College Admissions Staff - Massive turnover

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In this thread, a group of people who have no idea how colleges and universities operate. Colleges are complex organizations. Running a residential college is akin to running a small city - those 6500 administrators you site at Princeton - they help keep the lights on, students housed and feed, curriculum certified, research evaluated, data measured, funds raised, and bills paid. If you really want to know, read Power’s “Organization and Administration in Higher Ed.”

Are you saying that’s it requires 2-3 times as many people to do this as it took 25 years ago, even though the number of undergraduates at these institutions are roughly the same?

Yes, because the demands we place on colleges for services are bigger and more complex than 25 years ago.

Especially mental health & tutoring services.

+1 The needs of students and demands of parents is totally different than even 10 years ago. Mental health services, food allergy accommodations, disabilities, career advising, extensive study abroad options, student life programming, security/safety/campus police, Title IX are just a few things that have evolved and may now have their own office or center.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Serious question: how can you expect the “best and brightest” to be reading your kids’ applications when none of you would apparently encourage (or allow?) your own best and brightest kids to pursue a job like this?

Do they pay what a "best and brightest" college graduate would expect to get?

Of course not. I was using the OP’s own words. “You really wonder whether the best and brightest are reading our kids applications…” Um, no. I don’t wonder at all. Nor do I think they need to be.

Often people here go on about how well admissions officiers understand their high school, understand its grading policy etc. Then you read this thread about low paid temps.

This is so true. “Oh they know the rigor of GDS/Sidwell/NCS at XYZ school” that’s a falsehood often repeated here on DCUM.

Or “of course they know that when our school dropped AP courses that “extended” and “UL” mean rigor” - uh no.

Hogwash. Outside of a small number of SLACs who perhaps have a longer history of taking many kids from DC private schools (Tufts - GDS is a recent example), there is precious little institutional memory of our sacred schools here.

The minimum wage sweat shop front end readers are scoring applications with zero context and once that score is in, it’s there. Of course the next higher level reader can score it higher but the application is in the low pile based on the front end reader and so you are effectively done.

Lessons learned as a senior parent. Believe none of the happy talk. Focus on SAT/ACT 1500 or 34+, no grades below A- in 10th and 11th (and ideally 9th) in the core subjects, and maximal rigor if you want a top 30.

If your kid doesn’t have that and they are unhooked, forget about Top 30. And even 31-50 are tough coin flips.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In this thread, a group of people who have no idea how colleges and universities operate. Colleges are complex organizations. Running a residential college is akin to running a small city - those 6500 administrators you site at Princeton - they help keep the lights on, students housed and feed, curriculum certified, research evaluated, data measured, funds raised, and bills paid. If you really want to know, read Power’s “Organization and Administration in Higher Ed.”

Are you saying that’s it requires 2-3 times as many people to do this as it took 25 years ago, even though the number of undergraduates at these institutions are roughly the same?

Yes, because the demands we place on colleges for services are bigger and more complex than 25 years ago.

Especially mental health & tutoring services.

+1 The needs of students and demands of parents is totally different than even 10 years ago. Mental health services, food allergy accommodations, disabilities, career advising, extensive study abroad options, student life programming, security/safety/campus police, Title IX are just a few things that have evolved and may now have their own office or center.

Also IT. It’s not cheap to have fast, free student & guest WiFi in every nook & cranny of campus. Today, universities use a staggering amount of different software programs—all of which the IT office needs to be aware of & support.

There are cybersecurity risks to take into account, too. Sophisticated hacking & phishing scams.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In this thread, a group of people who have no idea how colleges and universities operate. Colleges are complex organizations. Running a residential college is akin to running a small city - those 6500 administrators you site at Princeton - they help keep the lights on, students housed and feed, curriculum certified, research evaluated, data measured, funds raised, and bills paid. If you really want to know, read Power’s “Organization and Administration in Higher Ed.”

It’s just like healthcare and hospitals specifically. The two industries with administrator bloat (more administrators than doctors and nurses - now 8:1 ratio). You know what both have in common - massive government subsidies that lead to lifelong administrator employment. And look at the 990s, colleges and hospitals mostly have 100+ people making over $500k per year. Columbia Presbyterian in NYC has over 150 non MDs making $1m or more a year.

And hospitals and colleges are the two industries with massive cost growth that far exceeds inflation durably every year since 1980.

Both are industrial complexes fed by no cost hiring decisions fueled by subsidies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Serious question: how can you expect the “best and brightest” to be reading your kids’ applications when none of you would apparently encourage (or allow?) your own best and brightest kids to pursue a job like this?

Do they pay what a "best and brightest" college graduate would expect to get?

Of course not. I was using the OP’s own words. “You really wonder whether the best and brightest are reading our kids applications…” Um, no. I don’t wonder at all. Nor do I think they need to be.

