Anyone else thinks the whole college admission process is a total farse?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They prob use AI to screen out most of the apps and read through far less than 100K or 50K apps. The rest get rejected/deferred.

They don't have enough money for that.

Seems cheaper than temps, which Bucknell hires.

WM had a *Craigslist* ad for temp admissions “data managers” or some such last year. Full telework, paid $13/hour, 2 years of college required. SMH

[Anonymous]

^^Beginning to think when my kid goes through this I'll be getting to the mailbox first every day and trashing all the p.r. materials.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^Beginning to think when my kid goes through this I'll be getting to the mailbox first every day and trashing all the p.r. materials.

Why? Perhaps it is a good lesson to teach kids that marketing is marketing, rather than snowplowing to the max.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:UChicago has sent a LOT, LOT, LOT of mailers.

Same with my kid who has a B+ average. I know the marketing and drumming up applications to deny helped them rise in the rankings back in the 90s (I worked for a research firm involved in that) but you'd think now that they are up there they could be a bit more focused in their direct mail efforts!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^Beginning to think when my kid goes through this I'll be getting to the mailbox first every day and trashing all the p.r. materials.

Why? Perhaps it is a good lesson to teach kids that marketing is marketing, rather than snowplowing to the max.

Just don't select that option on the SAT/ACT/PSAT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yep. 100%

The amount of lying and marketing oneself and trying to show you have some trauma or special adversity or belong to some outlier group so you can curry favor to Admin officers. It's gross.

And the fake non-profits and the no standards at times with overinflated gpas and no test results.

It's really gotten so out of hand given the sheer volume of applicants universities now face.

I swear it should be changed to this:

Everyone that meets certain requirements all get put in the hat and then they pull out admits like a lottery. At some point it's just too much.

All of these actions are based on heresy, mostly from parents who are just as clueless as the next person. I've never heard an AO say they want trauma or non-profits. Stop believing random strangers for something this important.

Not true. The heart-string stories. A friend was an AO at a top state university and the discussions were often said of very qualified kids from MC/UMC/!% that they never had to experience adversity. They were essentially penalized for coming from functional, normal backgrounds and being neurotypical 'normal' , but exceptional kids.

Yeah WTF a major goal of mind as a parent is to ensure my kids DO NOT experience adversity and now I’m hearing I shouldn’t have done that.

But yet published data from multiple sources and studies confirm that students enrolled at elite schools are predominantly from the UMC/UC. Do you think all of those kids experience adversity? Did they lie about it and AOs said, "sure, I believe that!"?

[Anonymous]

Get rid of the Common App or cap the number of applications to 8-10 or stop applying to the same 50 schools.

--problem solved

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They prob use AI to screen out most of the apps and read through far less than 100K or 50K apps. The rest get rejected/deferred.

They don't have enough money for that.

Seems cheaper than temps, which Bucknell hires.

WM had a *Craigslist* ad for temp admissions “data managers” or some such last year. Full telework, paid $13/hour, 2 years of college required. SMH

They're doing data entry. Like typing in the stats off the school profile, transcript, school report. They aren't making decisions. Trust me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yep. 100%

The amount of lying and marketing oneself and trying to show you have some trauma or special adversity or belong to some outlier group so you can curry favor to Admin officers. It's gross.

And the fake non-profits and the no standards at times with overinflated gpas and no test results.

It's really gotten so out of hand given the sheer volume of applicants universities now face.

I swear it should be changed to this:

Everyone that meets certain requirements all get put in the hat and then they pull out admits like a lottery. At some point it's just too much.

All of these actions are based on heresy, mostly from parents who are just as clueless as the next person. I've never heard an AO say they want trauma or non-profits. Stop believing random strangers for something this important.

Not true. The heart-string stories. A friend was an AO at a top state university and the discussions were often said of very qualified kids from MC/UMC/!% that they never had to experience adversity. They were essentially penalized for coming from functional, normal backgrounds and being neurotypical 'normal' , but exceptional kids.

Yeah WTF a major goal of mind as a parent is to ensure my kids DO NOT experience adversity and now I’m hearing I shouldn’t have done that.[/quote

+1 So twisted. And my husband and I have ONE kid because that is what we could afford to responsibly raise her. Decisions I made were thought out and careful And we are penalized for doing so, working hard and taking care of her. GAG

[Anonymous]

It's terrible for a host of reasons, not least of which is the one you mention, which is that colleges explicitly tell students applications are being "reviewed" "holistically," as if the school is searching for that je ne sais quoi or some kind of ineffable "leadership" quality that can be teased out from subtle differences among applications, when the reality is the "review" is often a cursory glance at most. You can tell your student the reality of the process until you are blue in the face, but in light of the representations made by colleges about the process, rejected applicants invariably feel as if they have been weighed in the balance and found wanting. I mean, who are you going to believe, your dumb parents or Harvard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They prob use AI to screen out most of the apps and read through far less than 100K or 50K apps. The rest get rejected/deferred.

