Admissions officers

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its interesting to consider the feedback loop.

AOs ar people who are wgood at gaming admissions, but ad at doing anything of note after graduation, so they go work in the Admissions Office, selecting for more people like themselves, until admissions evolvies into a parody of itself.

It's similar to other activities where winners become judges, pushing the activity into more extreme weirdness. Policy Debate is famous for this. They don't debate anymore, it's now a speed talking contest with weird requirements for what you need to say to get points.

Admissions should be a service task performed part time by the kind of people the school wants to develop -- professors, industry professionals, artists, political and nonprofit leaders, etc.

This is a bad idea, and reveals a serious misunderstanding that is harmful to a lot of organizations.

The skill set that makes somebody really good at chemistry, for example, is NOT the same skill set that makes people good at discerning the qualities and attributes of other people from a written submission. And even if those people are good at finding the applicants that are similar to themselves, that leads to a stagnant field without a lot of the diversity that leads to innovation and fresh thinking in the field over time.

This is exactly the problem with professional workplaces that assume the person who is really good at sales or something would also be really good at leadership.

there is ZERO evidence that AOs are good at "discerning the qualities and attributes of other people from a written submission". literally zero evidence. it's just an assumption. whatever studies of admission to various programs have been conducted always show the same thing - that you get better results when you REMOVE all human judgment and rely on scores only.

it's so annoying when people here argue that, oh, if you only admitted 1600s and 4.0s, everybody would be the same. no, not at all. there would be more diversity because students would be allowed to just be themselves instead mold themselves to appeal to some random AO panel.

Most of us don't want applicants reduced to test scores because we know our kids have talents and positive characteristics that make them interesting that aren't captured by the tests. You seem to think scores are the best thing your kid has to offer.

So you are saying that students with top scores are not interesting? What makes you think that?

This is not about race. some perfect stats kids are one-dimensional.
Also, many AO have said it can be better to have a 1590 over a 1600....
Perfectionism and over-studiousness is not a good look for anyone.

- signed Asian mom

You misunderstood. It's better to get a 1590 and do something with your life than to get a 1600 and spend 500 hours cramming SAT

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its interesting to consider the feedback loop.

AOs ar people who are wgood at gaming admissions, but ad at doing anything of note after graduation, so they go work in the Admissions Office, selecting for more people like themselves, until admissions evolvies into a parody of itself.

It's similar to other activities where winners become judges, pushing the activity into more extreme weirdness. Policy Debate is famous for this. They don't debate anymore, it's now a speed talking contest with weird requirements for what you need to say to get points.

Admissions should be a service task performed part time by the kind of people the school wants to develop -- professors, industry professionals, artists, political and nonprofit leaders, etc.

This is a bad idea, and reveals a serious misunderstanding that is harmful to a lot of organizations.

The skill set that makes somebody really good at chemistry, for example, is NOT the same skill set that makes people good at discerning the qualities and attributes of other people from a written submission. And even if those people are good at finding the applicants that are similar to themselves, that leads to a stagnant field without a lot of the diversity that leads to innovation and fresh thinking in the field over time.

This is exactly the problem with professional workplaces that assume the person who is really good at sales or something would also be really good at leadership.

there is ZERO evidence that AOs are good at "discerning the qualities and attributes of other people from a written submission". literally zero evidence. it's just an assumption. whatever studies of admission to various programs have been conducted always show the same thing - that you get better results when you REMOVE all human judgment and rely on scores only.

it's so annoying when people here argue that, oh, if you only admitted 1600s and 4.0s, everybody would be the same. no, not at all. there would be more diversity because students would be allowed to just be themselves instead mold themselves to appeal to some random AO panel.

Most of us don't want applicants reduced to test scores because we know our kids have talents and positive characteristics that make them interesting that aren't captured by the tests. You seem to think scores are the best thing your kid has to offer.

But here's the thing. It's impossible to communicate those talents and positive characteristics to an AO in a way that 100 other kids can't just lie about.

Not when your CCO can speak to it in their report/profile. Same with teachers in LOR.

