools hire temporary readers to help during the application season. Obviously, there's extensive training involved.</p>
<p>We've had some who've been doing this for over ten years (probably closer to 15!). It's bittersweet when they show up for their first day...we love them, but we also know that their arrival means it's time to buckle down and read for 8-10 hours a day.</p>
<p>Do the temporary readers simply take the applications and record the data into a student file or do they get an opportunity to evaluate the applicant after appropriate training? Do they get to sit in on the sanctum sanctorum final debates? I would love to do that in the future. Lots of colleges around where I live. Dana's Dad</p>
<p>After appropriate training, seasonal readers can be "first readers". It's not uncommon for a file to get three reads in our first round if a seasonal reader is involved. Remember, though, that these people sometimes have been at the school longer than the deans! Admission officers are fairly transient.</p>
<p>Seasonal readers come to committee meetings at UVA. Each school obviously has their own practice.</p>
<p>"Then they absolutely must fill up the athletic slots (in the case of Williams, more than 40% are varsity athletes - add the jv's and the club sports, and its over 50%.)"</p>
<p>That is incorrect. At Williams, the figure is 30% -- probably very similar at Amherst, maybe slightly higher, since NESCAC team rosters still need to be filled but from a smaller total enrollment. </p>
<p>Williams does not recruit for, nor is preference in admissions given to, jv or club sports participants. Like playing a musical instrument, though, a majority of those accepted at Williams did play high school sports at some level. Likewise, not all of the high school marching band members will be recruited to fill a seat in the local symphony. On campus, participation in club sports is popular for a number of reasons -- including satisfaction of part of the p.e. requirement.</p>