Do you know a kid who was screwed in the college process in last few years?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A person only gets screwed if a significantly less qualified kid from the same school gets admitted.

And you didn't get screwed if no one from your school was accepted.

How do you define this?

Here's something I saw on Reddit - I think EVERYONE with a high stats kid should read the below (in answer to the question of how high stats/crazy ECs/awards kids still routinely get rejected:
https://www.reddit.com/r/collegeresults/comments/1kl81su/comment/ms29pcm

Former admissions officer here from a top college, short answer: absolutely.

Here’s why:

I’ve seen plenty of high-achieving students get rejected, even with near-perfect GPAs and test scores. The biggest reasons? They didn’t show a genuine interest in our school, skipped optional supplements (which aren’t really optional unless your main app shows a strong alignment with the school’s mission), or came off as immature or unaware in their essays. Some shared stories that raised more concerns than confidence.

Having amazing stats isn’t a free pass to any university. Every school has a unique culture, and you still need to explain why you belong there specifically. Too often, students assume strong stats are enough, but admissions is just as much as about connecting with the adcom as it is about stats. You essays, recs, and activities need to bring out your personality, character, and alignment with the school.

I’ve read common app essays from students that went on and on about their inspiration and passion for engineering, for a school that did not offer an engineering major/track. Making us wonder, why you were even applying to our school. You have to make every school you apply to feel like they’re you’re #1 choice, because universities also care about their conversion rate of students that they admit, who actually commit, they do not want to offer a seat to students that are not enthusiastic about their school because every seat the school offers, may be the equivalent of rejecting 5 other highly qualified students who would say YES!

Think of it like dating. A 4.0 and a 1500+ SAT is similar to being tall, attractive, and fit. Great for many — but lots of other people check those boxes too. And to stand out, especially to a person who is also attractive and has many options (a highly selective university in our case) you need personality and depth that resonates with the person (school). And even then, you still might get rejected because you simply weren’t what they were looking for at that time, it’s not always personal.

I feel like many students and parents fail to understand the purpose of academic stats. We use these numbers as a way to gauge whether or not you can handle the workload and rigors of our classroom. The more rigorous and prestigious the school, the higher that bar is. But once you’re over it, it’s all about character, values, and alignment.

And here’s the twist: top schools do take chances on students with less-than-average stats, IF their story is powerful, inspiring, and shows grit. Because these schools have the academic resources to support them. Every year we see students who applied with perfect SAT scores and 4.0 GPAs with <2.5 First semester GPAs. As schools we accept the fact that students will struggle in our classroom regardless of their stats, and we address this by offering an abundance of academic resources to ensure students don’t flunk out, because that’s actually a poor reflection on us. So we can lean on the fact that students who may have not had the best HS academic performance can still do well in our classrooms if they utilize the resources our campus offers.

What sometimes matters more than stats is that the student has something meaningful to contribute and the potential to thrive with the right support.

The powerful, inspiring stories are mostly BS. You know that right?

From the "rich kids", yes they are typically curated. From a MC/LMC/poor kid who hasn't had all the privileges in life, nope those are most typically real. That is why it works for those kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Getting rejected is not the same as getting screwed. Getting rejected from a top school is understandable.

I think high stats kids (and their parents) think that the bar should be higher than it actually is. For example, they probably feel that a TO kid or a kid with a 1450 should not be given a chance due to the fact that there are tons of kids applying to the top schools with greater than a 1500.

BINGO!!!

And that would be where they are wrong. The difference between a 1450 kid with motivation and perseverance, who might have not had all the privileges growing up or who truly overcame some issues in life (learning, or anything else) can be just as "smart" as you 1580/4.75/14 AP kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A person only gets screwed if a significantly less qualified kid from the same school gets admitted.

And you didn't get screwed if no one from your school was accepted.

How do you define this?

Here's something I saw on Reddit - I think EVERYONE with a high stats kid should read the below (in answer to the question of how high stats/crazy ECs/awards kids still routinely get rejected:
https://www.reddit.com/r/collegeresults/comments/1kl81su/comment/ms29pcm

Former admissions officer here from a top college, short answer: absolutely.