Often people here go on about how well admissions officiers understand their high school, understand its grading policy etc. Then you read this thread about low paid temps.

This is so true. “Oh they know the rigor of GDS/Sidwell/NCS at XYZ school” that’s a falsehood often repeated here on DCUM.

Or “of course they know that when our school dropped AP courses that “extended” and “UL” mean rigor” - uh no.

Hogwash. Outside of a small number of SLACs who perhaps have a longer history of taking many kids from DC private schools (Tufts - GDS is a recent example), there is precious little institutional memory of our sacred schools here.

The minimum wage sweat shop front end readers are scoring applications with zero context and once that score is in, it’s there. Of course the next higher level reader can score it higher but the application is in the low pile based on the front end reader and so you are effectively done.

Lessons learned as a senior parent. Believe none of the happy talk. Focus on SAT/ACT 1500 or 34+, no grades below A- in 10th and 11th (and ideally 9th) in the core subjects, and maximal rigor if you want a top 30.

If your kid doesn’t have that and they are unhooked, forget about Top 30. And even 31-50 are tough coin flips.

Maybe look at schools beyond the top 100?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Serious question: how can you expect the “best and brightest” to be reading your kids’ applications when none of you would apparently encourage (or allow?) your own best and brightest kids to pursue a job like this?

Do they pay what a "best and brightest" college graduate would expect to get?

Of course not. I was using the OP’s own words. “You really wonder whether the best and brightest are reading our kids applications…” Um, no. I don’t wonder at all. Nor do I think they need to be.

Often people here go on about how well admissions officiers understand their high school, understand its grading policy etc. Then you read this thread about low paid temps.

This is so true. “Oh they know the rigor of GDS/Sidwell/NCS at XYZ school” that’s a falsehood often repeated here on DCUM.

Or “of course they know that when our school dropped AP courses that “extended” and “UL” mean rigor” - uh no.

Hogwash. Outside of a small number of SLACs who perhaps have a longer history of taking many kids from DC private schools (Tufts - GDS is a recent example), there is precious little institutional memory of our sacred schools here.

The minimum wage sweat shop front end readers are scoring applications with zero context and once that score is in, it’s there. Of course the next higher level reader can score it higher but the application is in the low pile based on the front end reader and so you are effectively done.

Lessons learned as a senior parent. Believe none of the happy talk. Focus on SAT/ACT 1500 or 34+, no grades below A- in 10th and 11th (and ideally 9th) in the core subjects, and maximal rigor if you want a top 30.

If your kid doesn’t have that and they are unhooked, forget about Top 30. And even 31-50 are tough coin flips.

This is true. And you better ED to the 31-50 range school you like.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Serious question: how can you expect the “best and brightest” to be reading your kids’ applications when none of you would apparently encourage (or allow?) your own best and brightest kids to pursue a job like this?

Do they pay what a "best and brightest" college graduate would expect to get?

Of course not. I was using the OP’s own words. “You really wonder whether the best and brightest are reading our kids applications…” Um, no. I don’t wonder at all. Nor do I think they need to be.

Often people here go on about how well admissions officiers understand their high school, understand its grading policy etc. Then you read this thread about low paid temps.

This is so true. “Oh they know the rigor of GDS/Sidwell/NCS at XYZ school” that’s a falsehood often repeated here on DCUM.

Or “of course they know that when our school dropped AP courses that “extended” and “UL” mean rigor” - uh no.

Hogwash. Outside of a small number of SLACs who perhaps have a longer history of taking many kids from DC private schools (Tufts - GDS is a recent example), there is precious little institutional memory of our sacred schools here.

The minimum wage sweat shop front end readers are scoring applications with zero context and once that score is in, it’s there. Of course the next higher level reader can score it higher but the application is in the low pile based on the front end reader and so you are effectively done.

Lessons learned as a senior parent. Believe none of the happy talk. Focus on SAT/ACT 1500 or 34+, no grades below A- in 10th and 11th (and ideally 9th) in the core subjects, and maximal rigor if you want a top 30.

If your kid doesn’t have that and they are unhooked, forget about Top 30. And even 31-50 are tough coin flips.

This is true. And you better ED to the 31-50 range school you like.

more like 26 - 60

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In this thread, a group of people who have no idea how colleges and universities operate. Colleges are complex organizations. Running a residential college is akin to running a small city - those 6500 administrators you site at Princeton - they help keep the lights on, students housed and feed, curriculum certified, research evaluated, data measured, funds raised, and bills paid. If you really want to know, read Power’s “Organization and Administration in Higher Ed.”

