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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Personally, I think that using AI to read essays is a terrible development. Too subjective.

Setting that aside, I still think that the problem with AI is the post-review shaping of the class algorithm from the college's enrollment management consultant. Intuitively, I think their models are likely crap. They think certain variables mean things that they don't, they weight them wrong, etc.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter that the algorithm is unfair if they end up with the class that they want. And thus, we have OP's title, that certain kids are getting screwed by those algorithms. A hard truth to swallow.

I don't remember if it was this thread or a different one that talked about leaking. One day that will happen, or someone will figure it out, though I suspect that some of the key variables will not be items that can be easily changed/gamed.

I think it depends on how it’s used. I do think certain kids will be institutionally disadvantaged by these new developments. Likely kids in oversubscribed majors and from large public high schools where there are dozens and dozens of applicants a year.

Wanting to study a popular major makes you disadvantaged? Attending a large public high School. Makes you disadvantaged? I think that is a very silly way to look at this. No one is disadvantaged if they don't get into Harvard.

There are not a lot of spots and competition to get them is fierce. but it is more than possible to pursue whatever it is you want to pursue without getting admittance to Harvard. And good thing because the vast majority of students are not going to Harvard.

I also think it can disadvantage your application to private T20 schools. Its not about Harvard.

If it can disadvantage your application, it can also advantage your application. This is a game and it always has been and will be. Understand the game and apply accordingly.

Explain how it (what is it) can advantage your application? AI?
So now you pepper your application with the keywords they are looking for?

I do not understand the exact process that ai is performing on these applications. But whatever it is, understand it is and use it. if you need to have keywords in there for AI put the keywords in there for AI.

NP and differing POV here:
I think the people most influential and important in college admissions in this next cycle will be former college counselors who just left T20 admissions offices - so their contacts are "fresh" and they have a giant roster of people to connect/call - and can get real-time advice in this coming cycle. We are not going through this next cycle (just went through it - for the 2nd time) and not going again for another 2 years, but I see how/why having up-to-date info will be really helpful and differentiating. And we didn't use a counselor for this last time, but its just too much changing real time, and information asymmetry will be real.

In two years..maybe..but the power of former and current AOs will be diminishing over time. AOs themselves do not set or influence who the campus wants, this happens with the Deans and senior admin. AOs are lower leverage admins tasked with carrying out what university leadership wants. As systems with predictive data decisions and AI take over, the AO role will drastically change and diminish.

DP. I also have a strong suspicion that, in contrast to the dean/director of admissions, young AOs don't actually know much about the algorithmic shaping of the class at the end, why a particular high stats applicant may have been accepted/waitlisted/denied. They simply may not be privy to that level of information.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Personally, I think that using AI to read essays is a terrible development. Too subjective.

Setting that aside, I still think that the problem with AI is the post-review shaping of the class algorithm from the college's enrollment management consultant. Intuitively, I think their models are likely crap. They think certain variables mean things that they don't, they weight them wrong, etc.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter that the algorithm is unfair if they end up with the class that they want. And thus, we have OP's title, that certain kids are getting screwed by those algorithms. A hard truth to swallow.

I don't remember if it was this thread or a different one that talked about leaking. One day that will happen, or someone will figure it out, though I suspect that some of the key variables will not be items that can be easily changed/gamed.

I think it depends on how it’s used. I do think certain kids will be institutionally disadvantaged by these new developments. Likely kids in oversubscribed majors and from large public high schools where there are dozens and dozens of applicants a year.

Wanting to study a popular major makes you disadvantaged? Attending a large public high School. Makes you disadvantaged? I think that is a very silly way to look at this. No one is disadvantaged if they don't get into Harvard.

There are not a lot of spots and competition to get them is fierce. but it is more than possible to pursue whatever it is you want to pursue without getting admittance to Harvard. And good thing because the vast majority of students are not going to Harvard.

I also think it can disadvantage your application to private T20 schools. Its not about Harvard.

If it can disadvantage your application, it can also advantage your application. This is a game and it always has been and will be. Understand the game and apply accordingly.

Explain how it (what is it) can advantage your application? AI?
So now you pepper your application with the keywords they are looking for?

I do not understand the exact process that ai is performing on these applications. But whatever it is, understand it is and use it. if you need to have keywords in there for AI put the keywords in there for AI.

