College Admissions Staff - Massive turnover

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes and seasonal reader jobs pay $12-$18 and you are on the clock to read 4 - 6 applications per hour and score them. (ps. you can find the job descriptions - even at Ivies that show those expectations)

The entire process is broken

It should be like residency match in medicine - you rank your matches 1 to 20 and they rank applicants and those are matched.

Somebody would still have to create the ranked lists on the university side, and the number of slots available at a given school would still be limited. You'd still have huge numbers of kids with similar stats applying to selective schools that would have to discern some sort of differences between them. Ultimately the ranked lists of applicants wouldn't necessarily be any fairer than the current offers/waitlists/rejections.

Also, there are a LOT more undergraduates and colleges than there are med students and residency programs (fewer than 50,000 residents vs. well over a million college applicants), so the algorithms would become immensely complicated very quickly. I don't think it would make it any easier for students and families to navigate or predict.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can you imagine having to field angry, insane phone calls and e-mails from parents of rejected students? Of course turnover is high.

Since when do admissions offices entertain those calls?

They do.

+1 But they’re not going to give away any details to parents or counselors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Univ Prof here. I agree with the main observation of this thread. Admissions offices are being staffed, on average, by poorly trained and poorly educated folks (who are, in general, MUCH less able than folks they are screening). Fact of life and it will not change.

Seriously?

I've yet to meet an admissions person who is "MUCH less able than folks they are screening." I've met a variety of folks with a variety skills - none in the "MUCH less" category.

Also, did you not get the memo that many PT AO staff are work study students and many entry-level FT employees are recent college grads. That reflects more on their professors than anything else.

But if this is the case on your campus, then what steps are you taking to increase pay in order to attract better trained and educated talent (as well as what improvements are you making in your classroom to improve the quality of your college's grads?)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes and seasonal reader jobs pay $12-$18 and you are on the clock to read 4 - 6 applications per hour and score them. (ps. you can find the job descriptions - even at Ivies that show those expectations)

The entire process is broken

It should be like residency match in medicine - you rank your matches 1 to 20 and they rank applicants and those are matched.

Somebody would still have to create the ranked lists on the university side, and the number of slots available at a given school would still be limited. You'd still have huge numbers of kids with similar stats applying to selective schools that would have to discern some sort of differences between them. Ultimately the ranked lists of applicants wouldn't necessarily be any fairer than the current offers/waitlists/rejections.

Also, there are a LOT more undergraduates and colleges than there are med students and residency programs (fewer than 50,000 residents vs. well over a million college applicants), so the algorithms would become immensely complicated very quickly. I don't think it would make it any easier for students and families to navigate or predict.

Plus the end result is so dependent on tuition. My kid could get into LACs ranked in 30s, maybe 20s, but needs merit aid so will mostly be looking at schools in 40s-60s. ED or a residency match system wouldn’t work for our family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Univ Prof here. I agree with the main observation of this thread. Admissions offices are being staffed, on average, by poorly trained and poorly educated folks (who are, in general, MUCH less able than folks they are screening). Fact of life and it will not change.

Seriously?

I've yet to meet an admissions person who is "MUCH less able than folks they are screening." I've met a variety of folks with a variety skills - none in the "MUCH less" category.

Also, did you not get the memo that many PT AO staff are work study students and many entry-level FT employees are recent college grads. That reflects more on their professors than anything else.

But if this is the case on your campus, then what steps are you taking to increase pay in order to attract better trained and educated talent (as well as what improvements are you making in your classroom to improve the quality of your college's grads?)?

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Univ Prof here. I agree with the main observation of this thread. Admissions offices are being staffed, on average, by poorly trained and poorly educated folks (who are, in general, MUCH less able than folks they are screening). Fact of life and it will not change.

Seriously?

I've yet to meet an admissions person who is "MUCH less able than folks they are screening." I've met a variety of folks with a variety skills - none in the "MUCH less" category.

Also, did you not get the memo that many PT AO staff are work study students and many entry-level FT employees are recent college grads. That reflects more on their professors than anything else.

But if this is the case on your campus, then what steps are you taking to increase pay in order to attract better trained and educated talent (as well as what improvements are you making in your classroom to improve the quality of your college's grads?)?

Raising pay means either raising tuition or cutting somewhere else. Neither will happen just so that AOs can make more money

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Univ Prof here. I agree with the main observation of this thread. Admissions offices are being staffed, on average, by poorly trained and poorly educated folks (who are, in general, MUCH less able than folks they are screening). Fact of life and it will not change.

Seriously?

I've yet to meet an admissions person who is "MUCH less able than folks they are screening." I've met a variety of folks with a variety skills - none in the "MUCH less" category.

Also, did you not get the memo that many PT AO staff are work study students and many entry-level FT employees are recent college grads. That reflects more on their professors than anything else.