Here’s why:

I’ve seen plenty of high-achieving students get rejected, even with near-perfect GPAs and test scores. The biggest reasons? They didn’t show a genuine interest in our school, skipped optional supplements (which aren’t really optional unless your main app shows a strong alignment with the school’s mission), or came off as immature or unaware in their essays. Some shared stories that raised more concerns than confidence.

Having amazing stats isn’t a free pass to any university. Every school has a unique culture, and you still need to explain why you belong there specifically. Too often, students assume strong stats are enough, but admissions is just as much as about connecting with the adcom as it is about stats. You essays, recs, and activities need to bring out your personality, character, and alignment with the school.

I’ve read common app essays from students that went on and on about their inspiration and passion for engineering, for a school that did not offer an engineering major/track. Making us wonder, why you were even applying to our school. You have to make every school you apply to feel like they’re you’re #1 choice, because universities also care about their conversion rate of students that they admit, who actually commit, they do not want to offer a seat to students that are not enthusiastic about their school because every seat the school offers, may be the equivalent of rejecting 5 other highly qualified students who would say YES!

Think of it like dating. A 4.0 and a 1500+ SAT is similar to being tall, attractive, and fit. Great for many — but lots of other people check those boxes too. And to stand out, especially to a person who is also attractive and has many options (a highly selective university in our case) you need personality and depth that resonates with the person (school). And even then, you still might get rejected because you simply weren’t what they were looking for at that time, it’s not always personal.

I feel like many students and parents fail to understand the purpose of academic stats. We use these numbers as a way to gauge whether or not you can handle the workload and rigors of our classroom. The more rigorous and prestigious the school, the higher that bar is. But once you’re over it, it’s all about character, values, and alignment.

And here’s the twist: top schools do take chances on students with less-than-average stats, IF their story is powerful, inspiring, and shows grit. Because these schools have the academic resources to support them. Every year we see students who applied with perfect SAT scores and 4.0 GPAs with <2.5 First semester GPAs. As schools we accept the fact that students will struggle in our classroom regardless of their stats, and we address this by offering an abundance of academic resources to ensure students don’t flunk out, because that’s actually a poor reflection on us. So we can lean on the fact that students who may have not had the best HS academic performance can still do well in our classrooms if they utilize the resources our campus offers.

What sometimes matters more than stats is that the student has something meaningful to contribute and the potential to thrive with the right support.

This should be required reading for every TJ parent and immigrant unfamiliar with holistic admissions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting rejected is not the same as getting screwed. Getting rejected from a top school is understandable.

I think high stats kids (and their parents) think that the bar should be higher than it actually is. For example, they probably feel that a TO kid or a kid with a 1450 should not be given a chance due to the fact that there are tons of kids applying to the top schools with greater than a 1500.

High stats doesn't make you compelling to an AO. That's the truth. Plain & simple.

I get that. My point is that I feel that high stat kids think/want the line between consider and no to be a lot higher than it actually is.

The lower bar just goes to show that the schools themselves believe that the level of academic rigor required to succeed is lesser in their eyes than in the eyes of kids and parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A person only gets screwed if a significantly less qualified kid from the same school gets admitted.

And you didn't get screwed if no one from your school was accepted.

How do you define this?

Here's something I saw on Reddit - I think EVERYONE with a high stats kid should read the below (in answer to the question of how high stats/crazy ECs/awards kids still routinely get rejected:
https://www.reddit.com/r/collegeresults/comments/1kl81su/comment/ms29pcm

Former admissions officer here from a top college, short answer: absolutely.

Here’s why:

I’ve seen plenty of high-achieving students get rejected, even with near-perfect GPAs and test scores. The biggest reasons? They didn’t show a genuine interest in our school, skipped optional supplements (which aren’t really optional unless your main app shows a strong alignment with the school’s mission), or came off as immature or unaware in their essays. Some shared stories that raised more concerns than confidence.

Having amazing stats isn’t a free pass to any university. Every school has a unique culture, and you still need to explain why you belong there specifically. Too often, students assume strong stats are enough, but admissions is just as much as about connecting with the adcom as it is about stats. You essays, recs, and activities need to bring out your personality, character, and alignment with the school.

I’ve read common app essays from students that went on and on about their inspiration and passion for engineering, for a school that did not offer an engineering major/track. Making us wonder, why you were even applying to our school. You have to make every school you apply to feel like they’re you’re #1 choice, because universities also care about their conversion rate of students that they admit, who actually commit, they do not want to offer a seat to students that are not enthusiastic about their school because every seat the school offers, may be the equivalent of rejecting 5 other highly qualified students who would say YES!

