<p>What the title says. Basically, how long do you think an admissions committee spends reading our applications and determining if we get in or not. If its a guess please state so, and if its from a knowledgeable source, please state so also. thank you.</p>
<p>day1: initial reader - a couple of minutes; notes bad grades etc.
day2: regional selection committee - writes down the goods of each app and why they should get in
day3: teacher recs/etc - selection commitee reads apps and recs/etc. decision is made
day4: if accepted, the Admissions Director goes over all accepted students to see if they really should be accepted.</p>
<p>that sounds like basically correcto righto?</p>
<p>That would be at most elite private institutions how it works. At large public ones, they take considerably less time.</p>
<p>dam fourdays? how much time total in hours</p>
<p>Many, many years ago I sat outside a room while the admissions committee of a very good public university considered my application. It took <em>maybe</em> an hour.</p>
<p>Word onthe street is that they also screen alot of applications, as in poor GPA, too low SAT scores unless theres some hook don't make it past the first round of "just stats"</p>
<p>An article about some college (an elite LAC if I recall) that someone posted on CC said that a first reader gives a complete app (transcripts, scores, letters, essays, etc) approximately 20-30 minutes. Then a second reader does the same. After that it goes to committee for a vote, and each is presented, discussed, considered and voted on --- whole process taking about 3 minutes. Crazy, huh?</p>
<p>How</a> Admission Decisions Are Made: An Introduction - Peterson's</p>
<p>i found an article. not too descriptive i suppose.</p>
<p>^^ 3 hours.</p>
<p>'rentof2 pretty well summed up the process. </p>
<p>There are really only a small # of auto admits/ auto deny as the bulk of the applications go before committee. each application is "approved" or denied by atleast 2 readers before going to committee. First read is by the the applicant's regional admissions officer.</p>
<p>here is the link to the amherst admissions committee: </p>
<p>Online</a> NewsHour: A Look at Amherst College's Admissions Process -- June 22, 2004</p>
<p>Williams College:
5,822 extremely qualifi ed applicants. 540 places in the Class of 2009.
11 admission offi cers balancing scores of priorities from the campus
community. The Alumni Review dishes up the College’s …
Recipe for Success </p>
<p>I remember in the article I read it talked about the approximate 180 seconds each kid gets at the point the app reaches the voting committee. At first it seemed a bit harsh and depressing, but now that I've gotten used to the idea, I kind of like it. Short, sweet, to the point.</p>
<p>Yeah, at super-size universities with rolling admission, the process seems to be a little more like this:
Day 1: Look at test scores
Day 2: If minimum test score is reached, admission is offered. If not, placed in a pile to be evaluated later.
6-8 weeks later: Regular admissions process takes place.</p>
<p>So if it takes about a week to review and decide on your admittance or rejection, how come they don't release the decisions a week later instead of letting us wait for months?</p>
<p>According to an article by former Stanford admissions official, each app there on average got a total of about 20 minutes.</p>
<p>that williams article was really good!</p>
<p>I remember this article of from UPenn where each applicant only got about 4-5 minutes.</p>
<p>The Stanford article is good too. I think it's a funnel. One group gets weeded out really early as not having the numbers. One group gets admitted off the top and the rest are voted on in committee. Don't know how this translates to minutes. :-/</p>
<p>
[quote]
So if it takes about a week to review and decide on your admittance or rejection, how come they don't release the decisions a week later instead of letting us wait for months?
[/quote]
Some schools do -- the ones with rolling admissions.</p>
<p>But the rest don't because its not in their best interests. You don't think everything is done for your benefit, do you? Schools know that after a person gets accepted by a school they really want to go they start to imagine themselves as a student there and it can exert a powerful hold on them, tainting subsequent acceptances even though the student doesn't want it to! Its the difference between deciding "should I go to X, Y, or Z?" and "I'm going to X, but now should I switch to Y or Z?" It may sound trivial or like a word game, but lots of real-world research has shown this effect exists.</p>
<p>To counter it some schools have even agreed to a common notification date, although the pressure to cheat is so strong even these schools send the "likely" letters you may have heard about.</p>
<p>So to finally answer your question, the reason they don't notify right away is that it would turn into a race for colleges to evaluate and notify their applicants, with the first senders getting a big advantage over those who get acceptances out a few weeks or even months later. This isn't in their best interest (would require more readers, quicker decisions, etc) so most colleges have more or less agreed to limit the competition with each other.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The Stanford article is good too. I think it's a funnel. One group gets weeded out really early as not having the numbers. One group gets admitted off the top and the rest are voted on in committee. Don't know how this translates to minutes. :-/
[/quote]
That sounds so harsh. =/</p>