Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know some admissions officers and THEY WILL KNOW. Don't let that be the reason your child doesn't get into a school.

No, they won't.

I'm a high school English teacher at a school where wealthy parents routinely pay "consultants" to write their child's application essays for them. The results are obviously formulaic in a way that is clearly not the work of a high school student, but admissions officers don't care. The (academically average and below-average) kids routinely gain admission to Ivies and other top schools. The admissions officers also don't care about the fake activities and profiles these "consultants" create. These kids' parents successfully purchase admission to top colleges every year.

There's nothing I can do if I want to keep a job. But the whole process for the super wealthy is not the same as what normal kids understand.

I went to Harvard, and I was not from a wealthy or influential family, and these kinds of kids were there in my time as well.

I think what happens is all submitted essays will be elevated, and there won’t be any really crappy essays anymore. Which means they’ll probably start to count for less and less in the rubric/review process; it will end up being less about the writing and more about the story.

I'm the PP. I maintain that they don't count for a certain elite (but not so elite as you would expect) level of socioeconomic student anyway at the current time, and haven't for many years, if ever.

But, OK, for the rest of the kids, I see what you mean. And I think that the only way to ensure any kind of integrity in the essay process moving forward would be for colleges to introduce a timed, proctored exam format, like what we do for AP exams. Kids could go to a test center, receive a choice of previously unseen prompts, and write their essay under the supervision of proctors, a bit like an AP English exam composition. That is the only way to ensure the work is original in our current world, I think. Perhaps this will be the future. Otherwise, I don't see the point of a required essay submission when we know the majority of kids are not writing these themselves.

Anonymous wrote:I am wondering now however if there is really a difference between a poor kid using AI to edit their essay and a wealthy kid paying an expensive college consultant for significant help with brainstorming ideas, editing etc. Maybe all the people railing against AI are the wealthy parents who are concerned about the leveling of the playing field and the fact that their money now buys less of an advantage.

🔔‼️🔔‼️🔔‼️🔔

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know some admissions officers and THEY WILL KNOW. Don't let that be the reason your child doesn't get into a school.

No, they won't.

I'm a high school English teacher at a school where wealthy parents routinely pay "consultants" to write their child's application essays for them. The results are obviously formulaic in a way that is clearly not the work of a high school student, but admissions officers don't care. The (academically average and below-average) kids routinely gain admission to Ivies and other top schools. The admissions officers also don't care about the fake activities and profiles these "consultants" create. These kids' parents successfully purchase admission to top colleges every year.

There's nothing I can do if I want to keep a job. But the whole process for the super wealthy is not the same as what normal kids understand.

I went to Harvard, and I was not from a wealthy or influential family, and these kinds of kids were there in my time as well.

I think what happens is all submitted essays will be elevated, and there won’t be any really crappy essays anymore. Which means they’ll probably start to count for less and less in the rubric/review process; it will end up being less about the writing and more about the story.

Anonymous wrote:I know some admissions officers and THEY WILL KNOW. Don't let that be the reason your child doesn't get into a school.

No, they won't.

I'm a high school English teacher at a school where wealthy parents routinely pay "consultants" to write their child's application essays for them. The results are obviously formulaic in a way that is clearly not the work of a high school student, but admissions officers don't care. The (academically average and below-average) kids routinely gain admission to Ivies and other top schools. The admissions officers also don't care about the fake activities and profiles these "consultants" create. These kids' parents successfully purchase admission to top colleges every year.

There's nothing I can do if I want to keep a job. But the whole process for the super wealthy is not the same as what normal kids understand.

I went to Harvard, and I was not from a wealthy or influential family, and these kinds of kids were there in my time as well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am wondering now however if there is really a difference between a poor kid using AI to edit their essay and a wealthy kid paying an expensive college consultant for significant help with brainstorming ideas, editing etc. Maybe all the people railing against AI are the wealthy parents who are concerned about the leveling of the playing field and the fact that their money now buys less of an advantage.

There is not which is why colleges are now allowing it. They realize the hypocrisy of wealthy kids having highly paid consultants "heavily editing" their essays, but then trying to ding a poor kid for generative AI.

That said...why don't colleges ask people to check a box if they paid a 3rd party consultant to help with an application?

Seriously? What about:

English teachers who have the kids write and then get help editing during class.

Kids who get free SAT prep (some schools do this)

Kids who get a PSAT 9 or a mid week psat chances (like Sidwell), etc.

Anonymous wrote:I am wondering now however if there is really a difference between a poor kid using AI to edit their essay and a wealthy kid paying an expensive college consultant for significant help with brainstorming ideas, editing etc. Maybe all the people railing against AI are the wealthy parents who are concerned about the leveling of the playing field and the fact that their money now buys less of an advantage.

💯
It’s the great equalizer

Anonymous wrote:I am wondering now however if there is really a difference between a poor kid using AI to edit their essay and a wealthy kid paying an expensive college consultant for significant help with brainstorming ideas, editing etc. Maybe all the people railing against AI are the wealthy parents who are concerned about the leveling of the playing field and the fact that their money now buys less of an advantage.

There is not which is why colleges are now allowing it. They realize the hypocrisy of wealthy kids having highly paid consultants "heavily editing" their essays, but then trying to ding a poor kid for generative AI.

That said...why don't colleges ask people to check a box if they paid a 3rd party consultant to help with an application?

I am wondering now however if there is really a difference between a poor kid using AI to edit their essay and a wealthy kid paying an expensive college consultant for significant help with brainstorming ideas, editing etc. Maybe all the people railing against AI are the wealthy parents who are concerned about the leveling of the playing field and the fact that their money now buys less of an advantage.

^^ in an English college classy kid took, the professor said AI was fine but had to be disclosed bc grading would be different.

Anonymous wrote:Wow. So they’re basically encouraging people to use it.

I am a college prof and I encourage my students to submit their work but with specific prompts like “mark all sentences that require a citation where I don’t have one.” Or “this paper requires headings. Put in suggested headings.” There is a difference between using it as an editor and having it write your paper.
However I also tell them it’s okay to use it if you have to for example come up with a topic for a term paper. You can say what you are interested in and some readings that you enjoyed and have it suggest topics and further readings. Nothing wrong with that.

Anonymous wrote:I know some admissions officers and THEY WILL KNOW. Don't let that be the reason your child doesn't get into a school.

This is not true at a school which directly says it is fine. Please list these schools so we can verify…

I know some admissions officers and THEY WILL KNOW. Don't let that be the reason your child doesn't get into a school.

They know they will use it so they are trying to recognize that and hit the problem straight on.

Wow. So they’re basically encouraging people to use it.

I posted this a few times before:

At a Rice info sessions, an AO specifically said they expect kids to use AI. Now Univ of CA has added this line to their required Statement of Application Integrity:

Quoting: “ Students may receive advice on content and editing, including the use of generative artificial intelligence software to assist with readability, but content and final written text must be their own.”

https://apply.universityofcalifornia.edu/docs/StatementOfIntegrity.pdf