Yes, but there are also neurodivergent kids who test well and have executive function troubles reflected on GPA. These are the kids who know the subject but forget to hand in assignments or hand them in late etc
6 Likes
I just love this thought. Itâs true that exceptional people are often the ones who find their way to the most success in their careers. So the correlation between winning the college lottery and decades of future endeavors is pretty small.
I keep wondering if the emphasis on colleges will change. It used to be that few attended college. Now, many do. So will people start to see college acceptance as a lottery with less data input (not test scores, some factors beyond students control weighed heavily, check boxes for students which are out of the control of the student but gives them an edge).
Societal swings often hit quickly. We shall see. If I had to predict, Iâm going to guess that it all comes out in the wash. Kids who are prepared are going to do well where ever they go. Others will struggle and hopefully find firmer footing. In a world where 30% of kids have solid Aâs thereâs a lot to be sorted out once kids hit the workplace.
2 Likes
Great article! Thank you for sharing it. It also shows how much the number of applications has grown, far outpacing any increase in spots at âeliteâ colleges. But even in 1970, despite some efforts at diversity, going to an elite college was a matter of wealth and being âsmart enoughâ. Wealth has grown tremendously not only in the US, but in the world, which means a whole lot more families will consider Brown or Emory within reach, even if their child applies ED. Being able to say your son or daughter got into an elite school has become a highly sought-after badge of honor for parents, which they are willing to pay a lot to get. Honestly, I donât think the prestige of a university would matter all that much to a 17-year-old if parents werenât so behind the effort, and as (or more) eager to say that their child got into an elite college as their son or daughter is to go there. Unfortunately, thousands of young people right now are thinking that they are somehow a disappointment or unworthy because Yale or USC rejected them. (Remember when USC was a mid-rate safety school for rich kids? What has changed, other than the fact that more kids apply there now than in 1990?) The issue wonât be solved by requiring or not requiring test scores. I think the best thing we can do for our kids is quit fueling the elite-school hype, and donât reinforce bias by saying that they could have gotten in if they were richer, or poorer, or were part of an under-represented group. Most of all, we can encourage our high-achieving kids to fall in love with a school that did read their application and fell in love with them.
9 Likes
UCLA paid readers approximately $2 per application. Iâm sure that resulted in a comprehensive review.
6 Likes
So are you suggesting the kids âwho win the college lotteryâ were just merely lucky instead of standing out amongst exceptional peers?
1 Like
Sure, there are stand outs based on their accomplishments. Others are great with packaging and selling themselves in their apps. Others have a desirable demographic profile. But from the big pool of excellent students applying and the small amount of time AOs spend on most apps, I think it is fair to say luck plays a part for many. From the mouths of AOs, the elites can fill entering classes multiple times over with qualified students, and I donât think they would object to the characterization that luck plays some role.
8 Likes
Perhaps they can hire some HS volunteers to read the applications so they can save even more money? Iâm sure that will help these volunteers enormously when they are ready to apply for college. 
4 Likes
I donât disagree with your points.
Conversely the morning after Ivy day students and parents whose kids were accepted shouldnât be made to feel they won a lottery or the acceptances were a product of luck.
The kids hard work and effort paid off. For those denied who were qualified, I am willing to stipulate they experienced bad luck but not the other way around.
I think all applicants should be praised and supported, that many âexceptionalâ kids unfortunately donât get a spot but I donât think comforting them should come at the expense of diminishing the merit and achievements of those that did get in.
10 Likes
Thatâs hilarious! $2.00 an app? So even if one speed reads, they make $4.00 an hour.
2 Likes
Perhaps they expect review of 7-8 apps per hour. I dont think anyone anywhere is spending 30 minutes per app.
8 Likes
I couldnât read my own kidsâ apps in 8 minutes. Thatâs ridiculous.
3 Likes
My guess is they are paid that rate âper loadâ with some in the load getting excluded by stats criteria (âauto-rejectâ on grades or lack of a-g requirements) and that over 10 minutes are spent on apps that are passed through reader stage to get to higher level AO staff. But it is just a guess.
2 Likes
I donât think what what you and @CateCAParent are saying are mutually exclusive.
Students needed to have worked hard and had many accomplishments to be a contender for admission at the âeliteâ universities. They all worked for it.
Those that got the acceptances were lucky that their packaging, characteristics, etc. helped fill out the entering class the way that the university wanted it to be. Those who got rejections/waitlisted were unlucky.
5 Likes
Actually, I made a mistake. They get paid $2.70 per app (500 apps = $1,350.00)
2 Likes
My argument is that I believe some schools (Iâm going to use Penn as an example here, because weâve seen it occurring a bit in our region this cycle) are completely ignoring HS profiles right now. Theyâre using test optional almost as a sword. Do I have specific data to back this up? No. But the better HS in our region are getting less and less students into the most selective schools, while HS that have very poor profiles are all of a sudden quadrupling their enrollment.
Our daughter plays on a club team with a wonderful young lady from a surrounding town. Completely unhooked. TO, 4.0+ at probably the worst HS in the region. She got into Penn, along with two other kids from her class. They hadnât sent anyone to Penn in several years.
Very, very small sample. But I simply think that assuming 2022 college admissions was normal compared to prior years is wrong. Thereâs clearly a targeted agenda of change, and I think prior tools such as HS profiles are being reduced in order to achieve their goals. Just my $.02 and marginally educated guess.
18 Likes
UCLA pays outside readers by the hour (), they hire several hundred each year. UCLA commits to each app being read a minimum of two times. Not sure the hourly rate but these outside readers usually make $20 per hour, some schools go higher. I havenât heard how long on average UCLA apps take to read, I have heard other AOs say 10 mins, give or take.
This video is several years old, but has great info on UCLAâs admissions process (so certainly some things could be different now, of course test blind being one): UCLA Alumni Scholarships Program Volunteer Information Session 2018 - YouTube
2 Likes
I actually as usual agree with @CateCAParent and share her views. My possible objection was with @Htas when he saysâŠ
âSo will people start to see college acceptance as a lottery with less data input (not test scores, some factors beyond students control weighed heavily, check boxes for students which are out of the control of the student but gives them an edge.â
To me terms such as âluckâ and âlotteryâ on one side is similar to accusing a denied candidate of displaying âsour grapesâ or entitlement. Both stances seek to discredit the worthiness of applicants.
All these kids are worthy and exceptional in their own way regardless of result.
1 Like
Totally agree.
Application Readers | UCLA Undergraduate Admission
There is a compensation table in this link that shows them paid by the application.
3 Likes
I completely understand what youâre saying, but I donât necessarily agree. It legitimately is luck in many instances. That doesnât mean accepted students are not worthy- I would venture to say that most of them are. However, are there likely more candidates who slipped past the gates today than a few years ago? Iâm not sure how thatâs not the case. Less data, Covid learning, etc.- itâs simply much more difficult to differentiate candidates, which means that a meritocratic approach is almost certain to be less successful than when armed with more data.
The fact of the matter is that, if unhooked, you can create the most amazing profile possible in your HS career and still get rejected at most schools. Thatâs numbers and luck.
7 Likes