Both some of the most important part of application, and ppl here don't spend enough time thinking about how they can help that narrative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our school hosted a panel with eight AOs, mostly well-known/brand-name schools plus a couple of in-state. They gave the expected answers to questions like, how do you view test scores, using AI in essays, that kind of thing. My big takeaway: the AOs mostly seemed well-meaning but frankly not all that bright. It was like, oh, THIS is who makes these big decisions about my kid? Frankly one that stood out as most impressive was the in-state rep. Anyway, I'm not sure what my point is, it's not like I really thought AOs were a bunch of Harvard MBAs but it was still eye-opening.

AOs usually are people who fell into the role after college (often lesser known college) by working their way up in admissions after other career paths stalled. They are usually nice, people-oriented people but few have intellectual gravitas or are as impressive as the kids they are judging and sometimes rejecting. Most are middle-class and went to lesser known schools and not A students with slates of impressive ECs themselves. The heads of admission at Georgetown, Emory and a few others are exceptions.

It's useful perspective for our kids to know they're being judged by people with lesser credentials and accolades than they have.

Excuse me while I vomit. That is not a useful perspective for an 18 year old. We don’t need these kids blaming other peoples’ imagined stupidity every time they don’t get what they want. Talk about entitled.

Drama queen much?

This is about knowing the audience you are writing to.

Do tell, how specifically does an accomplished kid tailor their essays for these undereducated boors?

AO's are most likely female in 20s and 30s, mostly from humanities, well educated and really nice people. AO's are more likely to be well adjusted outgoing personalities. That is your audience.

100% agree. Also explains why boys are at such a disadvantage if they have traditional boy majors.

Nothing to do with the AOs. The senior university admins set the admissions priorities: Too many boys trying to major in the same thing with limited seats and the need to gender balance the class.

NP. Many selective colleges, those just below the top, are off-balance with a greater proportion of females than males in recent years.

Reasons for this might include heavily weighing high school grades, where females tend to do better, moreso than scores, where males tend to do better. But that's another thread...

Men make up 41% of all college students in the US.

https://the1a.org/segments/why-are-fewer-and-fewer-men-enrolling-in-college/#

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its interesting to consider the feedback loop.

AOs ar people who are wgood at gaming admissions, but ad at doing anything of note after graduation, so they go work in the Admissions Office, selecting for more people like themselves, until admissions evolvies into a parody of itself.

It's similar to other activities where winners become judges, pushing the activity into more extreme weirdness. Policy Debate is famous for this. They don't debate anymore, it's now a speed talking contest with weird requirements for what you need to say to get points.

Admissions should be a service task performed part time by the kind of people the school wants to develop -- professors, industry professionals, artists, political and nonprofit leaders, etc.

This is a bad idea, and reveals a serious misunderstanding that is harmful to a lot of organizations.

The skill set that makes somebody really good at chemistry, for example, is NOT the same skill set that makes people good at discerning the qualities and attributes of other people from a written submission. And even if those people are good at finding the applicants that are similar to themselves, that leads to a stagnant field without a lot of the diversity that leads to innovation and fresh thinking in the field over time.

This is exactly the problem with professional workplaces that assume the person who is really good at sales or something would also be really good at leadership.

there is ZERO evidence that AOs are good at "discerning the qualities and attributes of other people from a written submission". literally zero evidence. it's just an assumption. whatever studies of admission to various programs have been conducted always show the same thing - that you get better results when you REMOVE all human judgment and rely on scores only.

it's so annoying when people here argue that, oh, if you only admitted 1600s and 4.0s, everybody would be the same. no, not at all. there would be more diversity because students would be allowed to just be themselves instead mold themselves to appeal to some random AO panel.

Most of us don't want applicants reduced to test scores because we know our kids have talents and positive characteristics that make them interesting that aren't captured by the tests. You seem to think scores are the best thing your kid has to offer.

Narrator: your kid is not very interesting and is essentially identical to tens of thousands of other kids.

