GPA/Scores etc? And the second part of my question is: Is it a good sign if I know they watched my music supplement? I can tell they were viewed bc of youtube analytics, is that a good sign or do they watch everything regardless?
I would not read anything into the fact that someone watched your supplement.
Every app gets read, usually by more than one reader. But I do think there is a triage – for some students it is really obvious immediately that they are either deny or accept and not much time is spent on them.
There is a book written by a ex-Dartmouth AO. According to her, at Dartmouth, and many other Ivies, two readers will read your file independently. If both say “Accept”, you are accepted; if both say “Reject”, you are rejected. The director still may audit the files and change the verdict, but it’s rare. If one says Accept, the other says Reject, then they have to go to “committee”, which consists of directors and faculty members. Committee will give a verdict after both side present reasons for accept and reject.
So to the first part of your question, yes, if both readers say “Reject” after first reading, it’s pretty much rejected.
We are talking about picking 1 out of 16 at Brown RD. So as @bogeyorpar said if both readers say “Reject”, it is pretty much rejected. The probability of both say “Accept” is much greater than 1 out of 16. Assuming that probability is 1 out 4 (must be higher than that, since Brown applicants are all very qualified), 30K will be narrowed down to a quarter of them, which seems to be a more manageable number to have meaningful discussion at committee. The way they do this must be a well-kept secret. To meet “statistics matrix requirement” while doing this is particularly difficult. (should have at least one from each state, etc.)
The majority of ED got deferred. There is no mention in the statistics how they are counted at RD statistics.
Brown University Admissions Statistics
Class of | Overall Accept. Rate | Regular Decision Accept. Rate | Regular Decision Apps Accepted | Regular Decision Apps Received | Early Decision Accept. Rate | Percent of Class Filled by Early Apps | Early Decision Apps Received | Early Decision Apps Accepted | Expected Number of Students to Enroll | Total Apps Received | Total Apps Accepted
2021 8.3% 6.9% 2,027 29,554 21.9% 41.7% 3,170 695 1,665 32,724 2,722
2020 9.0% 7.66% 2,250 29,360 22.1% 40.2% 3,030 669 1,665 32,390 2,919
2019 8.5% 7.2% 1,970 27,354 20% 38% 3,043 610 1,605 30,397 2,580
2018 8.6% 7.4% 2,036 27,344 18.9% 37.4% 3,088 583 1,560 30,432 2,619
2017 9.2% 8.1% 2,091 25,909 18.5% 36.8% 3,010 558 1,515 28,919 2,649
2016 9.6% 8.5% 2,204 25,823 19.0% 37.4% 2,919 556 1,485 28,742 2,760
every app is looked at by a set of human eyes, but yes, if the numbers are low enough, they don’t get much time in front of human eyes.
ok, and to continue on the “how can they possibly listen to so many” In 2007 Brown had 17K applicants and 900 music submissions. (according to school newspaper) basically 5.5% of applicants sent music supplement. These are listened to by music faculty. There must be around 2K now! That is a lot to review, there is no way they send 2K music supplements to faculty who already have so much to do, after all, they aren’t admissions officers who spend day and night on apps. So, back to my original question, they must cull it down prior to sending right?
If the Dartmouth reference is to Hernandez, please, she left in something like 2003.
First cut at any tippy top is usually the regional AO or another AO. They know the needs and standards. No, it’s not just 2 readers agreeing. (It’s UC which has described something like that. Even so, there’s still balance needed.) Don’t forget institutional needs will play. No way 2 liking an app is as tough as it gets.
What makes you think 900 music supps?
You don’t know until you get notified of an admit or a likely letter. The point was to do your best by 12/31.
And don’t forget, it’s much more than stats.
Former Yale admissions officer Ed Boland said they had to get through about 300 applications in each two-hour committee session. I am wondering how many days they can do this after initial cull without being exhausted.
Assuming two sessions per day for a total of 600 applications per day, a month (assuming 20 business days) will process 12000. There is a limit on how many applications can go in front of committee to be presented. I have heard the same rumor that it is regional AO doing the initial cull. Only they have the knowledge of the schools and “institutional needs”. Despite the commitment from Ivies to meeting full demonstrated financial need, there is limited amount of financial aid. At the end of the day, those from “feeder schools” who don’t need financial aid might have advantage.
I bet they do more than 2 two hour sessions. When my PI goes to the NIH for study section (aka grant application review committee) they spend 8 hours/day discussing grants. That puts you at 24k apps in a month. Make it 5 weeks and you have 30k.
NIH study session works very differently. It starts from the highest ranked proposals and continues until the time runs out. More than half of the proposals will never be discussed.
The article (https://nypost.com/2016/02/07/former-yale-admissions-officer-reveals-secrets-of-who-gets-in/) described the process when there were 14,000 applicants. The application deadline and Ivy Day still remain the same. Now the application number is more than double … I wonder what happens now.
Boland spent 20 years in fundraising after a stint in China, which was after Yale. So his Yale experience is ancient. Yes, things change fast. And Hernandez, btw, left her position at Dartmouth in 1997.
A lot of culling now takes place before a committee meets. They don’t hang around in a large group, getting cutsey about candidates, in what I’ve seen.
For OP, not all music, art or other supps are sent to the department’s. You don’t do that to faculty. (Harvard may be a little different than some others, if you read how Fitzsimmons has described their reviews.) But in the end, it is asking for faculty input, not definitive about your final chance. Nothing is certain until your own answer comes.
@WarriorJ yes, that’s true, but if they can spend 8 hours/day doing it, I don’t see why the college admissions team can only do 4. College admissions staff are full-time employees working on college admissions. NIH study section participants are professors with their own labs to run.
They don’t just do 4 hours and multiple committes can meet simultaneously. There’s some overlap where some regions get final decisions made while others are still having final reads. But the interval, at the end, is crazy short. They can still be final reviewing (before a final meet) up into early to mid March, even a week before Ivy Day.
This is a case where depending on Hernandez or Boland, the Gatekeepers, or the occasional older media reports may not reflect changes.
I think “may” is not the right word. Unlike the rest of academia, which moves at a glacially slow place, admissions at many colleges seems to evolve at least a little with every applications cycle.
I have mentioned this before on this site, but it breaks repeating: Michele Hernandez has not set foot in an admissions office since my dad was a college applicant. I would not conflate her book with a 2018 Guide to College Admissions.
I also would not assume that Brown does things the way Dartmouth or Yale or Harvard does.
My sense is that in February and March admissions officers put in a lot more than 40 hours/week. And not every kid goes to committee
Some schools also have returning “temps” with experience in admissions. They help with the work hours.
Beginning in the fall of 2017, there is a “Brown Specific Fee Waiver” in the “Brown Questions” section of the Common Application to make a Brown University education accessible to students from all income backgrounds. While Brown is not aggressively soliciting applications with no fee offer (like U of Chicago, Rice, WUSTL etc.) to boost the number of applicants, I would think there will be more applicants this year than last year due to this new fee waiver. Even lower acceptance rate?