So is this saying all would-be admits are looked at in the end by the entire committee?

Interesting... I thought some were automatic yes/nos and only the maybes were brought to committee. I suppose each AO has a quota.

the latest post in that thread confirms my opinion that decisions are made on "gut" feelings. Impressions. A vibe.


"Read my pinned posts, including how admission officers read 50K+ applications, and I have one about how I read 40+ apps in a day.

Part of it is skimming. I don't need to read every word of your application from top to bottom to get the information I need. And once you've read hundreds, thousands, or tens of thousands of applications, of course you can move more quickly.

Additionally, high-volume admission offices usually have seasonal staff reviewing applications, including people processing and standardizing transcripts before they get to the AO. I.e. at Vanderbilt I didn't really have to spend time translating your transcript because it had already been done for me and presented to me in an academic score with all the information I needed.

So... AOs are likely to peek at academics, quickly go through the demographics section, review your activities, power read your essays, review any additional information, take some notes, review/skim your recommendations depending on context, add some notes or consult with their partner (if they're reading together), make a recommendation and move on. 5-20 mins, depending."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not surprising they can, with experience, do a quick first cut.

“I see what your parents do/their degrees if any”

I suspect this only counts against you unless your parents are either (a) no college at all, or (b) extremely rich donor class. Everyone in between, it’s not even an advantage to be an UMC professional who went to a good school.

So are you saying if parents are doctor / lawyer pair (and are not donors to the school), then the expectation is a lot higher?

If it isn’t then it should be. But that information should suggest that the kid is likely to succeed in college.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This sounds so ruthless, but expected. Imagine you're the reader and your 5-year-old was pestering you.

agree. and you put it down and come back and just move on? yikes.

Or worse, your husband said something annoying and a fight ensues while you're reading.

Huh? You all are so strange.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not surprising they can, with experience, do a quick first cut.

“I see what your parents do/their degrees if any”

I suspect this only counts against you unless your parents are either (a) no college at all, or (b) extremely rich donor class. Everyone in between, it’s not even an advantage to be an UMC professional who went to a good school.

So are you saying if parents are doctor / lawyer pair (and are not donors to the school), then the expectation is a lot higher?

I think it's probably neutral. Doesn't help at all. But it won't hurt. A private college counselor (well-known) said to show your wealth as much as possible in a college application. It actually helps at many private T20s. And doesn't hurt. Esp in this environment. Not sure if that's really true.

Anonymous wrote:Not surprising they can, with experience, do a quick first cut.

“I see what your parents do/their degrees if any”

I suspect this only counts against you unless your parents are either (a) no college at all, or (b) extremely rich donor class. Everyone in between, it’s not even an advantage to be an UMC professional who went to a good school.

Possibly? Or are they looking to see if your kid has no imagination (feels parental pressure) and is doing the same major/career as you? Same career plans?

For top universities, many ask where siblings go to school. Why? To assess family intellectual horsepower? To determine if there's a safety net? To ensure this kid is graduating?

Anonymous wrote:Not surprising they can, with experience, do a quick first cut.

“I see what your parents do/their degrees if any”

I suspect this only counts against you unless your parents are either (a) no college at all, or (b) extremely rich donor class. Everyone in between, it’s not even an advantage to be an UMC professional who went to a good school.

So are you saying if parents are doctor / lawyer pair (and are not donors to the school), then the expectation is a lot higher?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This sounds so ruthless, but expected. Imagine you're the reader and your 5-year-old was pestering you.

agree. and you put it down and come back and just move on? yikes.

Or worse, your husband said something annoying and a fight ensues while you're reading.

Not surprising they can, with experience, do a quick first cut.

“I see what your parents do/their degrees if any”

I suspect this only counts against you unless your parents are either (a) no college at all, or (b) extremely rich donor class. Everyone in between, it’s not even an advantage to be an UMC professional who went to a good school.

Sounds about right.

Anonymous wrote:This sounds so ruthless, but expected. Imagine you're the reader and your 5-year-old was pestering you.

agree. and you put it down and come back and just move on? yikes.

This sounds so ruthless, but expected. Imagine you're the reader and your 5-year-old was pestering you.

Anonymous wrote:Where does AI come into this?

Only at the big flagships. UNC tells you they filter automatically.
That redditor used to (currently?) reads at UChicago. Smaller app pool.

Where does AI come into this?

Are you wondering about the process now with the REA/ED apps in? This was eye-opening.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ApplyingToCollege/comments/1ookdf9/read_my_application_from_top_to_bottom_took_over/

It's not determining whether we want a candidate in 3-5 minutes. That actually happens in committee discussions, if the school has one. I usually spent on average 5 minutes for reading applications. The time reading is just to get a sense of who is in the pool and whether or not we should bring them into committee. I guess to some that means deciding who we want, but I guess I define it differently.

I'll walk through just a bit how I read applications.

Reading:

On my slate view, I can see general data. Think test scores, majors applied to, region, etc. Metadata, I guess? This takes maybe 15-30 seconds to comb over, sometimes less.

I go straight to your transcript. If this is the first student I'm reading in a school group, might take some more time to really understand what's going on (some transcripts are HORRIBLE to read and understand. Others are quite straight forward). I'm essentially only looking for your grades in core classes. If it's a really easy, readable transcript, this takes a couple of seconds. If it's a wonky transcript (i.e., the classes aren't straightforward to read), maybe a minute.

Then I go to LORs. I'm reading fast, usually looking for superlative praise and examples to substantiate that. Most LORs are mid, so it's not hard to quickly sift through. If there is superlative praise, I'll note it down. Usually a minute or two.

Then I get to your common app. I see what your parents do/their degrees if any and future plans. This is super fast. Awards too can be fast. Then I get to your activities. I'm taking note of what I think is particularly compelling and impactful with leadership. This takes 30 seconds or so. By the time I get to your essay and supps, that usually takes another 2 minutes of reading for me. I've always been a fast reader with a good sense of comprehension.

So all of that was about 5 minutes or so. It can be longer if a case is really strong or complicated, but most students won't have complex cases. It'll take me maybe another minute to write my notes down, which is just summary of all parts of the app (ECs, grades, essays, LORs). By this point, I will have a general sense of whether or not the student is competitive. If not, I can deny. If they are competitive, I'll send them to a second read.

My second reader will do the same things I've done and offer their thoughts. I'll look over that, and decide if I actually want to bring them into committee. Imagine I do this across 30ish students. Once I get all 30 cases back from my second read, I spend some time mulling over who I actually want to bring in committee, and who probably won't make the cut after a second read from another person. Once I'm in committee, I pitch the student and we discuss. That takes another 5 to 10 minutes, sometimes longer depending on the complexity of the file. And other AOs will have access to the file as I pitch it, so it's all kind of a parallelized process of understanding an application and talking about it.