Think of it like dating. A 4.0 and a 1500+ SAT is similar to being tall, attractive, and fit. Great for many — but lots of other people check those boxes too. And to stand out, especially to a person who is also attractive and has many options (a highly selective university in our case) you need personality and depth that resonates with the person (school). And even then, you still might get rejected because you simply weren’t what they were looking for at that time, it’s not always personal.

I feel like many students and parents fail to understand the purpose of academic stats. We use these numbers as a way to gauge whether or not you can handle the workload and rigors of our classroom. The more rigorous and prestigious the school, the higher that bar is. But once you’re over it, it’s all about character, values, and alignment.

And here’s the twist: top schools do take chances on students with less-than-average stats, IF their story is powerful, inspiring, and shows grit. Because these schools have the academic resources to support them. Every year we see students who applied with perfect SAT scores and 4.0 GPAs with <2.5 First semester GPAs. As schools we accept the fact that students will struggle in our classroom regardless of their stats, and we address this by offering an abundance of academic resources to ensure students don’t flunk out, because that’s actually a poor reflection on us. So we can lean on the fact that students who may have not had the best HS academic performance can still do well in our classrooms if they utilize the resources our campus offers.

What sometimes matters more than stats is that the student has something meaningful to contribute and the potential to thrive with the right support.

This should be required reading for every TJ parent and immigrant unfamiliar with holistic admissions.

Common on. I agree with all the above, but anyone who spends an hour learning about college admissions knows this.

This is a strawman argument.

Great academics and scores are a given. But even after having outstanding EC's and spending a great amount of time on compelling essays, we see students not get in. The tiny differences in EC's and essays and what those might be are the variables people are trying to understand.

DC got into 2 of the HYPSM's and 5 of T20s. It is still a mystery why some landed and why some failed. It is not correlating with our prior expectations and effort spent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A person only gets screwed if a significantly less qualified kid from the same school gets admitted.

And you didn't get screwed if no one from your school was accepted.

How do you define this?

Here's something I saw on Reddit - I think EVERYONE with a high stats kid should read the below (in answer to the question of how high stats/crazy ECs/awards kids still routinely get rejected:
https://www.reddit.com/r/collegeresults/comments/1kl81su/comment/ms29pcm

Former admissions officer here from a top college, short answer: absolutely.

Here’s why:

I’ve seen plenty of high-achieving students get rejected, even with near-perfect GPAs and test scores. The biggest reasons? They didn’t show a genuine interest in our school, skipped optional supplements (which aren’t really optional unless your main app shows a strong alignment with the school’s mission), or came off as immature or unaware in their essays. Some shared stories that raised more concerns than confidence.

Having amazing stats isn’t a free pass to any university. Every school has a unique culture, and you still need to explain why you belong there specifically. Too often, students assume strong stats are enough, but admissions is just as much as about connecting with the adcom as it is about stats. You essays, recs, and activities need to bring out your personality, character, and alignment with the school.

I’ve read common app essays from students that went on and on about their inspiration and passion for engineering, for a school that did not offer an engineering major/track. Making us wonder, why you were even applying to our school. You have to make every school you apply to feel like they’re you’re #1 choice, because universities also care about their conversion rate of students that they admit, who actually commit, they do not want to offer a seat to students that are not enthusiastic about their school because every seat the school offers, may be the equivalent of rejecting 5 other highly qualified students who would say YES!

Think of it like dating. A 4.0 and a 1500+ SAT is similar to being tall, attractive, and fit. Great for many — but lots of other people check those boxes too. And to stand out, especially to a person who is also attractive and has many options (a highly selective university in our case) you need personality and depth that resonates with the person (school). And even then, you still might get rejected because you simply weren’t what they were looking for at that time, it’s not always personal.

I feel like many students and parents fail to understand the purpose of academic stats. We use these numbers as a way to gauge whether or not you can handle the workload and rigors of our classroom. The more rigorous and prestigious the school, the higher that bar is. But once you’re over it, it’s all about character, values, and alignment.

