Insider Perspectives from a Highly Selective Admissions Office

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP I know you don't want to reveal the college but given the stats you mention in your opener, I'd say it was a bit of a crappy school, maybe 3rd or 4th tier.

I don't know that the admissions office practices of such a place are as helpful as knowing the practices of the more competitive schools, in that you should always aim high and fall on a lower branch, not aim low and fall on the ground.

It is not a 3rd or 4th tier school. You should take a look at Stanford's own pool and see how many applicants come from the lower end (and how few are taken): http://admission.stanford.edu/basics/selection/profile.html

You don't mention recalculating GPAs at all. That's insane if you are getting apps from DMV.


Are you feeling marginalized at work? Is they why you've come here to invited these people to worship at your alter of knowledge?

I thought that was obvious given that it is my perspective at one office. No one should take it to be indicative of every single admissions office at an elite college. I just thought it would be nice to answer some questions that people have. Also, we don't recalculate GPAs on a particular scale, but we know from past history which GPAs are particularly on the low end for each school (listed in the profile we create for each school).

Admissions offices are up to their necks in finalizing the regular decision pool at the top tier colleges. The fact that you have time to come on DCUM during the middle of the day screams lack of credibility. Folks, I think we have a poser here--a knowledgable poser but still a poser. A top tier admissions officer would not have the time to play around on DCUM with admissions decisions a mere days in some cases (MIT) or weeks (Ivy's).

This is a good thread. Please don't disrupt it with troll hunting or "poseur" hunting.

The above is a perfectly logical response for anyone who knows what it happening in admissions offices now. Don't blindly accept any "expert" when things don't add up. Op may very well work in an admissions office (clerical maybe) and has some good info, but seriously, anyone making real decisions on applications doesn't have time to post middle of the day on DCUM during this period in the admissions process.

Got it. We've been warned. You may safely assume no one reading this thread will use it as their sole source or main source of admissions information. Now please don't drag this further off topic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, ignore the trollish/negative posts. One bit of information that is particularly eye-opening for me with a DC looking to be recruited -- Athletes need at or near a 4.0 UNWEIGHTED to achieve "non-committee-reviewed" spots? We are always telling our DC how important grades are, as well as how important it is to take a rigorous schedule of honors and AP classes, but do all the recruited athletes at elite schools really have straight As in rigorous schedules? Thanks for your time!

What trollish posts? One of my dearest friends is an admissions officer. She barely has time to eat lunch and go to the bathroom this time of years, much less post massive tomes on DCUM. Op is quite knowledgable, with out a doubt, but all of this info is readily available on the internet--with the exception of new SAT scores being considerably lower than the old SAT--most sources are indicating the exact opposite. It is amazing that people are so willing to take an anonymous poster at his/her word. OP never said s/he has actual input on any admissions. Common sense dictates that things are not adding up no matter how "knowledgeable" op may be. Seriously, any parent who has done his/her homework knows all of this already.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP I know you don't want to reveal the college but given the stats you mention in your opener, I'd say it was a bit of a crappy school, maybe 3rd or 4th tier.

I don't know that the admissions office practices of such a place are as helpful as knowing the practices of the more competitive schools, in that you should always aim high and fall on a lower branch, not aim low and fall on the ground.

It is not a 3rd or 4th tier school. You should take a look at Stanford's own pool and see how many applicants come from the lower end (and how few are taken): http://admission.stanford.edu/basics/selection/profile.html

You don't mention recalculating GPAs at all. That's insane if you are getting apps from DMV.


Are you feeling marginalized at work? Is they why you've come here to invited these people to worship at your alter of knowledge?

I thought that was obvious given that it is my perspective at one office. No one should take it to be indicative of every single admissions office at an elite college. I just thought it would be nice to answer some questions that people have. Also, we don't recalculate GPAs on a particular scale, but we know from past history which GPAs are particularly on the low end for each school (listed in the profile we create for each school).

Admissions offices are up to their necks in finalizing the regular decision pool at the top tier colleges. The fact that you have time to come on DCUM during the middle of the day screams lack of credibility. Folks, I think we have a poser here--a knowledgable poser but still a poser. A top tier admissions officer would not have the time to play around on DCUM with admissions decisions a mere days in some cases (MIT) or weeks (Ivy's).

This is a good thread. Please don't disrupt it with troll hunting or "poseur" hunting.

The above is a perfectly logical response for anyone who knows what it happening in admissions offices now. Don't blindly accept any "expert" when things don't add up. Op may very well work in an admissions office (clerical maybe) and has some good info, but seriously, anyone making real decisions on applications doesn't have time to post middle of the day on DCUM during this period in the admissions process.

Got it. We've been warned. You may safely assume no one reading this thread will use it as their sole source or main source of admissions information. Now please don't drag this further off topic.

