PP, this and Reddit are unfiltered forums for discussion, not research sites. We get it, one AO does not constitute perfect advice applicable to all colleges and all applicants. No do parent posts. But people are here posting what they've experienced and even what their kid was told by an admissions office, etc. We're aware that this is all anecdotal and we are capable of weighing the advice here accordingly. You seem to want resumes for anyone who comments on this topic so you can be sure they're not merely "temps charged with filling in" forms. Don't think this thread is useful to you? That's your prerogative. Feel free to scroll on, rather than criticizing the critical thinking skills of others here. But you'll find most stuff on DCUM is, shocker!, anecdotal, except when someone on this particular forum post their own kid's stats or someone posts admission numbers they found online. If you want vetted research, this isn't really the place you'll get it. |
thank you for being the adult here. couldn't agree more. We all know that none of the info here is vetted!!! that's the whole point! that PP frequents this site with their signature critical style and its so off-putting. |
True of most things in life when you are being picked by another group to join them. |
Down the reddit rabbit hole this morning.
SO much food for thought: "Former AO here at two top schools. This is generally true, but having great character in addition to good-everything-else needs just a bit more added to its footnote. A lot, if not most, of this process also depends on our priorities and on context (your region, specifically). When I bring any student to committee, I need solid reasons to back up why I think a student is admissible. A great character is not enough to back up a TO student in committee... usually. If the student has, at least in this example, good stats, strong ECs that impact and involvement, and we can feel the intellectual vitality and character come off the page, relative to everyone else in the current pool, then said student has a strong chance anywhere that is TO. Standing out from the pack is certainly the key takeaway, not necessarily a strong character. So I don't know if I'd say this is truly what is up with AOs. Reading and evaluating apps has a lot of moving parts. General success into a college is largely going to depend on a large variety of factors here. My experience as a counselor now is still relatively the same: the students that get in more often than not really depends heavily on those contextual factors and if you stand up well to it all. You move further, certainly, with great character." https://www.reddit.com/r/ApplyingToCollege/comments/1i4pktc/comment/m7xnpg3 |
If have a senior, and want to know what an AO is doing now with your kid's RD applications, this is eye-opening from that Reddit poster:
https://www.reddit.com/r/ApplyingToCollege/comments/1df2ine/comment/l8g63un The process is generally this: Files are available to read on slate. I read by school groups first. The files I think are promising I can send to second read. I deny the ones I think aren't competitive. Second reads finish as I continue with school groups. Once I finish all of my school groups, I look through my second reads and decide based on all of the information I have now if I want to bring them to committee. Then committee comes around and I present the strongest files I have. Yes, most students are denied at this stage. There are other schools that do things differently. Like some schools require 2 reads for all applicants. Other schools have two AOs reading the same app at the same time, like a mini committee of sorts. But by and large, denials happen when an AO starts in the school group The most common reason is going to be vague to you but make sense to all admissions officers on this sub: the student was competitive, but not compelling. That basically means that in the context we were reading in, that student just didn't have that extra factor to stand out. There's no single universal reason to deny a student. I guess most commonly, grades? That weeds a good number of people out. When you read the ECs and essays and LORs, they're all generic or mid. Things like that usually make up reasons as to why they're competitive but not compelling, aka, still a strong student, but the application is not coming together to help it stand out more. He also talks about majors being "institutional priorities" and taking undersubscribed majors into consideration when deciding which applicants to bring to committee. |
This is the reason why certain kids aren’t getting in ED2 notwithstanding great stats. |
I think there is a lot more to algorithms and scoring (fake standardization) of subjective items like essays and ECs, along with factors affecting yield that may weigh more heavily in the algorithm, than about being "compelling." And yes, I would assume that institutional priorities would be very heavy factors in said algorithm.
I think being "compelling" goes only to the subjectively scored factors and makes AOs feel like they're doing a good job, but the algorithm is the actual decider. Somewhere on that Slate application view, there will be numerical scores. |
How would they score essays, ECs and LOR? Who is scoring it? AI? |
I just spent 30 min down the reddit rabbit hole and read that former AO's (Aggravating_Humor) year old post on "Essays and how they're read at top schools" and the original link above: Some good intel there: - the tone/feel/sophistication of the personal essay should MATCH the rest of the application (sometimes when people get help with the personal essay but not all the supplements, or even the activities, the mismatch in quality shows, and if you are not FGLI or under-resourced, it will be held against you). Sometimes, strong, cohesive candidates are fully supported by the regional AO and initial readers with clearly strong ratings and later rejected by the senior AO or director or dean because they've already filled all of the slots for that profile in the class (this often happens in RD for oversubscribed majors), assuming the applicant fills no other buckets (institutional priorities). - Cohesive applications are very important, especially if coming from a well-resourced (educated and income) family and high school - Shotgunning can work if the apps are well planned out and tailored - If you are in a pool of applicants from the same school, your LOR is compared to the others that teacher wrote that year (what was student's personality in class, how a student is intellectually) a - A Why US essay is always trying to determine "fit" - if they haven't taken students from a school in a "long time" or ever, they will at MOST accept maybe 1 student that year. Never more. |
In most cases, I think humans do the scoring. Some colleges (UNC, see a recent article from their student news) have AI score the writing of the essay, such as grammar, etc., but I don't think most explicitly consider writing quality anymore. It's more about getting to know the student, all very subjective stuff. |
I think someone put together a summary of some of the scoring rubrics on this site. It talks about scoring for various parts of the application. This link explains how it is scored - for Stanford, Harvard, Penn, Duke, Northwestern, and Cornell. https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1224166.page The last page of that thread defines "compelling" for most T10 (copied below), I think. It helped my kid prepare for the last round of interviews. Found this about Duke (on Reddit from the email from AO to alumni interviewers) which gives insight into what they are looking for: We know that almost all of our applicants have the academic preparation and extracurricular accomplishments to be successful Duke students. The Admissions Office's challenge is sometimes understanding which students might add something that would particularly benefit the Duke community. Some of these qualities might include: a particular maturity or depth of thought a striking accomplishment or unusual and authentic depth of commitment to an interest a notable sense of imagination, curiosity or creativity a perspective or experiences atypical of the student body a demonstrated sense of compassion or concern for others a resilience in response to challenging circumstances or events. How thoughtful or reflective is the applicant compared to their peers? How engaged is the applicant in their commitments and why do they matter to them? Is there a personal quality of the applicant that stands out even among the most high-achieving and engaged applicants? Is there anything specific you think they might add to the university community? What is their sense of Duke, and how well do they know us? |
They all sound reasonable and make sense. But none of this is true for colleges outside of T15. AO's are spending 4 minutes to scan an application at colleges outside of T15. They are not looking for tone in main essay to match with supplemental essay and activities while at the same time also keeping in mind, the school profile, the student background, other students from that school, etc. They are also reading recommendation letters and spending time on the transcript. Not happening. Just humanly not possible. As long as the application is not disjointed, it is ok. Counselors like to make the admissions process seem complicated with lots of gotchas, to market their services. |
Are Harvard, MIT, Princeton, Yale, Stanford not looking for these things? Only Duke? a particular maturity or depth of thought a striking accomplishment or unusual and authentic depth of commitment to an interest a notable sense of imagination, curiosity or creativity a perspective or experiences atypical of the student body a demonstrated sense of compassion or concern for others a resilience in response to challenging circumstances or events. |
I think they all are? Duke published it though for their alumni interviewers. |
I think its true for a school like Georgetown, WashU, Emory. At least from our private. And yes, ofc the assumption was that this only matters for highly selective privates. And some SLACs. |