And here’s the twist: top schools do take chances on students with less-than-average stats, IF their story is powerful, inspiring, and shows grit. Because these schools have the academic resources to support them. Every year we see students who applied with perfect SAT scores and 4.0 GPAs with <2.5 First semester GPAs. As schools we accept the fact that students will struggle in our classroom regardless of their stats, and we address this by offering an abundance of academic resources to ensure students don’t flunk out, because that’s actually a poor reflection on us. So we can lean on the fact that students who may have not had the best HS academic performance can still do well in our classrooms if they utilize the resources our campus offers.

What sometimes matters more than stats is that the student has something meaningful to contribute and the potential to thrive with the right support.

This should be required reading for every TJ parent and immigrant unfamiliar with holistic admissions.

Common on. I agree with all the above, but anyone who spends an hour learning about college admissions knows this.

This is a strawman argument.

Great academics and scores are a given. But even after having outstanding EC's and spending a great amount of time on compelling essays, we see students not get in. The tiny differences in EC's and essays and what those might be are the variables people are trying to understand.

DC got into 2 of the HYPSM's and 5 of T20s. It is still a mystery why some landed and why some failed. It is not correlating with our prior expectations and effort spent.

Huh. That’s not rocket science.

In regular decision, they are trying to fill the class. They had already had too many of your type of kids. None additional were needed.

And as great as the kid was, your kid was clearly not a “must have” auto admit from every top 10 school, which is actually rare anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A person only gets screwed if a significantly less qualified kid from the same school gets admitted.

And you didn't get screwed if no one from your school was accepted.

How do you define this?

Here's something I saw on Reddit - I think EVERYONE with a high stats kid should read the below (in answer to the question of how high stats/crazy ECs/awards kids still routinely get rejected:
https://www.reddit.com/r/collegeresults/comments/1kl81su/comment/ms29pcm

Former admissions officer here from a top college, short answer: absolutely.

Here’s why:

I’ve seen plenty of high-achieving students get rejected, even with near-perfect GPAs and test scores. The biggest reasons? They didn’t show a genuine interest in our school, skipped optional supplements (which aren’t really optional unless your main app shows a strong alignment with the school’s mission), or came off as immature or unaware in their essays. Some shared stories that raised more concerns than confidence.

Having amazing stats isn’t a free pass to any university. Every school has a unique culture, and you still need to explain why you belong there specifically. Too often, students assume strong stats are enough, but admissions is just as much as about connecting with the adcom as it is about stats. You essays, recs, and activities need to bring out your personality, character, and alignment with the school.

I’ve read common app essays from students that went on and on about their inspiration and passion for engineering, for a school that did not offer an engineering major/track. Making us wonder, why you were even applying to our school. You have to make every school you apply to feel like they’re you’re #1 choice, because universities also care about their conversion rate of students that they admit, who actually commit, they do not want to offer a seat to students that are not enthusiastic about their school because every seat the school offers, may be the equivalent of rejecting 5 other highly qualified students who would say YES!

Think of it like dating. A 4.0 and a 1500+ SAT is similar to being tall, attractive, and fit. Great for many — but lots of other people check those boxes too. And to stand out, especially to a person who is also attractive and has many options (a highly selective university in our case) you need personality and depth that resonates with the person (school). And even then, you still might get rejected because you simply weren’t what they were looking for at that time, it’s not always personal.

I feel like many students and parents fail to understand the purpose of academic stats. We use these numbers as a way to gauge whether or not you can handle the workload and rigors of our classroom. The more rigorous and prestigious the school, the higher that bar is. But once you’re over it, it’s all about character, values, and alignment.

And here’s the twist: top schools do take chances on students with less-than-average stats, IF their story is powerful, inspiring, and shows grit. Because these schools have the academic resources to support them. Every year we see students who applied with perfect SAT scores and 4.0 GPAs with <2.5 First semester GPAs. As schools we accept the fact that students will struggle in our classroom regardless of their stats, and we address this by offering an abundance of academic resources to ensure students don’t flunk out, because that’s actually a poor reflection on us. So we can lean on the fact that students who may have not had the best HS academic performance can still do well in our classrooms if they utilize the resources our campus offers.

What sometimes matters more than stats is that the student has something meaningful to contribute and the potential to thrive with the right support.

This should be required reading for every TJ parent and immigrant unfamiliar with holistic admissions.