Which is totally fine and why it's great that "elite" schools are randomizing admissions. When we start seeing captains of industry and leaders in government and inspiring artists coming from schools all around the country, we'll be a healthier country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our school hosted a panel with eight AOs, mostly well-known/brand-name schools plus a couple of in-state. They gave the expected answers to questions like, how do you view test scores, using AI in essays, that kind of thing. My big takeaway: the AOs mostly seemed well-meaning but frankly not all that bright. It was like, oh, THIS is who makes these big decisions about my kid? Frankly one that stood out as most impressive was the in-state rep. Anyway, I'm not sure what my point is, it's not like I really thought AOs were a bunch of Harvard MBAs but it was still eye-opening.

AOs usually are people who fell into the role after college (often lesser known college) by working their way up in admissions after other career paths stalled. They are usually nice, people-oriented people but few have intellectual gravitas or are as impressive as the kids they are judging and sometimes rejecting. Most are middle-class and went to lesser known schools and not A students with slates of impressive ECs themselves. The heads of admission at Georgetown, Emory and a few others are exceptions.

It's useful perspective for our kids to know they're being judged by people with lesser credentials and accolades than they have.

Excuse me while I vomit. That is not a useful perspective for an 18 year old. We don’t need these kids blaming other peoples’ imagined stupidity every time they don’t get what they want. Talk about entitled.

Drama queen much?

This is about knowing the audience you are writing to.

Do tell, how specifically does an accomplished kid tailor their essays for these undereducated boors?

AO's are most likely female in 20s and 30s, mostly from humanities, well educated and really nice people. AO's are more likely to be well adjusted outgoing personalities. That is your audience.

100% agree. Also explains why boys are at such a disadvantage if they have traditional boy majors.

Nothing to do with the AOs. The senior university admins set the admissions priorities: Too many boys trying to major in the same thing with limited seats and the need to gender balance the class.

NP. Many selective colleges, those just below the top, are off-balance with a greater proportion of females than males in recent years.

Reasons for this might include heavily weighing high school grades, where females tend to do better, moreso than scores, where males tend to do better. But that's another thread...

Men make up 41% of all college students in the US.

https://the1a.org/segments/why-are-fewer-and-fewer-men-enrolling-in-college/#

That's heavily biased toward the low end of college, where men choose trades instead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its interesting to consider the feedback loop.

AOs ar people who are wgood at gaming admissions, but ad at doing anything of note after graduation, so they go work in the Admissions Office, selecting for more people like themselves, until admissions evolvies into a parody of itself.

It's similar to other activities where winners become judges, pushing the activity into more extreme weirdness. Policy Debate is famous for this. They don't debate anymore, it's now a speed talking contest with weird requirements for what you need to say to get points.

Admissions should be a service task performed part time by the kind of people the school wants to develop -- professors, industry professionals, artists, political and nonprofit leaders, etc.

This is a bad idea, and reveals a serious misunderstanding that is harmful to a lot of organizations.

The skill set that makes somebody really good at chemistry, for example, is NOT the same skill set that makes people good at discerning the qualities and attributes of other people from a written submission. And even if those people are good at finding the applicants that are similar to themselves, that leads to a stagnant field without a lot of the diversity that leads to innovation and fresh thinking in the field over time.

This is exactly the problem with professional workplaces that assume the person who is really good at sales or something would also be really good at leadership.

there is ZERO evidence that AOs are good at "discerning the qualities and attributes of other people from a written submission". literally zero evidence. it's just an assumption. whatever studies of admission to various programs have been conducted always show the same thing - that you get better results when you REMOVE all human judgment and rely on scores only.

it's so annoying when people here argue that, oh, if you only admitted 1600s and 4.0s, everybody would be the same. no, not at all. there would be more diversity because students would be allowed to just be themselves instead mold themselves to appeal to some random AO panel.

Most of us don't want applicants reduced to test scores because we know our kids have talents and positive characteristics that make them interesting that aren't captured by the tests. You seem to think scores are the best thing your kid has to offer.

But here's the thing. It's impossible to communicate those talents and positive characteristics to an AO in a way that 100 other kids can't just lie about.

Not when your CCO can speak to it in their report/profile. Same with teachers in LOR.

Both some of the most important part of application, and ppl here don't spend enough time thinking about how they can help that narrative.

