A 10 min holistic review is as good as a lottery. Once the academic cutoffs are met, It relies on the perception of the reader and what appeals to them on a particular day and time. So anyone getting a reject, this doesn’t mean you weren’t good enough, it just means you didn’t appeal to that one/two readers who read your app in 10 mins. This is not to undermine the folks who got accepted.
College Application readers are experienced professionals. They are trained to look for attributes, qualities and experiences that add context to a student’s academic record. Each university defines what they look for differently.
I read scholarship applications for a top university. We go through a significant amount of training and have a strict rubric that we follow when scoring applications. It is actually very defined and not what appeals to us on a particular day.
When I’m reading scholarship applications, I’m always surprised by how little information students provide. Many students leave sections unanswered. Many times they describe an activity/organization but don’t share what they did. Often they don’t answer the prompt. I’m looking for ways to give students scholarships, but it is their responsibility to tell me why.
19 Likes
I am sure readers are, experienced, trained and have a rubric to go by. Processes I am sure exist and are well defined. Given the time constraints, and the volume of applicants, I do not believe we can know a person’s 360 view in 10 mins. I don’t think there is any time to do secondary research on the applicants. Ten minutes of meeting and speaking with a person are not sufficient to know them, how can 10 mins of reading a paper give us an understanding of an individual’s life for the last 4-5 years. It’s a toss up based on who reads it and their mindset when they read it. Not every book appeals to everyone, does not mean the book is bad.
5 Likes
@CuriousType I wholeheartedly agree on this one. Not sure how external readers at UCD get paid, but at UCLA, they’re paid based on the number of essays they read so they’re somewhat incentivized to go through them as fast as possible. I just pray these readers will have the heart, best moral judgement, and due diligence (keeping to their training/rubrics) to take the time to listen and understand each and every student (all 94,000 of them at UCD) making their life pleas. Also with the SAT now gone, my guess is that the weight now leans heavier towards EC/PIQs.
4 Likes
Thanks for sharing, hadn’t read this one! Oh well…
1 Like
We are in state as well. But no way as high stats as your kid. 3.8/4.2 7 AP. Some sports. Wait listed for Bio.
When you say strong PIQs remember, that your kid (and mine) PIQs were probably very strong. Just not a good fit for this university.
I’ll answer these comments here to wrap it up. I am being cautious about posting too much in the Davis thread. I’m happy to provide insight and pointers from my personal experience in a separate thread.
I can’t speak for UCLA but, in my experience, reading more scholarship applications means spending more time on the job, not less time for each application. The scholarship applications are sent to me in batches over several days. When I have more time, I commit to a certain number of days and receive a certain number of applications. If I have less time to commit, I don’t receive as many applications.
Absolutely not. When reading scholarship applications, I only know what the applicant tells me. I don’t Google them or visit their LinkedIn. I can’t emphasis enough how important it is for students to avoid the flowery, scene setting type essay and to get to the point. Whether they interned for the Governor or worked at Starbucks, tell me what they did, what motivated them to do it, and what they got out of the experience.
7 Likes
Wow, if you include the 5 to 10 hours of training, it’s not clear a reader can make the CA minimum wage if they spend even 10 minutes on each application. The highest rate of pay is $2.70 per application ($1350 for 500 apps). Six per hour would be $16.20/hour and CA min wage is $15.50/hour (probably higher around UCLA campus). And I’m not including training time (that $1350 is for 500 apps plus training time which appears to be around 10 hours, maybe more, online training time isn’t estimated). That is UCLA, not UCD. But I’d be surprised if UCD paid a lot more than UCLA.
Even the most conscientious reader is still human. Could be having a bad day. Might misunderstand something referenced in a PIQ (I know kids are supposed to explain, but the more background they give to explain an activity, the less words are left to write about what they did in the activity). May just be up against a deadline (parent, took on some extra work to pay some bills, something unexpected comes up with one of their kids, etc.).
Two readers help. And I believe there are some other checks and balances (I think it was UCB not UCD, but I read somewhere that if reading score seems out of whack with stats compared to others at the same school it can trigger another read by internal staff). But I think it’s unrealistic to say there isn’t some luck involved in this process. Both in the state of mind of the readers you do get and in whatever institutional priorities there are in the year you apply.
5 Likes
A post was merged into an existing topic: UC Davis Class of 2027 Official Thread
Here are some helpful resources regarding PIQ’s and the UC’s comprehensive review:
https://ucop.box.com/s/d2lr595w3mmuqjsy3fy2w77phlyncumo
2 Likes
Even the most conscientious reader is still human… well said!
I feel it is a bit disrespectful (others in the thread seem to indicate) that the application readers are doing this just for the money and are maximizing their throughput.
I have known T40 college app essay readers to be alumni, ex-Asst Professor of that univ, a current bio-med CEO as well.
