How can admission essays carry even an ounce of weight going forward?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They need to ask for handwritten essays with all revisions. Only the final draft gets typed.

Why, you just do it on AI or a tutor and rewrite it a few times.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The essay is not a writing test.

Okay, apply with a poorly organized, poorly crafted and poorly written essay and see how that goes.

The opposite of tests isn't disorder. One advantage with the essay model is giving students the ability to flesh out their narrative and background, not test their writing. Most AOs will readily admit that most of the writing crossing their desk is not interesting, nor quality, but it is a key facet to holistic admissions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you don't recognize AI slop, you probably think you're getting great stuff out of chaptgpt. With the amount of reading AOs do, I think they can tell.

I worked in admissions about 10 years ago.

Chat GPT wasn’t around back then, but it was still pretty obvious when people paid for essays.

It might not seem obvious when you’re just looking at one answer, but when you see the same tone and style pop up and you’re reviewing a hundred applications per day, it stands out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The essay is not a writing test.

Okay, apply with a poorly organized, poorly crafted and poorly written essay and see how that goes.

The opposite of tests isn't disorder. One advantage with the essay model is giving students the ability to flesh out their narrative and background, not test their writing. Most AOs will readily admit that most of the writing crossing their desk is not interesting, nor quality, but it is a key facet to holistic admissions.

Give your AO a break and write something they don't need to struggle to read. These are seniors in high school and this is one of the more important pieces of communication they will produce up to this point. So maybe put a little effort into it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The essay is not a writing test.

Okay, apply with a poorly organized, poorly crafted and poorly written essay and see how that goes.

The opposite of tests isn't disorder. One advantage with the essay model is giving students the ability to flesh out their narrative and background, not test their writing. Most AOs will readily admit that most of the writing crossing their desk is not interesting, nor quality, but it is a key facet to holistic admissions.

Give your AO a break and write something they don't need to struggle to read. These are seniors in high school and this is one of the more important pieces of communication they will produce up to this point. So maybe put a little effort into it?

Not seeing the connection between your post and mine.

[Anonymous]

If you copy paste from the AI output, it is easy to tell.

You can make AI do 90% of the work, but you write it in your own words. It increases your productivity 10 times. And it does not have a trace of AI.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sure many of you use ChatGPT or the like in your daily lives and see its power to write just about anything.

Is it time for schools to 100% kill all essays? Honestly, what's the point?

Using ChatGPT well is also a skill. A skill that is going to be more important in the future.

HS and college students are already using it extensively. It is very helpful in reducing the amount of time required, eliminates the need to hire college counselors to review essays dramatically reducing costs and reduces stress.

You start with what is output and then personalize it extensively, which takes about 5% of the total effort compared to writing it from scratch. It has been a lifesaver in the last cycle for applying and getting into T20.

This, unfortunately, is the right take. This technology is a game changer and is not going anywhere. I don’t think that we can put the genie back in the bottle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you copy paste from the AI output, it is easy to tell.

You can make AI do 90% of the work, but you write it in your own words. It increases your productivity 10 times. And it does not have a trace of AI.

💯 this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's always been the case that rich kids could buy "editors" to write their essays. It would be entertaining to have kids submit essays as part of a standardized testing...I predict that admissions would change quite a bit if admissions officers could see how kids actually write without "support."

Agree. We are long past the time the essays were remotely appropriate to be considered for admissions. The short-lived timed writing section of the SAT is a much fairer way to judge writing ability.

I could get behind sending them to AOs, but not to scoring by the College Board, which would absolutely use AI to do so. I teach AP Lang and some of my worst writers scored well on that section. Verbose = high score

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sure many of you use ChatGPT or the like in your daily lives and see its power to write just about anything.

Is it time for schools to 100% kill all essays? Honestly, what's the point?

Using ChatGPT well is also a skill. A skill that is going to be more important in the future.

HS and college students are already using it extensively. It is very helpful in reducing the amount of time required, eliminates the need to hire college counselors to review essays dramatically reducing costs and reduces stress.

You start with what is output and then personalize it extensively, which takes about 5% of the total effort compared to writing it from scratch. It has been a lifesaver in the last cycle for applying and getting into T20.

This, unfortunately, is the right take. This technology is a game changer and is not going anywhere. I don’t think that we can put the genie back in the bottle.

This is NOT the right take. Before someone can effectively use technology (BTW, not what the college asked for), they need to possess the skills themselves, otherwise they are not “using” the tool, it is using them. The idea that PP’s cheating offspring displaces someone who actually has the brains to benefit from. T20 is too bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sure many of you use ChatGPT or the like in your daily lives and see its power to write just about anything.