NP and differing POV here:
I think the people most influential and important in college admissions in this next cycle will be former college counselors who just left T20 admissions offices - so their contacts are "fresh" and they have a giant roster of people to connect/call - and can get real-time advice in this coming cycle. We are not going through this next cycle (just went through it - for the 2nd time) and not going again for another 2 years, but I see how/why having up-to-date info will be really helpful and differentiating. And we didn't use a counselor for this last time, but its just too much changing real time, and information asymmetry will be real.

In two years..maybe..but the power of former and current AOs will be diminishing over time. AOs themselves do not set or influence who the campus wants, this happens with the Deans and senior admin. AOs are lower leverage admins tasked with carrying out what university leadership wants. As systems with predictive data decisions and AI take over, the AO role will drastically change and diminish.

DP. I also have a strong suspicion that, in contrast to the dean/director of admissions, young AOs don't actually know much about the algorithmic shaping of the class at the end, why a particular high stats applicant may have been accepted/waitlisted/denied. They simply may not be privy to that level of information.

True. Besides Sara H, what Former Deans of Admissions and Senior-level AO, ever ended up in private counseling? And which ones most recently? That's who we want to talk to.

I've already heard from Lee Coffin with his podcast and the Yale podcast.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Personally, I think that using AI to read essays is a terrible development. Too subjective.

Setting that aside, I still think that the problem with AI is the post-review shaping of the class algorithm from the college's enrollment management consultant. Intuitively, I think their models are likely crap. They think certain variables mean things that they don't, they weight them wrong, etc.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter that the algorithm is unfair if they end up with the class that they want. And thus, we have OP's title, that certain kids are getting screwed by those algorithms. A hard truth to swallow.

I don't remember if it was this thread or a different one that talked about leaking. One day that will happen, or someone will figure it out, though I suspect that some of the key variables will not be items that can be easily changed/gamed.

I think it depends on how it’s used. I do think certain kids will be institutionally disadvantaged by these new developments. Likely kids in oversubscribed majors and from large public high schools where there are dozens and dozens of applicants a year.

Wanting to study a popular major makes you disadvantaged? Attending a large public high School. Makes you disadvantaged? I think that is a very silly way to look at this. No one is disadvantaged if they don't get into Harvard.

There are not a lot of spots and competition to get them is fierce. but it is more than possible to pursue whatever it is you want to pursue without getting admittance to Harvard. And good thing because the vast majority of students are not going to Harvard.

I also think it can disadvantage your application to private T20 schools. Its not about Harvard.

If it can disadvantage your application, it can also advantage your application. This is a game and it always has been and will be. Understand the game and apply accordingly.

Explain how it (what is it) can advantage your application? AI?
So now you pepper your application with the keywords they are looking for?

I do not understand the exact process that ai is performing on these applications. But whatever it is, understand it is and use it. if you need to have keywords in there for AI put the keywords in there for AI.

NP and differing POV here:
I think the people most influential and important in college admissions in this next cycle will be former college counselors who just left T20 admissions offices - so their contacts are "fresh" and they have a giant roster of people to connect/call - and can get real-time advice in this coming cycle. We are not going through this next cycle (just went through it - for the 2nd time) and not going again for another 2 years, but I see how/why having up-to-date info will be really helpful and differentiating. And we didn't use a counselor for this last time, but its just too much changing real time, and information asymmetry will be real.

In two years..maybe..but the power of former and current AOs will be diminishing over time. AOs themselves do not set or influence who the campus wants, this happens with the Deans and senior admin. AOs are lower leverage admins tasked with carrying out what university leadership wants. As systems with predictive data decisions and AI take over, the AO role will drastically change and diminish.

DP. I also have a strong suspicion that, in contrast to the dean/director of admissions, young AOs don't actually know much about the algorithmic shaping of the class at the end, why a particular high stats applicant may have been accepted/waitlisted/denied. They simply may not be privy to that level of information.

True. Besides Sara H, what Former Deans of Admissions and Senior-level AO, ever ended up in private counseling? And which ones most recently? That's who we want to talk to.

I've already heard from Lee Coffin with his podcast and the Yale podcast.

Maria Laskaris

[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:Personally, I think that using AI to read essays is a terrible development. Too subjective.

