How Do Selective Colleges Hire Their Admissions Officers?

[Anonymous]

Just curious — how do colleges, especially the highly selective ones (like the T20 schools), choose their admissions officers? If the process is similar to how HR works in the private sector, are they currently using AI tools to pre-filter applications? Also, are these admissions officers mostly alumni, or people with no prior connection to the school? Are they subject-matter experts, and if not, how accurately can they evaluate applicants for STEM programs — especially when it comes to understanding academic rigor and grading standards?

[Anonymous]

they hire unemployed humanities majors from local areas and pay low. not a lot to it. the committee makes the call anyways

[Anonymous]

There is no SME. Most are URM or women or both in humanities majors. Often, grad students who work there for free Master's. It's a low-paying job.

Google the names on LinkedIn to get a sense for their background:

https://admissions.northwestern.edu/visit/regional/mid-atlantic.html

https://stanfordwho.stanford.edu/ords/r/regapps/swho/public-people-directory?p24_role=Assistant+Director+of+Admission&clear=24,22&cs=11-tjqCkhZDQfxRutB37koGOaB93f6xV0bJGNObvhbLC5UqP-MuZdQa97YwRyszESPhnsbzmJ4PNLTOO69HD0_w

[Anonymous]

First job for alums who weren't successful in finding a job through recruitment. The alum may have previously worked as a student assistant (work study) in the Admissions office before getting hired to the entry-level FT role. So might already be "known" to the office.

[Anonymous]

I know someone who was a trailing military spouse who got hired as a part-time application reader at an Ivy and then was subsequently brought on as a full time AO. She’s super smart, but was not an alum or anything.

[Anonymous]

Some colleges may tap into the pool of retired local educators to be readers

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:First job for alums who weren't successful in finding a job through recruitment. The alum may have previously worked as a student assistant (work study) in the Admissions office before getting hired to the entry-level FT role. So might already be "known" to the office.

Of course some people can’t imagine that someone might want to work in education and choose higher ed because of how impactful and interesting it is!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First job for alums who weren't successful in finding a job through recruitment. The alum may have previously worked as a student assistant (work study) in the Admissions office before getting hired to the entry-level FT role. So might already be "known" to the office.

Of course some people can’t imagine that someone might want to work in education and choose higher ed because of how impactful and interesting it is!

I worked in a different administrative department at a T20 university (not Admissions). We hired alumni. Joining higher ed admin is not Plan A for the vast majority of these T20 students, it was a backup plan. The ones who came on board as a first choice were largely aiming to get their Masters through tuition remission, which was a great deal for them as it normally cost $200-300k.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First job for alums who weren't successful in finding a job through recruitment. The alum may have previously worked as a student assistant (work study) in the Admissions office before getting hired to the entry-level FT role. So might already be "known" to the office.

Of course some people can’t imagine that someone might want to work in education and choose higher ed because of how impactful and interesting it is!

I worked in a different administrative department at a T20 university (not Admissions). We hired alumni. Joining higher ed admin is not Plan A for the vast majority of these T20 students, it was a backup plan. The ones who came on board as a first choice were largely aiming to get their Masters through tuition remission, which was a great deal for them as it normally cost $200-300k.

what the hell kind of masters costs 200-300k? cant be mbas since that requires work experience

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Are they subject-matter experts, and if not, how accurately can they evaluate applicants for STEM programs — especially when it comes to understanding academic rigor and grading standards?

Definitely NOT subject-matter experts and definitely unable to evaluate research ECs. I say this as an engineering professor. I can barely understand the research papers colleagues in my department published if they were outside my area. High-level overview, yes, but nitty gritty details, no. Even if their paper is bad or wrong, they can make it sound really great with their writing because I wouldn't be able to tell. Now imagine an AO who has to know all areas of biology, chemistry, physics, mechanical engineering, civil engineering, computer science, math, etc. They don't even remotely exist.

With that said, the typical AOs know all the available AP courses because there are only so many of them and this is their job. They know which ones are fluff. They know multivariable calculus is supposed to happen after AP Calculus BC. They know linear algebra is another advanced math but is less tied to Calculus BC. If they are assigned to your region, they know the rigor at private/public high schools there.

But they are not god, you can easily throw them off with a little technical jargon in your EC description, making your research sounds more impressive than it really is. It's sad but this is what it has come down to in the college application arm race.

[Anonymous]

It’s a low paying job. Yes, mostly humanities majors who can’t find work with a better salary or masters students looking for tuition remission. Skews female and left.

[Anonymous]

Oh boy. Do you guys really think that first level reviewers or full time admissions staff don’t know how to consider experiences relevant to different majors? It’s a profession in higher education. Why would a humanities background be a negative? Also, why does it matter if admissions staff are “URM or women.” Nothing about reading a goddamn college application requires an engineering degree. When your kid doesn’t get in, they just didn’t get in. Get over it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Are they subject-matter experts, and if not, how accurately can they evaluate applicants for STEM programs — especially when it comes to understanding academic rigor and grading standards?

Definitely NOT subject-matter experts and definitely unable to evaluate research ECs. I say this as an engineering professor. I can barely understand the research papers colleagues in my department published if they were outside my area. High-level overview, yes, but nitty gritty details, no. Even if their paper is bad or wrong, they can make it sound really great with their writing because I wouldn't be able to tell. Now imagine an AO who has to know all areas of biology, chemistry, physics, mechanical engineering, civil engineering, computer science, math, etc. They don't even remotely exist.

With that said, the typical AOs know all the available AP courses because there are only so many of them and this is their job. They know which ones are fluff. They know multivariable calculus is supposed to happen after AP Calculus BC. They know linear algebra is another advanced math but is less tied to Calculus BC. If they are assigned to your region, they know the rigor at private/public high schools there.

But they are not god, you can easily throw them off with a little technical jargon in your EC description, making your research sounds more impressive than it really is. It's sad but this is what it has come down to in the college application arm race.

Thank you.

I’ve been observing the college admissions landscape for my own children, and as a hiring manager myself, I can say with confidence that the tech industry is still largely merit-based. I hope that colleges, especially the selective ones, take a truly serious approach to identifying the right students. Otherwise, degrees and higher education risk losing their value in the hiring pipeline.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh boy. Do you guys really think that first level reviewers or full time admissions staff don’t know how to consider experiences relevant to different majors? It’s a profession in higher education. Why would a humanities background be a negative? Also, why does it matter if admissions staff are “URM or women.” Nothing about reading a goddamn college application requires an engineering degree. When your kid doesn’t get in, they just didn’t get in. Get over it.

You sound negative. Even if truly talented kids are overlooked due to an whatever biased admission approach, it doesn’t change the fact that they will continue to thrive based on their own abilities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First job for alums who weren't successful in finding a job through recruitment. The alum may have previously worked as a student assistant (work study) in the Admissions office before getting hired to the entry-level FT role. So might already be "known" to the office.

Of course some people can’t imagine that someone might want to work in education and choose higher ed because of how impactful and interesting it is!

I worked in a different administrative department at a T20 university (not Admissions). We hired alumni. Joining higher ed admin is not Plan A for the vast majority of these T20 students, it was a backup plan. The ones who came on board as a first choice were largely aiming to get their Masters through tuition remission, which was a great deal for them as it normally cost $200-300k.

what the hell kind of masters costs 200-300k? cant be mbas since that requires work experience

Yes, part-time MBA. By the time they are eligible for tuition remission (there's a waiting period) they have the work experience necessary to apply.