It’s just like healthcare and hospitals specifically. The two industries with administrator bloat (more administrators than doctors and nurses - now 8:1 ratio). You know what both have in common - massive government subsidies that lead to lifelong administrator employment. And look at the 990s, colleges and hospitals mostly have 100+ people making over $500k per year. Columbia Presbyterian in NYC has over 150 non MDs making $1m or more a year.

And hospitals and colleges are the two industries with massive cost growth that far exceeds inflation durably every year since 1980.

Both are industrial complexes fed by no cost hiring decisions fueled by subsidies.

It's because they can be sued or PR-killed for screwing up in the areas where they now have specific departments to manage it. Cheaper to do it right on the front end.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The distain for people who choose to work in education across the DCUM forums is so sad.

The reality is that, at current pay rates, education (higher education & k-12) aren’t attracting the best & the brightest in most settings.

Are you willing to pay more in taxes or tuition?

No. I think schools should have harder applications so fewer kids apply. And I think standardized test scores should play a bigger role to cull a batch of apps.

Schools love to get more applications = more applications fees + lower acceptance rate.

There should be limits in number of schools you can apply like 12?

Yes test scores should be mandatory, and limit to taking no more than 3 times.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good to see y'all have a new scapegoat to help cope

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Will AI take over a lot of it?

Yes. AI could do it now but colleges and universities are late adopters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The distain for people who choose to work in education across the DCUM forums is so sad.

The reality is that, at current pay rates, education (higher education & k-12) aren’t attracting the best & the brightest in most settings.

Are you willing to pay more in taxes or tuition?

No. I think schools should have harder applications so fewer kids apply. And I think standardized test scores should play a bigger role to cull a batch of apps.

Schools love to get more applications = more applications fees + lower acceptance rate.

There should be limits in number of schools you can apply like 12?

Yes test scores should be mandatory, and limit to taking no more than 3 times.

1. Schools don't earn margin from application fees
2. There are limits already - 20 with the common app. Who is helped by lower limits? Colleges don't want it and applicants don't want it...
3. Colleges that want test scores require them. Colleges that want ALL scores require them. Who is helped by your entirely arbitrary numbers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The distain for people who choose to work in education across the DCUM forums is so sad.

The reality is that, at current pay rates, education (higher education & k-12) aren’t attracting the best & the brightest in most settings.

Are you willing to pay more in taxes or tuition?

No. I think schools should have harder applications so fewer kids apply. And I think standardized test scores should play a bigger role to cull a batch of apps.

Schools love to get more applications = more applications fees + lower acceptance rate.

There should be limits in number of schools you can apply like 12?

Yes test scores should be mandatory, and limit to taking no more than 3 times.

1. Schools don't earn margin from application fees
2. There are limits already - 20 with the common app. Who is helped by lower limits? Colleges don't want it and applicants don't want it...
3. Colleges that want test scores require them. Colleges that want ALL scores require them. Who is helped by your entirely arbitrary numbers?

So we have better overall common sense fair system in the country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The distain for people who choose to work in education across the DCUM forums is so sad.

The reality is that, at current pay rates, education (higher education & k-12) aren’t attracting the best & the brightest in most settings.

Are you willing to pay more in taxes or tuition?

No. I think schools should have harder applications so fewer kids apply. And I think standardized test scores should play a bigger role to cull a batch of apps.

Schools love to get more applications = more applications fees + lower acceptance rate.

There should be limits in number of schools you can apply like 12?

Yes test scores should be mandatory, and limit to taking no more than 3 times.

1. Schools don't earn margin from application fees
2. There are limits already - 20 with the common app. Who is helped by lower limits? Colleges don't want it and applicants don't want it...
3. Colleges that want test scores require them. Colleges that want ALL scores require them. Who is helped by your entirely arbitrary numbers?

So we have better overall common sense fair system in the country.

Sorry you will have to explain this post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Univ Prof here. I agree with the main observation of this thread. Admissions offices are being staffed, on average, by poorly trained and poorly educated folks (who are, in general, MUCH less able than folks they are screening). Fact of life and it will not change.

Seriously?

I've yet to meet an admissions person who is "MUCH less able than folks they are screening." I've met a variety of folks with a variety skills - none in the "MUCH less" category.

Also, did you not get the memo that many PT AO staff are work study students and many entry-level FT employees are recent college grads. That reflects more on their professors than anything else.

But if this is the case on your campus, then what steps are you taking to increase pay in order to attract better trained and educated talent (as well as what improvements are you making in your classroom to improve the quality of your college's grads?)?

You should know that universities use HR/admissions offices to staff up on URM so they can meet their URM quotas. They often hire graduates from schools that are ranked far below their own rank. You can do the math on the rest.

I've yet to meet an admit staff who attended a school "far below their own rank" and I've met a lot in my day, both professionally and personally.

PP also couldn't resist slipping quota in the comment. Just rank.