Setting that aside, I still think that the problem with AI is the post-review shaping of the class algorithm from the college's enrollment management consultant. Intuitively, I think their models are likely crap. They think certain variables mean things that they don't, they weight them wrong, etc.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter that the algorithm is unfair if they end up with the class that they want. And thus, we have OP's title, that certain kids are getting screwed by those algorithms. A hard truth to swallow.

I don't remember if it was this thread or a different one that talked about leaking. One day that will happen, or someone will figure it out, though I suspect that some of the key variables will not be items that can be easily changed/gamed.

I think it depends on how it’s used. I do think certain kids will be institutionally disadvantaged by these new developments. Likely kids in oversubscribed majors and from large public high schools where there are dozens and dozens of applicants a year.

Wanting to study a popular major makes you disadvantaged? Attending a large public high School. Makes you disadvantaged? I think that is a very silly way to look at this. No one is disadvantaged if they don't get into Harvard.

There are not a lot of spots and competition to get them is fierce. but it is more than possible to pursue whatever it is you want to pursue without getting admittance to Harvard. And good thing because the vast majority of students are not going to Harvard.

I also think it can disadvantage your application to private T20 schools. Its not about Harvard.

If it can disadvantage your application, it can also advantage your application. This is a game and it always has been and will be. Understand the game and apply accordingly.

Explain how it (what is it) can advantage your application? AI?
So now you pepper your application with the keywords they are looking for?

I do not understand the exact process that ai is performing on these applications. But whatever it is, understand it is and use it. if you need to have keywords in there for AI put the keywords in there for AI.

NP and differing POV here:
I think the people most influential and important in college admissions in this next cycle will be former college counselors who just left T20 admissions offices - so their contacts are "fresh" and they have a giant roster of people to connect/call - and can get real-time advice in this coming cycle. We are not going through this next cycle (just went through it - for the 2nd time) and not going again for another 2 years, but I see how/why having up-to-date info will be really helpful and differentiating. And we didn't use a counselor for this last time, but its just too much changing real time, and information asymmetry will be real.

In two years..maybe..but the power of former and current AOs will be diminishing over time. AOs themselves do not set or influence who the campus wants, this happens with the Deans and senior admin. AOs are lower leverage admins tasked with carrying out what university leadership wants. As systems with predictive data decisions and AI take over, the AO role will drastically change and diminish.

DP. I also have a strong suspicion that, in contrast to the dean/director of admissions, young AOs don't actually know much about the algorithmic shaping of the class at the end, why a particular high stats applicant may have been accepted/waitlisted/denied. They simply may not be privy to that level of information.

True. Besides Sara H, what Former Deans of Admissions and Senior-level AO, ever ended up in private counseling? And which ones most recently? That's who we want to talk to.

I've already heard from Lee Coffin with his podcast and the Yale podcast.

Maria Laskaris

Sorry hit submit too fast. Found her online. She used to be Dean at Dartmouth? She looks ancient, though.
There's also this place - never heard of it - https://deansofadmissions.com/about/

But I found it on this site, which seems independent (but perhaps its not):
https://www.topcollegeadmissionsconsultants.com/

this seems to be a good article about the grown "rock star" status of counselors:
https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/money-and-power/a63656796/college-admissions-counselor-trend-explained-2025/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thinking valedictorian (or similar) / 35-36 or 1550+/ top awards or ECs?
If so, what happened?
Where did the kid end up? Did the kid transfer?

Yes they were screwed and transferred.

One applied out to transfer and was accepted to an Ivy but decided to stay at current school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I really think if schools went back to having class rank, college decisions would make a lot more sense to parents. I have a 2023 and a 2026 at two single sex private schools, not in DC. Familiar with their classes and a year or two around them. Since schools have cum laude and give grade based awards, contrary to dcum belief, it’s easy to see that admissions actually do very closely track weighted gpa and test scores unless a kid totally whiffs on extracurriculars. This is supported by scattergrams. Sure, there may be a kid or two with a rare talent that does better than stats might predict, but it isn’t that common.

I think there are a lot of affluent schools with a significant amount of grade inflation where it is either hard for colleges to differentiate between kids leading to what seems to be random results or parents don’t realize kid isn’t even in top 20 percent of class because there is so much grade inflation.

Also agree that attending a school that will award a rank or divulge rank, it seems to relate to admission success. Out district only publicly awards val and sal but these ranked positions have enjoyed hypsm success.