Common on. I agree with all the above, but anyone who spends an hour learning about college admissions knows this.

This is a strawman argument.

Great academics and scores are a given. But even after having outstanding EC's and spending a great amount of time on compelling essays, we see students not get in. The tiny differences in EC's and essays and what those might be are the variables people are trying to understand.

DC got into 2 of the HYPSM's and 5 of T20s. It is still a mystery why some landed and why some failed. It is not correlating with our prior expectations and effort spent.

Huh. That’s not rocket science.

In regular decision, they are trying to fill the class. They had already had too many of your type of kids. None additional were needed.

And as great as the kid was, your kid was clearly not a “must have” auto admit from every top 10 school, which is actually rare anyway.

You missed my entire point. You went off on a tangent.

[Anonymous]

^^^
NP:
You want to understand this: “ The tiny differences in EC's and essays and what those might be are the variables people are trying to understand.”

But at the end of the day, that’s not what that Reddit post was getting at. The Reddit post was about kids who generally have top stats and get in nowhere. Or get into very very few schools. That’s not your kid. You came here to insert yourself, but your kid was not screwed/overlooked because they didn’t get into MIT or Stanford. And instead got into Harvard and Yale and Northwestern and Penn - or wherever.

The former admissions officer’s point was that certain kids don’t try hard enough to convey a fit between them and the T20 institution, assuming that their stats will carry the day. There’s definitely a difference in quality, passion, and eagerness you can sense in some kids’ T20essays.

If you’re trying to figure out the little variables for each school your kid is applying to, that’s a lengthy research-based process that involves talking to their admissions reps, people who have been in the AO committee room, reading their mission statements, their strategic plans, and ultimately knowing what their specific priorities are for that specific year.

While at the extreme, it’s entirely possible that in any given year, a kid who was admitted in 2025 may not have been admitted to the same T10 institution in 2024 with the same application. There are different guiding principles determined each year by the dean of admissions.

[Anonymous]

I’m flabbergasted that anyone believes there is a committee room with AOs dutifully discussing candidates, carefully pouring over applications, hand selecting those golden nuggets whose stories bring warmth to their hearts. Parents of kids that got in thinking their kids crafted a cohesive story that resonated above all others while parents of kids who didn’t get in bemoan not focusing on a different angle in the essay.

People this is all being done with enrollment management software, consultants, and temporary workers checking off boxes in a rubric while watching White Lotus or YouTube videos of dancing pandas. AI is now being used in some software and I guarantee it will increase fast. Some enrollment management software packages even target admits before they apply grabbing data you didn’t think was part of the equation.

Universities are not transparent about this because they understand how it would be received.

[Anonymous]

I grew up in a lmc family. I went to an Ivy and my brother went to a desirable T50 and we have gone onto great success in our fields. Our sister was not admitted to selective schools (excellent grades and ECs but lower test scores) and didn’t gain the peer group we did, so she has struggled. DH and I understand that our kids already have the peer group I needed a prestigious college to gain. Most of us DCUM parents have given our kids the resources and connections to thrive in life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m flabbergasted that anyone believes there is a committee room with AOs dutifully discussing candidates, carefully pouring over applications, hand selecting those golden nuggets whose stories bring warmth to their hearts. Parents of kids that got in thinking their kids crafted a cohesive story that resonated above all others while parents of kids who didn’t get in bemoan not focusing on a different angle in the essay.

People this is all being done with enrollment management software, consultants, and temporary workers checking off boxes in a rubric while watching White Lotus or YouTube videos of dancing pandas. AI is now being used in some software and I guarantee it will increase fast. Some enrollment management software packages even target admits before they apply grabbing data you didn’t think was part of the equation.

Universities are not transparent about this because they understand how it would be received.

True at some schools yes.
But at T20 - which we are talking about here - you either make that first EM/AI cut automatically and get a Yes, get rejected with a No or are brought to committee.

Talk to T20 Deans - go to the admissions office in February. There will be a giant conference room. Filled. With DND signs.

And for Pete’s sake listen to Dean Coffin. He had 3 fabulous episodes this spring, where he described the process in extraordinary detail.

But I take your point. There are numbers assigned on the top of the file from the enrollment management software showing engagement and yield prediction. That all comes into play in RD.

