How Do Selective Colleges Hire Their Admissions Officers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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?

I've noticed many of the regional AOs for top 30 colleges didn't go to the institution they are serving at in admissions. Most went to no-name state colleges or private unis that I have never heard of (and I've heard of 100-ish schools). They start in admissions at a no-name school than jump to more and more prestigious ones.

Many have been recently trying to diversify regional AOs beyond the traditional white women (most common) and white men (2nd most common).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Are you a troll? Colleges have not been merit based for most of their existence. For Harvard, Yale, etc., the first couple hundred years were just about being white, male, Protestant, and being able to pay tuition.

[Anonymous]

At Harvard College, almost all AO leads are recent alum (2017-2023). Many started working in Admission Office as students, and stay for a number of years, before joining a lucrative consulting practice.

[Anonymous]

Some of the AOs at the Ivies I attended were recent alums (several were looking for tuition benefits to support applications to graduate programs or part-time MBAs.) The other "lifer" type AO staff went to not particularly prestigious liberal arts college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Are you willing to endow the salaries or pay more in tuition to increase the operating budget? Don’t complain about administrative bloat and then whine about the quality of AO’s. You get what you pay for.

[Anonymous]

Entry level positions pay 35-45k

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

I've noticed many of the regional AOs for top 30 colleges didn't go to the institution they are serving at in admissions. Most went to no-name state colleges or private unis that I have never heard of (and I've heard of 100-ish schools). They start in admissions at a no-name school than jump to more and more prestigious ones.

Many have been recently trying to diversify regional AOs beyond the traditional white women (most common) and white men (2nd most common).

How does it feel that they have the power and you don’t?

[Anonymous]

I posted this on another thread - I recently had a conversation with a college advisor who works for one of the big advising companies. He used to be the head of admissions at a top school. He was pretty dismissive of the qualifications of admissions officers. He basically said what many here have said - that they tend to be recent grads who didn't have a lot of other options. He counts himself in that category.

[Anonymous]

I would also like to know how they train their AOs. How do they ensure they are free of their personal bias and prejudice. Understand the difficulties of various ECs. Discern fake “research” from genuine passion. Etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At Harvard College, almost all AO leads are recent alum (2017-2023). Many started working in Admission Office as students, and stay for a number of years, before joining a lucrative consulting practice.

Neither of my kid’s Harvard file readers were Harvard alumni. Was the second reader the dicker chair or lead?

Interestingly though, kid received an email after the admission from a young (not recent) alum. Was that the lead? He never read my kid’s file. He has since moved on, but not to consulting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I posted this on another thread - I recently had a conversation with a college advisor who works for one of the big advising companies. He used to be the head of admissions at a top school. He was pretty dismissive of the qualifications of admissions officers. He basically said what many here have said - that they tend to be recent grads who didn't have a lot of other options. He counts himself in that category.

Well the job market is terrible for recent grads, so I’d expect there are quite a few smart and capable ones this year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I posted this on another thread - I recently had a conversation with a college advisor who works for one of the big advising companies. He used to be the head of admissions at a top school. He was pretty dismissive of the qualifications of admissions officers. He basically said what many here have said - that they tend to be recent grads who didn't have a lot of other options. He counts himself in that category.

Of course he is. He has to cover his a*s and justify his fees for when your brilliant kids get rejected. It’s not his fault!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would also like to know how they train their AOs. How do they ensure they are free of their personal bias and prejudice. Understand the difficulties of various ECs. Discern fake “research” from genuine passion. Etc.

It's not the CIA. It's not that big of a deal to them. They pay readers (the first stop before your app gets to an actual AO) $15-25/hr. Now imagine the kind of training they are getting. And the junior AO, is paid 37.5-50k/year. The job maxes out at a little over a hundred (if you've been there 10 years).

Some of you people live in LALA land. Get a grip. Wake up. No one cares about your kid's research. That's not how decisions are made. If you don't know that by now, I'd suggest you find an older post with good resources.

[Anonymous]

I went to HYP and the admissions office hired recent grads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would also like to know how they train their AOs. How do they ensure they are free of their personal bias and prejudice. Understand the difficulties of various ECs. Discern fake “research” from genuine passion. Etc.

It's not the CIA. It's not that big of a deal to them. They pay readers (the first stop before your app gets to an actual AO) $15-25/hr. Now imagine the kind of training they are getting. And the junior AO, is paid 37.5-50k/year. The job maxes out at a little over a hundred (if you've been there 10 years).

Some of you people live in LALA land. Get a grip. Wake up. No one cares about your kid's research. That's not how decisions are made. If you don't know that by now, I'd suggest you find an older post with good resources.

+100