But if this is the case on your campus, then what steps are you taking to increase pay in order to attract better trained and educated talent (as well as what improvements are you making in your classroom to improve the quality of your college's grads?)?

Raising pay means either raising tuition or cutting somewhere else. Neither will happen just so that AOs can make more money

Then don't disparage those willing to do the work for low pay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Univ Prof here. I agree with the main observation of this thread. Admissions offices are being staffed, on average, by poorly trained and poorly educated folks (who are, in general, MUCH less able than folks they are screening). Fact of life and it will not change.

Seriously?

I've yet to meet an admissions person who is "MUCH less able than folks they are screening." I've met a variety of folks with a variety skills - none in the "MUCH less" category.

Also, did you not get the memo that many PT AO staff are work study students and many entry-level FT employees are recent college grads. That reflects more on their professors than anything else.

But if this is the case on your campus, then what steps are you taking to increase pay in order to attract better trained and educated talent (as well as what improvements are you making in your classroom to improve the quality of your college's grads?)?

Professors have no say in anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes and seasonal reader jobs pay $12-$18 and you are on the clock to read 4 - 6 applications per hour and score them. (ps. you can find the job descriptions - even at Ivies that show those expectations)

The entire process is broken

It should be like residency match in medicine - you rank your matches 1 to 20 and they rank applicants and those are matched.

How do I get this type of job as a side gig? I have multiple degrees from T25 schools and would find it very interesting. I feel like more DCUM folks should try to do this to understand the process well before their kids go through it.

I applied with very strong credentials and didn’t get picked up or even interviewed. I don’t think they want a well qualified person in that position.

I think they want young & expendable folks.

But it was a set hourly rate and a temp position. Though I’m guessing they did hire younger people. I don’t think they want parents of future applicants to see how the sausage is made.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Univ Prof here. I agree with the main observation of this thread. Admissions offices are being staffed, on average, by poorly trained and poorly educated folks (who are, in general, MUCH less able than folks they are screening). Fact of life and it will not change.

Seriously?

I've yet to meet an admissions person who is "MUCH less able than folks they are screening." I've met a variety of folks with a variety skills - none in the "MUCH less" category.

Also, did you not get the memo that many PT AO staff are work study students and many entry-level FT employees are recent college grads. That reflects more on their professors than anything else.

But if this is the case on your campus, then what steps are you taking to increase pay in order to attract better trained and educated talent (as well as what improvements are you making in your classroom to improve the quality of your college's grads?)?

Raising pay means either raising tuition or cutting somewhere else. Neither will happen just so that AOs can make more money

Then don't disparage those willing to do the work for low pay.

dp.. sure, but, it is pretty bad AOs are people who are paid almost minimum wage, some with zero qualifications.

I don't blame the AO. I blame the colleges for doing that. If they really wanted quality AOs, they'd find a way to pay them more out of the endowment without having to raise tuition.

Where there is a will, there is a way.

The whole college admissions is just a farce.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Univ Prof here. I agree with the main observation of this thread. Admissions offices are being staffed, on average, by poorly trained and poorly educated folks (who are, in general, MUCH less able than folks they are screening). Fact of life and it will not change.

Seriously?

I've yet to meet an admissions person who is "MUCH less able than folks they are screening." I've met a variety of folks with a variety skills - none in the "MUCH less" category.

Also, did you not get the memo that many PT AO staff are work study students and many entry-level FT employees are recent college grads. That reflects more on their professors than anything else.

But if this is the case on your campus, then what steps are you taking to increase pay in order to attract better trained and educated talent (as well as what improvements are you making in your classroom to improve the quality of your college's grads?)?

Professors have no say in anything.

Actually at the school I worked for, a committee of professors made important admissions decisions. They weren't necessarily evaluating specific applications, but they were steering priorities.

[Anonymous]

The distain for people who choose to work in education across the DCUM forums is so sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Serious question: how can you expect the “best and brightest” to be reading your kids’ applications when none of you would apparently encourage (or allow?) your own best and brightest kids to pursue a job like this?

Do they pay what a "best and brightest" college graduate would expect to get?

Of course not. I was using the OP’s own words. “You really wonder whether the best and brightest are reading our kids applications…” Um, no. I don’t wonder at all. Nor do I think they need to be.

Often people here go on about how well admissions officiers understand their high school, understand its grading policy etc. Then you read this thread about low paid temps.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The distain for people who choose to work in education across the DCUM forums is so sad.

The reality is that, at current pay rates, education (higher education & k-12) aren’t attracting the best & the brightest in most settings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The distain for people who choose to work in education across the DCUM forums is so sad.

The reality is that, at current pay rates, education (higher education & k-12) aren’t attracting the best & the brightest in most settings.

*isn’t