The US has more high schools / valedictorians / CCOs than Ivy League seats. So we're back to leaning on signals that are proxy for wealth privilege, like attending a small private school that has as many sports team captains as graduating seniors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its interesting to consider the feedback loop.

AOs ar people who are wgood at gaming admissions, but ad at doing anything of note after graduation, so they go work in the Admissions Office, selecting for more people like themselves, until admissions evolvies into a parody of itself.

It's similar to other activities where winners become judges, pushing the activity into more extreme weirdness. Policy Debate is famous for this. They don't debate anymore, it's now a speed talking contest with weird requirements for what you need to say to get points.

Admissions should be a service task performed part time by the kind of people the school wants to develop -- professors, industry professionals, artists, political and nonprofit leaders, etc.

This is a bad idea, and reveals a serious misunderstanding that is harmful to a lot of organizations.

The skill set that makes somebody really good at chemistry, for example, is NOT the same skill set that makes people good at discerning the qualities and attributes of other people from a written submission. And even if those people are good at finding the applicants that are similar to themselves, that leads to a stagnant field without a lot of the diversity that leads to innovation and fresh thinking in the field over time.

This is exactly the problem with professional workplaces that assume the person who is really good at sales or something would also be really good at leadership.

there is ZERO evidence that AOs are good at "discerning the qualities and attributes of other people from a written submission". literally zero evidence. it's just an assumption. whatever studies of admission to various programs have been conducted always show the same thing - that you get better results when you REMOVE all human judgment and rely on scores only.

it's so annoying when people here argue that, oh, if you only admitted 1600s and 4.0s, everybody would be the same. no, not at all. there would be more diversity because students would be allowed to just be themselves instead mold themselves to appeal to some random AO panel.

Most of us don't want applicants reduced to test scores because we know our kids have talents and positive characteristics that make them interesting that aren't captured by the tests. You seem to think scores are the best thing your kid has to offer.

Narrator: your kid is not very interesting and is essentially identical to tens of thousands of other kids.

Which is totally fine and why it's great that "elite" schools are randomizing admissions. When we start seeing captains of industry and leaders in government and inspiring artists coming from schools all around the country, we'll be a healthier country.

We are and always have been. There is a huge range of schools represented.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our school hosted a panel with eight AOs, mostly well-known/brand-name schools plus a couple of in-state. They gave the expected answers to questions like, how do you view test scores, using AI in essays, that kind of thing. My big takeaway: the AOs mostly seemed well-meaning but frankly not all that bright. It was like, oh, THIS is who makes these big decisions about my kid? Frankly one that stood out as most impressive was the in-state rep. Anyway, I'm not sure what my point is, it's not like I really thought AOs were a bunch of Harvard MBAs but it was still eye-opening.

AOs usually are people who fell into the role after college (often lesser known college) by working their way up in admissions after other career paths stalled. They are usually nice, people-oriented people but few have intellectual gravitas or are as impressive as the kids they are judging and sometimes rejecting. Most are middle-class and went to lesser known schools and not A students with slates of impressive ECs themselves. The heads of admission at Georgetown, Emory and a few others are exceptions.

It's useful perspective for our kids to know they're being judged by people with lesser credentials and accolades than they have.

Excuse me while I vomit. That is not a useful perspective for an 18 year old. We don’t need these kids blaming other peoples’ imagined stupidity every time they don’t get what they want. Talk about entitled.

Drama queen much?

This is about knowing the audience you are writing to.

Do tell, how specifically does an accomplished kid tailor their essays for these undereducated boors?

AO's are most likely female in 20s and 30s, mostly from humanities, well educated and really nice people. AO's are more likely to be well adjusted outgoing personalities. That is your audience.

100% agree. Also explains why boys are at such a disadvantage if they have traditional boy majors.

Nothing to do with the AOs. The senior university admins set the admissions priorities: Too many boys trying to major in the same thing with limited seats and the need to gender balance the class.

So a female women’s studies major should take a boy’s Econ spot?

It is not a matter of "should" or fairness. The university is a business and if there is a women's studies department then there is a need for majors to support the department. The admissions office has no say in this process bedsides picking the students that will fill those pre-determined spots.