[Anonymous]

We know one 1600 SAT kid who actually have good ECs, great grades, etc...but bragged to his classmates that he completed like 7 applications to top 10 schools all in one night just before the deadline.

Guess what...rejected at all. If you speak to the parents, their revisionist history is their kid was aggrieved and "less than" kids at the school were accepted.

The kids know he probably submitted POS applications.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m flabbergasted that anyone believes there is a committee room with AOs dutifully discussing candidates, carefully pouring over applications, hand selecting those golden nuggets whose stories bring warmth to their hearts. Parents of kids that got in thinking their kids crafted a cohesive story that resonated above all others while parents of kids who didn’t get in bemoan not focusing on a different angle in the essay.

People this is all being done with enrollment management software, consultants, and temporary workers checking off boxes in a rubric while watching White Lotus or YouTube videos of dancing pandas. AI is now being used in some software and I guarantee it will increase fast. Some enrollment management software packages even target admits before they apply grabbing data you didn’t think was part of the equation.

Universities are not transparent about this because they understand how it would be received.

You are responding in the middle of the night - where are you? California? Abroad?

My two cents: Read a bit more about the process directly from selective private top colleges (the public schools absolutely do some of this EM stuff you mention as a gating item). There are a few former T10 AO on Reddit that I follow (I've posted their comments above and elsewhere on this site)....they have described the AO review process in detail. Mind you, it's limited to selective schools. So if you are talking Northeastern or something, then yes, your process is 100% correct.

Interestingly, this past fall, we heard something new from our private CCO - whether or not a human actually reads your kid's application is determined by your high school. If it's a large non-feeder public school, it's an AI/auto filter, much as you describe. We were told all of the applications from our high school will be read by a human (and not a temp reader, but the regional rep who comes to our high school) at T25 and most SLACs..... It's a horrible, unfair part of this process. People don't talk about this enough, but there are differences out of the gate before your application is even reviewed. Maybe someone should do a post on that.

I imagine with more focus on full pay this bifurcation only becomes a more acute divide.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I grew up in a lmc family. I went to an Ivy and my brother went to a desirable T50 and we have gone onto great success in our fields. Our sister was not admitted to selective schools (excellent grades and ECs but lower test scores) and didn’t gain the peer group we did, so she has struggled. DH and I understand that our kids already have the peer group I needed a prestigious college to gain. Most of us DCUM parents have given our kids the resources and connections to thrive in life.

This is interesting. How has she struggled?

So, you think your sister's peer group (and earning potential/career potential) was dictated by the college she went to? I tend to agree that peer group matters the most, more than some sort of arbitrary ranking or name.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m flabbergasted that anyone believes there is a committee room with AOs dutifully discussing candidates, carefully pouring over applications, hand selecting those golden nuggets whose stories bring warmth to their hearts. Parents of kids that got in thinking their kids crafted a cohesive story that resonated above all others while parents of kids who didn’t get in bemoan not focusing on a different angle in the essay.

People this is all being done with enrollment management software, consultants, and temporary workers checking off boxes in a rubric while watching White Lotus or YouTube videos of dancing pandas. AI is now being used in some software and I guarantee it will increase fast. Some enrollment management software packages even target admits before they apply grabbing data you didn’t think was part of the equation.

Universities are not transparent about this because they understand how it would be received.

You are responding in the middle of the night - where are you? California? Abroad?

My two cents: Read a bit more about the process directly from selective private top colleges (the public schools absolutely do some of this EM stuff you mention as a gating item). There are a few former T10 AO on Reddit that I follow (I've posted their comments above and elsewhere on this site)....they have described the AO review process in detail. Mind you, it's limited to selective schools. So if you are talking Northeastern or something, then yes, your process is 100% correct.

Interestingly, this past fall, we heard something new from our private CCO - whether or not a human actually reads your kid's application is determined by your high school. If it's a large non-feeder public school, it's an AI/auto filter, much as you describe. We were told all of the applications from our high school will be read by a human (and not a temp reader, but the regional rep who comes to our high school) at T25 and most SLACs..... It's a horrible, unfair part of this process. People don't talk about this enough, but there are differences out of the gate before your application is even reviewed. Maybe someone should do a post on that.

I imagine with more focus on full pay this bifurcation only becomes a more acute divide.

wow, interesting. i've never heard about this.