Your counterarguments are really the only thing "dragging" this out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, ignore the trollish/negative posts. One bit of information that is particularly eye-opening for me with a DC looking to be recruited -- Athletes need at or near a 4.0 UNWEIGHTED to achieve "non-committee-reviewed" spots? We are always telling our DC how important grades are, as well as how important it is to take a rigorous schedule of honors and AP classes, but do all the recruited athletes at elite schools really have straight As in rigorous schedules? Thanks for your time!

Not OP, but this is absolutely not true. Elite colleges, even Ivies, will recruit athletes and give them a pass on grades or SATs (to a degree). However, you have to be a very high level athlete - think Olympic level or you can lead your team to a national title.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyway, I have to head out for a bit; will try to answer more questions in the evening. I hope this was helpful, and just if it wasn't clear already, this is not representative of every college out there, and a number of views are espoused are my own, not the admissions office.

It was very helpful and it obviously took a lot of time. Thanks for posting this.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the info, don't listen to the haters.
My daughter is a senior waiting on acceptances, I found this information helpful.
I started a thread on college confidential - Old SAT scores compared to redesigned SAT scores.
I am interested in more information on old and new SAT scores. We are just a few week away from most decisions, when are they going to come up with a concordance that is useful for the admissions office, seems like time is ticking. With admissions being so competitive, it can make a big difference.

[Anonymous]

If OP "is quite knowledgable, with out a doubt" and "has some good info," who cares what his or her job title is? As someone who has not spent months researching the college admissions process, I find this information helpful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, ignore the trollish/negative posts. One bit of information that is particularly eye-opening for me with a DC looking to be recruited -- Athletes need at or near a 4.0 UNWEIGHTED to achieve "non-committee-reviewed" spots? We are always telling our DC how important grades are, as well as how important it is to take a rigorous schedule of honors and AP classes, but do all the recruited athletes at elite schools really have straight As in rigorous schedules? Thanks for your time!

What trollish posts? One of my dearest friends is an admissions officer. She barely has time to eat lunch and go to the bathroom this time of years, much less post massive tomes on DCUM. Op is quite knowledgable, with out a doubt, but all of this info is readily available on the internet--with the exception of new SAT scores being considerably lower than the old SAT--most sources are indicating the exact opposite. It is amazing that people are so willing to take an anonymous poster at his/her word. OP never said s/he has actual input on any admissions. Common sense dictates that things are not adding up no matter how "knowledgeable" op may be. Seriously, any parent who has done his/her homework knows all of this already.

I will ask again, what isn't adding up? What has she said specifically that you disagree with? Otherwise I think it's you whose post aren't adding up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, ignore the trollish/negative posts. Op is quite knowledgable, with out a doubt, but all of this info is readily available on the internet--with the exception of new SAT scores being considerably lower than the old SAT--most sources are indicating the exact opposite.

You are completely wrong on that. Go on to CC and look at the EA/ED results that have been released by multiple selective colleges. The new SAT is skewing lower.

[Anonymous]

I am particularly surprised to hear that applying ED does not come with any advantage. The schools we visited certainly made it sound otherwise. Our presentor at Wesleyan definitely implied that it does but maybe she was just trying to scare folks into applying early. I also seem to recall our college counselor telling us to apply ED to your furthest reach school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What about kids who were adopted interracially? Which box should they check? Always check the one which would give them a better advantage in consideration? Some examples:

African-American adopted into a while family -- check AA?
Asian child adopted into a while family -- check white?
Latino child adopted into a white family -- check Latino?

This question is dumb

[Anonymous]

This school sounds like UChicago to me.
Clues:
1. On-campus interviews
2. 80% rejection of ACT 35+ applicants
3. Median of 750 per section on old SAT—the only schools at that level, AFAIK, are HYPSM, UChicago, and CalTech.

[Anonymous]

Chicago cares (desperately) about yield and superb essays won't be as rare there as the OP suggests (because many applicants know how much they matter and because the topics are so much better than other schools.'). I also suspect athletics is less of an issue. Sounds more like Hopkins to me.

[Anonymous]

Although I guess you could argue that it's only someplace like Chicago (where athletics matter less) that the academic standards for athletes would be that high.

UofC says interviews don't matter. Message here is they're more likely to hurt than to help.

[Anonymous]

All OP said was that they don't use yield protection, aka Tufts Syndrome of deliberately not admitting super-qualified candidates that are likely to choose a higher school. An admissions office can claim not to engage in yield protection, while at the same time ensuring high yield through aggressive marketing to drum up applications, and Chicago is the poster child for that.
As for essays, the quirky Chicago essay prompts probably are not conducive to the best writing. I took OP's comment on essay quality to be a more general remark on how poor essay quality actually is (probably everywhere). I myself often wondered why so many kids at CC think their essays are 9/10 or higher.