Is it time for schools to 100% kill all essays? Honestly, what's the point?

Using ChatGPT well is also a skill. A skill that is going to be more important in the future.

HS and college students are already using it extensively. It is very helpful in reducing the amount of time required, eliminates the need to hire college counselors to review essays dramatically reducing costs and reduces stress.

You start with what is output and then personalize it extensively, which takes about 5% of the total effort compared to writing it from scratch. It has been a lifesaver in the last cycle for applying and getting into T20.

This, unfortunately, is the right take. This technology is a game changer and is not going anywhere. I don’t think that we can put the genie back in the bottle.

This is NOT the right take. Before someone can effectively use technology (BTW, not what the college asked for), they need to possess the skills themselves, otherwise they are not “using” the tool, it is using them. The idea that PP’s cheating offspring displaces someone who actually has the brains to benefit from. T20 is too bad.

Did you enjoy creating your first fork from scratch before you started using forks?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's always been the case that rich kids could buy "editors" to write their essays. It would be entertaining to have kids submit essays as part of a standardized testing...I predict that admissions would change quite a bit if admissions officers could see how kids actually write without "support."

Our VERY expensive college counselors edited DC's essays to the point that it completely removed her voice and almost seemed flat. This was 3 years ago. Although I didn't realize it at the time, looking back, I'm sure they used an LLM.

3 years? It wasn’t around.

Yes it was. GPT-3 was released in June 2020, and others were around but not yet mainstream.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you don't recognize AI slop, you probably think you're getting great stuff out of chaptgpt. With the amount of reading AOs do, I think they can tell.

I worked in admissions about 10 years ago.

Chat GPT wasn’t around back then, but it was still pretty obvious when people paid for essays.

It might not seem obvious when you’re just looking at one answer, but when you see the same tone and style pop up and you’re reviewing a hundred applications per day, it stands out.

The problem today and going forward is the massive increase in essays with Gen AI assistance (BTW if you use paid versions and know how to prompt…it becomes way less apparent) vs people who paid for essays 10 years ago (likely a small percentage).

You will probably know who didn’t use Gen AI because the essays will be terrible and stand out for that reason. However this is a dilemma college professors now have…how do you reward a terrible essay/paper just because you know it is authentic?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you don't recognize AI slop, you probably think you're getting great stuff out of chaptgpt. With the amount of reading AOs do, I think they can tell.

I worked in admissions about 10 years ago.

Chat GPT wasn’t around back then, but it was still pretty obvious when people paid for essays.

It might not seem obvious when you’re just looking at one answer, but when you see the same tone and style pop up and you’re reviewing a hundred applications per day, it stands out.

The problem today and going forward is the massive increase in essays with Gen AI assistance (BTW if you use paid versions and know how to prompt…it becomes way less apparent) vs people who paid for essays 10 years ago (likely a small percentage).

You will probably know who didn’t use Gen AI because the essays will be terrible and stand out for that reason. However this is a dilemma college professors now have…how do you reward a terrible essay/paper just because you know it is authentic?

Here’s the thing. The technology will equalize access. No one needs to hire an essay editor. If you know how to use a prompt. Everyone should only be using the paid version of any of these products. The free one is awful. The paid one can get you really close if you spend a couple of hours on your prompts and continue to refine your drafts (btw with this tactic. It becomes really easy to apply to 20 or 40 or even 100 schools. Start early and spend a few hours continuing to refine your written product).

Obviously you start with a decent personalized draft. Prompt engineering is a very valuable skill. Kids need to learn how to do it and quite frankly are often asked to complete tasks (in school and for ECs) that require thorough prompt engineering.

People in this thread are delusional considering the advances we’ve made even from last summer to today with AI. A year from now this entire thread will be laughable. Search for threads from last summer that I posted on AI. It was so naïve looking back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you don't recognize AI slop, you probably think you're getting great stuff out of chaptgpt. With the amount of reading AOs do, I think they can tell.

I worked in admissions about 10 years ago.

Chat GPT wasn’t around back then, but it was still pretty obvious when people paid for essays.

It might not seem obvious when you’re just looking at one answer, but when you see the same tone and style pop up and you’re reviewing a hundred applications per day, it stands out.

The problem today and going forward is the massive increase in essays with Gen AI assistance (BTW if you use paid versions and know how to prompt…it becomes way less apparent) vs people who paid for essays 10 years ago (likely a small percentage).

You will probably know who didn’t use Gen AI because the essays will be terrible and stand out for that reason. However this is a dilemma college professors now have…how do you reward a terrible essay/paper just because you know it is authentic?

You don’t and unfortunately students that are honest are penalized. My kid sees that at his university