If the university is a business then it should respond to customer demand. If you have lots of male Econ applicants then accept them and expand that department. If there is little or no demand for women’s studies then close that department, don’t just admit women and deny men because the women’s studies professors need students to justify their jobs.

Program review and consolidation/elimination happens all the time in higher ed. If you’re bitter about fact that top universities have endowments to support less popular programs, maybe seek out a smaller school that has to be more nimble in responding to market forces.

And remember that top universities aren’t trying to crank out a bunch of cogs—they’re trying to position themselves in a way that shapes and responds to society overall. They want alumni who will be successful in many disciplines.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’ve noticed that women are overrepresented as AOs, which raises concerns about the evaluation of male applicants.

These jobs pay like nothing at the lower level -- like 44 K? In a high cost of living area. I think the female overrepresentation is probably because women are often more willing to be underpaid. Also at our university there is a pattern of male students going to med school and law school and having their wife work in a university administrative job so that they get a tuition waiver.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its interesting to consider the feedback loop.

AOs ar people who are wgood at gaming admissions, but ad at doing anything of note after graduation, so they go work in the Admissions Office, selecting for more people like themselves, until admissions evolvies into a parody of itself.

It's similar to other activities where winners become judges, pushing the activity into more extreme weirdness. Policy Debate is famous for this. They don't debate anymore, it's now a speed talking contest with weird requirements for what you need to say to get points.

Admissions should be a service task performed part time by the kind of people the school wants to develop -- professors, industry professionals, artists, political and nonprofit leaders, etc.

This is a bad idea, and reveals a serious misunderstanding that is harmful to a lot of organizations.

The skill set that makes somebody really good at chemistry, for example, is NOT the same skill set that makes people good at discerning the qualities and attributes of other people from a written submission. And even if those people are good at finding the applicants that are similar to themselves, that leads to a stagnant field without a lot of the diversity that leads to innovation and fresh thinking in the field over time.

This is exactly the problem with professional workplaces that assume the person who is really good at sales or something would also be really good at leadership.

there is ZERO evidence that AOs are good at "discerning the qualities and attributes of other people from a written submission". literally zero evidence. it's just an assumption. whatever studies of admission to various programs have been conducted always show the same thing - that you get better results when you REMOVE all human judgment and rely on scores only.

it's so annoying when people here argue that, oh, if you only admitted 1600s and 4.0s, everybody would be the same. no, not at all. there would be more diversity because students would be allowed to just be themselves instead mold themselves to appeal to some random AO panel.

Most of us don't want applicants reduced to test scores because we know our kids have talents and positive characteristics that make them interesting that aren't captured by the tests. You seem to think scores are the best thing your kid has to offer.

So you are saying that students with top scores are not interesting? What makes you think that?

This is not about race. some perfect stats kids are one-dimensional.
Also, many AO have said it can be better to have a 1590 over a 1600....
Perfectionism and over-studiousness is not a good look for anyone.

- signed Asian mom

You misunderstood. It's better to get a 1590 and do something with your life than to get a 1600 and spend 500 hours cramming SAT

What makes you think 1600 kid didn't do anything in their life? Honestly, 1590 sounds like more of a crammer than 1600. 1600 is more likely to be a genius who just breezed through SAT while doing plenty of other things instead of inching their score towards 1590 through multiple attempts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know an AO at HYPSM who had a 1100 on their SAT and a 2.9 GPA.

C students become presidents and run major corporations. Why does this matter?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know an AO at HYPSM who had a 1100 on their SAT and a 2.9 GPA.

C students become presidents and run major corporations. Why does this matter?

Because they are not opinion on schoolwork and intellectual rigor?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its interesting to consider the feedback loop.

AOs ar people who are wgood at gaming admissions, but ad at doing anything of note after graduation, so they go work in the Admissions Office, selecting for more people like themselves, until admissions evolvies into a parody of itself.

It's similar to other activities where winners become judges, pushing the activity into more extreme weirdness. Policy Debate is famous for this. They don't debate anymore, it's now a speed talking contest with weird requirements for what you need to say to get points.