There are issues here around number of applicants (mainly from the university I feel) but suggesting the essay readers are not in it for the right reasons seems a bit off the mark. Folks interested in only money aspect with the same skillset can make much more being a private College Admission counselors etc reviewing essays before they are submitted.
5 Likes
Agree completely. And the desired qualifications are that they are involved in HS college counseling. The people I know who do this work are doing it on top of their other job in a very relevant position. This is not people UC is picking up off an unemployment line.
2 Likes
Absolutely not! I do not think anyone intended to say that the readers have the wrong motivation or are incompetent. Its just a factor of time available and volume of applications.
3 Likes
I’d agree. I have no doubt that the vast, vast majority are doing it for the right reasons. I think the fact that (at least) UCLA seems to be paying external readers close to minimum wage means the vast majority are those doing it for the right reasons. I’d also assume that admissions offices are motivated to hire qualified people. But no matter how qualified the hires and how good the training & processes, I’d be shocked if there isn’t some randomness/luck in the process (there always has been).
What bothers me (at this point) is universities touting record-breaking numbers of applicants. At over 100,000 applicants, is it really a good thing to be getting more applications? Would 1 million applicants really be a good thing? 10 million? I think if you want to advertise outreach programs succeeding in increasing the percentage of underrepresented groups in your applicant pool, that’s a good thing. But trying to boost overall applications year after year doesn’t seem like a good idea at this point. And, I suspect it aggravates problems inherent in the admissions process.
I do hold out hope that if admissions (at any university, not really thinking UCs in particular here) pays attention to yield, eventually this seemingly relentless push to get more applications will inevitably drive yields down. One student can apply to 20 or 30 universities, but can only enroll in one. Drive everyone to apply to 20+ schools and yield will go down.
3 Likes
I completely agree on the “luck” aspect. But I would say that’s sort of true for any school with a sub-15% acceptance rate as both UCLA and UCB are, for example. There are many many qualified students — just like there are applicants at places like Harvard — and only a few get in. There are probably GPA thresholds at each campus that are a rule with a few exceptions. And maybe by and large for rigor (# A-G and honors based on what was available to you). Then it’s all of the other factors they list, including what you write. I’ll say it again as I have said in many other places, I think students sleep on the Awards and Activities section which can really be crafted to your advantage to tell a story alongside courses and PIQs.
I don’t know how much more “time” essays get for reads at other kinds of schools, but it’s not a ton more I don’t think? There is always luck involved in humans reading something.
I don’t blame the UCs for higher numbers of apps. They aren’t gaming the system like privates that offer fee wavers for all and no essay applications. They are many of the top ten public schools in the country and a very good value for students who live in CA. I don’t think UCLA likes rejecting more than 100,000 kids each year. But it’s kind of where things stand. I’ve definitely prepared my D23 that she is “good” but would also have to be “lucky” to get in. Her brother was both, but if you do the math, chances are that she won’t. Doesn’t mean she couldn’t have survived and thrived there! Too many kids, not enough room.
8 Likes
Once you invest the time to complete the PIQs and the UC application its too easy to just send it to all of the campuses (or the top seven that attract the most interest) even if you have little interest in attending some of them. Applicants like me just assume the results are random so best to carpet bomb all of campuses to increase our odds (if mom and dad are ok with paying all of the application fees). If UC reduced the PIQs to three and substituted the fourth for a campus specific essay, like “why UCSB,” I think that one change would prompt applicants to be more selective rather than send it everywhere. I know I would have prioritized 3-4 rather than apply to seven.
6 Likes
By having a UC campus specific essay, it would also mean the UC’s now would need to consider a applicant’s level of interest which they do not.
Many years ago, the UC application allowed you to rank your top 3 campuses but I would imagine that some campuses would be ranked at the top consistently regardless if they were truly a good fit for the student.
4 Likes
what’s the rationale for UC not considering the applicant’s level of interest? That seems to be very important to most other universities who want to know why the applicant wants to attend. If I was an AO I would want to know when deciding between two equal candidates.
I think you’re right that there are similar issues at all selective colleges at this point. I know a bit less about others, but it’s not at all clear that other selective universities spend any more time per student (and seems like at some an applicant can be rejected after a single read which I believe is not done at most/all UC campuses).
I’ve definitely seen many private colleges touting large numbers of applicants. Though my understanding is that a few (Stanford, Princeton, U Penn, I believe) have been limiting the data they release for the last few years. But I’ve certainly seen headlines from many others this year about their record breaking number of applicants. However, I did notice several had to say it was their second highest number of applicants (after last year), perhaps a hopeful sign.
And, in all honesty, with all the preparation/warning I had on CC (thanks to all), at least what I saw on CC (given that I can’t see PIQs, Activity lists, etc.) from UCD last week was more consistent than what I had expected. If that is a representative sample, it’s amazing they were so consistent across 94,000 applicants. Definitely, no easy task!
2 Likes