They don't have enough money for that.

Seems cheaper than temps, which Bucknell hires.

WM had a *Craigslist* ad for temp admissions “data managers” or some such last year. Full telework, paid $13/hour, 2 years of college required. SMH

They're doing data entry. Like typing in the stats off the school profile, transcript, school report. They aren't making decisions. Trust me.

College do hire temporary application readers to do the first reading/scoring of applications.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yep. 100%

The amount of lying and marketing oneself and trying to show you have some trauma or special adversity or belong to some outlier group so you can curry favor to Admin officers. It's gross.

And the fake non-profits and the no standards at times with overinflated gpas and no test results.

It's really gotten so out of hand given the sheer volume of applicants universities now face.

I swear it should be changed to this:

Everyone that meets certain requirements all get put in the hat and then they pull out admits like a lottery. At some point it's just too much.

All of these actions are based on heresy, mostly from parents who are just as clueless as the next person. I've never heard an AO say they want trauma or non-profits. Stop believing random strangers for something this important.

English please

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the process is easier if you have a medium-achieving student with medium goals. So, instead of a 4.0UW GPA with 10 AP tests with all 5s (and that's before senior year), varsity sport captain, etc, etc, you have a regular kid with a 3.5 GPA, a couple AP classes, a regular sport or EC or job. That first kid is qualified to go to any college or university but could get shut out, and the second kid knows they're aiming lower, probably picking schools with 70+% acceptance rates, and getting in most places.

The first kid is not going to get shut out of college.

Why don't parents understand that? The first kid will get into just about all of the places the second kid got into to, plus has a shot at the highest tier schools. The issue is the parents/high achieving kids want the same acceptance rates as the second kid, but at the most selective schools in the country. THAT's what they are complaining about!

Not even the MOST selective schools, but kid 1 may not get into their state flagship. And neither will kid 2, but kid 2 knows that's their reach.

So then both kid 1 and kid 2 are accepted to medium university. Kid 2 is happy, that was their goal, and Kid 1 is wondering what the heck they worked so hard for.

And I say this as a parent of Kid 2.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I totally agree. Although it seems rough, I think countries that base it all on one exam have a system that makes more sense. Set a lower threshold for kids from below a certain income level to ensure parity.

+1 this is the way to do it, not by skin color.

Sure, let's be totally and completely objective, starting from riiiiiiiight.......now (!) -- completely ignoring the system that placed one group ahead of all the others. Reminds me of when my 4 year old used to try to race his brother to the door, but wanted to call 1-2-3 go after he was halfway to the door, before his brother even knew there was gonna be a race.

+1

People show their priviege when they ignore the 150 years of being shut out of schools because of religion or skin color. Now that things are being evened up, applicants who they have no knowledge of all of the sudden do not have the merit of THEIR kid.

hey PP, Blacks and Hispanics weren't the only ones locked out of higher ed. Asian Americans were not only segregated, but couldn't own property or even become citizens in the early part of the 20th century.

But I realize this doesn't support the progressive's narrative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yep. 100%

The amount of lying and marketing oneself and trying to show you have some trauma or special adversity or belong to some outlier group so you can curry favor to Admin officers. It's gross.

And the fake non-profits and the no standards at times with overinflated gpas and no test results.

It's really gotten so out of hand given the sheer volume of applicants universities now face.

I swear it should be changed to this:

Everyone that meets certain requirements all get put in the hat and then they pull out admits like a lottery. At some point it's just too much.

All of these actions are based on heresy, mostly from parents who are just as clueless as the next person. I've never heard an AO say they want trauma or non-profits. Stop believing random strangers for something this important.

Not true. The heart-string stories. A friend was an AO at a top state university and the discussions were often said of very qualified kids from MC/UMC/!% that they never had to experience adversity. They were essentially penalized for coming from functional, normal backgrounds and being neurotypical 'normal' , but exceptional kids.

Yeah WTF a major goal of mind as a parent is to ensure my kids DO NOT experience adversity and now I’m hearing I shouldn’t have done that.

This is true and so disappointing. I was first in my family to go to college, but now that fact is held against my kid in college apps. I also did the best to send them to the best possible schools, and now that works against them.