Admissions should be a service task performed part time by the kind of people the school wants to develop -- professors, industry professionals, artists, political and nonprofit leaders, etc.

This is a bad idea, and reveals a serious misunderstanding that is harmful to a lot of organizations.

The skill set that makes somebody really good at chemistry, for example, is NOT the same skill set that makes people good at discerning the qualities and attributes of other people from a written submission. And even if those people are good at finding the applicants that are similar to themselves, that leads to a stagnant field without a lot of the diversity that leads to innovation and fresh thinking in the field over time.

This is exactly the problem with professional workplaces that assume the person who is really good at sales or something would also be really good at leadership.

there is ZERO evidence that AOs are good at "discerning the qualities and attributes of other people from a written submission". literally zero evidence. it's just an assumption. whatever studies of admission to various programs have been conducted always show the same thing - that you get better results when you REMOVE all human judgment and rely on scores only.

it's so annoying when people here argue that, oh, if you only admitted 1600s and 4.0s, everybody would be the same. no, not at all. there would be more diversity because students would be allowed to just be themselves instead mold themselves to appeal to some random AO panel.

Most of us don't want applicants reduced to test scores because we know our kids have talents and positive characteristics that make them interesting that aren't captured by the tests. You seem to think scores are the best thing your kid has to offer.

So you are saying that students with top scores are not interesting? What makes you think that?

This is not about race. some perfect stats kids are one-dimensional.
Also, many AO have said it can be better to have a 1590 over a 1600....
Perfectionism and over-studiousness is not a good look for anyone.

- signed Asian mom

You misunderstood. It's better to get a 1590 and do something with your life than to get a 1600 and spend 500 hours cramming SAT

What makes you think 1600 kid didn't do anything in their life? Honestly, 1590 sounds like more of a crammer than 1600. 1600 is more likely to be a genius who just breezed through SAT while doing plenty of other things instead of inching their score towards 1590 through multiple attempts.

Humble brag alert below.

Child refused to practice and it took a lot of effort on my part for child to take a practice test. Still refused to take one section of the practice test, as child is certain they dont need the practice. Got 1580 on first try. Done and not going to try again.

If child put even a couple of hours of practice 1600 would be possible. I believe even an extremely strong student who takes the test blind would miss out on a couple of tricks and not get the full score. 1600 is probably a mark of over prepping.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its interesting to consider the feedback loop.

AOs ar people who are wgood at gaming admissions, but ad at doing anything of note after graduation, so they go work in the Admissions Office, selecting for more people like themselves, until admissions evolvies into a parody of itself.

It's similar to other activities where winners become judges, pushing the activity into more extreme weirdness. Policy Debate is famous for this. They don't debate anymore, it's now a speed talking contest with weird requirements for what you need to say to get points.

Admissions should be a service task performed part time by the kind of people the school wants to develop -- professors, industry professionals, artists, political and nonprofit leaders, etc.

This is a bad idea, and reveals a serious misunderstanding that is harmful to a lot of organizations.

The skill set that makes somebody really good at chemistry, for example, is NOT the same skill set that makes people good at discerning the qualities and attributes of other people from a written submission. And even if those people are good at finding the applicants that are similar to themselves, that leads to a stagnant field without a lot of the diversity that leads to innovation and fresh thinking in the field over time.

This is exactly the problem with professional workplaces that assume the person who is really good at sales or something would also be really good at leadership.

there is ZERO evidence that AOs are good at "discerning the qualities and attributes of other people from a written submission". literally zero evidence. it's just an assumption. whatever studies of admission to various programs have been conducted always show the same thing - that you get better results when you REMOVE all human judgment and rely on scores only.

it's so annoying when people here argue that, oh, if you only admitted 1600s and 4.0s, everybody would be the same. no, not at all. there would be more diversity because students would be allowed to just be themselves instead mold themselves to appeal to some random AO panel.

Most of us don't want applicants reduced to test scores because we know our kids have talents and positive characteristics that make them interesting that aren't captured by the tests. You seem to think scores are the best thing your kid has to offer.

So you are saying that students with top scores are not interesting? What makes you think that?

