College’s AI review of Common App

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this is the case, then why should the kids bother writing the essays themselves? Why shouldn't they just use AI? This is ridiculous.

"My math teacher made me do the math long-hand on the test, but he used a calculator to check it! Why did I even bother?!?!"

This is entirely different. Your example relates to the kid learning the material and being able to apply it. Kids are not learning to write through the process of writing an app essay. In fact, it’s a fake process in many ways- they TELL you what they are looking for in many ways (a hook, growth, a pivotal moment, don’t regurgitate your cv, etc.) so even that makes it inauthentic. So the kids have to play the game and they have an AI judge at the first hurdle judging. It’s crap. Get rid of the essays.

So don’t apply to VA Tech. If you’re scared of AI being used along with a human, a tech school probably isn’t a good fit anyway.

It's not a "tech school". It has tech, along with humanities and liberal arts.

It’s a polytechnic institute. It’s literally a tech school.

In addition to liberal arts and humanities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:VT openly admitting that admissions is a fraud.

Hmm. Someone has difficulty with reading comprehension.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why even bother? Just look at the transcript, ECs, test scores and recommendations.

+1. A friend told me this was happening over a year ago. The CS majors are going to game this by putting in the hidden code & keywords.

And if the AI falls for that and scores the essay, say, a 10 out of 12 while human reader only gives it a 7, a second human reader will then review the app.

All the school is doing is trying to save a bit of time and money in the face of a massive increase in applications by using AI and one human for the initial read rather than two humans, with an even smaller allowance for difference (2 points vs 4 points of discrepancy under the two-human previous process) between the two scores before a third review - by a human - is done.

This is not a huge leap or an unreasonable process. People are pearl-clutching for no reason.

+1
As usual.