[Anonymous]

I really think if schools went back to having class rank, college decisions would make a lot more sense to parents.

Not really. You’re not competing against kids from your school but from schools across the country. Being ranked in the top 10 at your school guarantees nothing. Harvard rejects countless valedictorians.

Moreover, the rank will be determined purely by gpa but admissions is determined by much more. If a lower ranked kid at your school got into a better college, then that kid had something else (ECs, essay, whatever) but that higher-ranked kids parents will still be big mad about it.

[Anonymous]

I think rank depends a lot on if you got the easier or harder physics teacher, or if you have took Spanish (dangerously hard at our school) or French (easy A). and things like that.

The kids who are tip top are often the ones who know to drop PE and that unweighted A for some sports credit the unweighted grades or some similar crap

[Anonymous]

If you mean “denied admission” it happens with top students at top schools every year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think rank depends a lot on if you got the easier or harder physics teacher, or if you have took Spanish (dangerously hard at our school) or French (easy A). and things like that.

The kids who are tip top are often the ones who know to drop PE and that unweighted A for some sports credit the unweighted grades or some similar crap

Or they get a top grade in physics even with the harder teacher.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I really think if schools went back to having class rank, college decisions would make a lot more sense to parents.

Not really. You’re not competing against kids from your school but from schools across the country. Being ranked in the top 10 at your school guarantees nothing. Harvard rejects countless valedictorians.

Moreover, the rank will be determined purely by gpa but admissions is determined by much more. If a lower ranked kid at your school got into a better college, then that kid had something else (ECs, essay, whatever) but that higher-ranked kids parents will still be big mad about it.

Depends on the school. UVA comes to mind - they say that your grades and rigor are directly compared to others at your school, not other schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I really think if schools went back to having class rank, college decisions would make a lot more sense to parents.

Not really. You’re not competing against kids from your school but from schools across the country. Being ranked in the top 10 at your school guarantees nothing. Harvard rejects countless valedictorians.

Moreover, the rank will be determined purely by gpa but admissions is determined by much more. If a lower ranked kid at your school got into a better college, then that kid had something else (ECs, essay, whatever) but that higher-ranked kids parents will still be big mad about it.

This is the trope that AO's from T20 like to throw around.

There are 30,000 to 40,000 HS and AO's at T20 know which are the top 40-50 HS are in US. The top 2 to 3 students in these top 50 HS's in USA, are going to be treated quite differently from HS's that have few applications and admits to these colleges.

So not all valedictorians are not treated the same. Saying we "rejects countless valedictorians" might be technically correct but also not really true when you are from a very competitive high school.

[Anonymous]

One of the HYPSM's routinely admits the top student from TJ as measured by GPA, even though FCPS does not rank. So, I do not give much credence to the trope of rejecting valedictorians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think rank depends a lot on if you got the easier or harder physics teacher, or if you have took Spanish (dangerously hard at our school) or French (easy A). and things like that.

The kids who are tip top are often the ones who know to drop PE and that unweighted A for some sports credit the unweighted grades or some similar crap

AO's are eyeballing and making adjustments to the GPA mentally. It is not really that difficult. If they see a bunch of easy courses and a few P/F, the fact that your GPA is 4.73 compared to someone who does not have these but has a GPA of 4.68, is not going to tip the scale in favor of the 4.73 student.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I really think if schools went back to having class rank, college decisions would make a lot more sense to parents.

Not really. You’re not competing against kids from your school but from schools across the country. Being ranked in the top 10 at your school guarantees nothing. Harvard rejects countless valedictorians.

Moreover, the rank will be determined purely by gpa but admissions is determined by much more. If a lower ranked kid at your school got into a better college, then that kid had something else (ECs, essay, whatever) but that higher-ranked kids parents will still be big mad about it.

This is the trope that AO's from T20 like to throw around.

There are 30,000 to 40,000 HS and AO's at T20 know which are the top 40-50 HS are in US. The top 2 to 3 students in these top 50 HS's in USA, are going to be treated quite differently from HS's that have few applications and admits to these colleges.

So not all valedictorians are not treated the same. Saying we "rejects countless valedictorians" might be technically correct but also not really true when you are from a very competitive high school.

Agree. Is the valedictorian from one of the top high schools in the country getting rejected from the top schools? Not all high schools are created equal, not even close.