This is not about race. some perfect stats kids are one-dimensional.
Also, many AO have said it can be better to have a 1590 over a 1600....
Perfectionism and over-studiousness is not a good look for anyone.

- signed Asian mom

You misunderstood. It's better to get a 1590 and do something with your life than to get a 1600 and spend 500 hours cramming SAT

What makes you think 1600 kid didn't do anything in their life? Honestly, 1590 sounds like more of a crammer than 1600. 1600 is more likely to be a genius who just breezed through SAT while doing plenty of other things instead of inching their score towards 1590 through multiple attempts.

Humble brag alert below.

Child refused to practice and it took a lot of effort on my part for child to take a practice test. Still refused to take one section of the practice test, as child is certain they dont need the practice. Got 1580 on first try. Done and not going to try again.

If child put even a couple of hours of practice 1600 would be possible. I believe even an extremely strong student who takes the test blind would miss out on a couple of tricks and not get the full score. 1600 is probably a mark of over prepping.

Not convinced. There are students who are so above the norm that they are hitting the ceiling at 1600 even with no prep.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our school hosted a panel with eight AOs, mostly well-known/brand-name schools plus a couple of in-state. They gave the expected answers to questions like, how do you view test scores, using AI in essays, that kind of thing. My big takeaway: the AOs mostly seemed well-meaning but frankly not all that bright. It was like, oh, THIS is who makes these big decisions about my kid? Frankly one that stood out as most impressive was the in-state rep. Anyway, I'm not sure what my point is, it's not like I really thought AOs were a bunch of Harvard MBAs but it was still eye-opening.

AOs usually are people who fell into the role after college (often lesser known college) by working their way up in admissions after other career paths stalled. They are usually nice, people-oriented people but few have intellectual gravitas or are as impressive as the kids they are judging and sometimes rejecting. Most are middle-class and went to lesser known schools and not A students with slates of impressive ECs themselves. The heads of admission at Georgetown, Emory and a few others are exceptions.

It's useful perspective for our kids to know they're being judged by people with lesser credentials and accolades than they have.

Excuse me while I vomit. That is not a useful perspective for an 18 year old. We don’t need these kids blaming other peoples’ imagined stupidity every time they don’t get what they want. Talk about entitled.

Drama queen much?

This is about knowing the audience you are writing to.

Do tell, how specifically does an accomplished kid tailor their essays for these undereducated boors?

AO's are most likely female in 20s and 30s, mostly from humanities, well educated and really nice people. AO's are more likely to be well adjusted outgoing personalities. That is your audience.

100% agree. Also explains why boys are at such a disadvantage if they have traditional boy majors.

Nothing to do with the AOs. The senior university admins set the admissions priorities: Too many boys trying to major in the same thing with limited seats and the need to gender balance the class.

So a female women’s studies major should take a boy’s Econ spot?

It is not a matter of "should" or fairness. The university is a business and if there is a women's studies department then there is a need for majors to support the department. The admissions office has no say in this process bedsides picking the students that will fill those pre-determined spots.

If the university is a business then it should respond to customer demand. If you have lots of male Econ applicants then accept them and expand that department. If there is little or no demand for women’s studies then close that department, don’t just admit women and deny men because the women’s studies professors need students to justify their jobs.

Program review and consolidation/elimination happens all the time in higher ed. If you’re bitter about fact that top universities have endowments to support less popular programs, maybe seek out a smaller school that has to be more nimble in responding to market forces.

And remember that top universities aren’t trying to crank out a bunch of cogs—they’re trying to position themselves in a way that shapes and responds to society overall. They want alumni who will be successful in many disciplines.

+1 It’s clear that a lot of people here have no problem talking about education without being knowledgeable about super basic practices.

It makes mainstream news when programs are cut. WVU was one of the bigger names that did this last year. A lot of people were furious. E. Gordon Gee (WVU, OSU, UC Boulder, Vandy, Brown) seems really good at mismanagement and then cutting programs/resources when the cows come home. It’s amazing that he keeps landing on his feet.

https://apnews.com/article/west-virginia-university-academic-faculty-cuts-245527c044cc2cfe80bcbe8c2eda7e98