Anonymous
Post 09/21/2024 17:02     Subject: Admissions officers
Anonymous wrote:The AOs I've met, granted they have been more senior, have impressive undergrad degrees (often from the school they now represent).
On campus, most of the few junior people we were in contact with had also attended the school.

+1

Honestly, it seems like someone in this thread is trying to preemptively soothe themselves by saying the forthcoming rejections are coming from stupid people.

It’s not rational.
Anonymous
Post 09/21/2024 16:58     Subject: Admissions officers
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Our school hosted a panel with eight AOs, mostly well-known/brand-name schools plus a couple of in-state. They gave the expected answers to questions like, how do you view test scores, using AI in essays, that kind of thing. My big takeaway: the AOs mostly seemed well-meaning but frankly not all that bright. It was like, oh, THIS is who makes these big decisions about my kid? Frankly one that stood out as most impressive was the in-state rep. Anyway, I'm not sure what my point is, it's not like I really thought AOs were a bunch of Harvard MBAs but it was still eye-opening.


AOs usually are people who fell into the role after college (often lesser known college) by working their way up in admissions after other career paths stalled. They are usually nice, people-oriented people but few have intellectual gravitas or are as impressive as the kids they are judging and sometimes rejecting. Most are middle-class and went to lesser known schools and not A students with slates of impressive ECs themselves. The heads of admission at Georgetown, Emory and a few others are exceptions.

It's useful perspective for our kids to know they're being judged by people with lesser credentials and accolades than they have.


First, it is simply a mistake to assume that your 17 year old has more "credentials" or "accolades" than a full professional adult. Your kid does not even have a college degree. Lots can happen.

Second, how is that helpful perspective? Sure it helpful maybe to know a bit about who your audience is going to be. But that is a completely different think from judging that audience as somehow "less than" your teenager.
Anonymous
Post 09/21/2024 16:34     Subject: Admissions officers
Focusing on tailoring an essay for an audience you are making huge assumptions about is a mistake. You know what they say happens when you assume...

Honestly, if you want to get into at least one highly selective school, be in the top few percent nationally in an interesting EC area (or maybe 2 if it isn't a sport) and have leadership positions that show you are not just a joiner. Make it clear what makes you different in your past and on what you'll bring moving forward.
Anonymous
Post 09/21/2024 16:26     Subject: Admissions officers
Admissions officers need to have broad knowledge of many different fields rather than deep knowledge of one particular area. Sadly, most people nowadays use depth vs breadth as a measure of intelligence, but AO’s have to look at applications holistically based on the needs of the university as a whole. A university full of 4.0+ computer science geeks who never interact with people outside their bubble would be a very dull place.
Anonymous
Post 09/21/2024 16:25     Subject: Admissions officers
The AOs I've met, granted they have been more senior, have impressive undergrad degrees (often from the school they now represent).
On campus, most of the few junior people we were in contact with had also attended the school.
Anonymous
Post 09/21/2024 16:15     Subject: Admissions officers
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Our school hosted a panel with eight AOs, mostly well-known/brand-name schools plus a couple of in-state. They gave the expected answers to questions like, how do you view test scores, using AI in essays, that kind of thing. My big takeaway: the AOs mostly seemed well-meaning but frankly not all that bright. It was like, oh, THIS is who makes these big decisions about my kid? Frankly one that stood out as most impressive was the in-state rep. Anyway, I'm not sure what my point is, it's not like I really thought AOs were a bunch of Harvard MBAs but it was still eye-opening.


AOs usually are people who fell into the role after college (often lesser known college) by working their way up in admissions after other career paths stalled. They are usually nice, people-oriented people but few have intellectual gravitas or are as impressive as the kids they are judging and sometimes rejecting. Most are middle-class and went to lesser known schools and not A students with slates of impressive ECs themselves. The heads of admission at Georgetown, Emory and a few others are exceptions.

It's useful perspective for our kids to know they're being judged by people with lesser credentials and accolades than they have.


Excuse me while I vomit. That is not a useful perspective for an 18 year old. We don’t need these kids blaming other peoples’ imagined stupidity every time they don’t get what they want. Talk about entitled.


Drama queen much?

This is about knowing the audience you are writing to.



Do tell, how specifically does an accomplished kid tailor their essays for these undereducated boors?
Anonymous
Post 09/21/2024 16:05     Subject: Admissions officers
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Our school hosted a panel with eight AOs, mostly well-known/brand-name schools plus a couple of in-state. They gave the expected answers to questions like, how do you view test scores, using AI in essays, that kind of thing. My big takeaway: the AOs mostly seemed well-meaning but frankly not all that bright. It was like, oh, THIS is who makes these big decisions about my kid? Frankly one that stood out as most impressive was the in-state rep. Anyway, I'm not sure what my point is, it's not like I really thought AOs were a bunch of Harvard MBAs but it was still eye-opening.


AOs usually are people who fell into the role after college (often lesser known college) by working their way up in admissions after other career paths stalled. They are usually nice, people-oriented people but few have intellectual gravitas or are as impressive as the kids they are judging and sometimes rejecting. Most are middle-class and went to lesser known schools and not A students with slates of impressive ECs themselves. The heads of admission at Georgetown, Emory and a few others are exceptions.

It's useful perspective for our kids to know they're being judged by people with lesser credentials and accolades than they have.


Excuse me while I vomit. That is not a useful perspective for an 18 year old. We don’t need these kids blaming other peoples’ imagined stupidity every time they don’t get what they want. Talk about entitled.


Drama queen much?

This is about knowing the audience you are writing to.

Anonymous
Post 09/21/2024 16:05     Subject: Admissions officers
Anonymous wrote:I’ve noticed that women are overrepresented as AOs, which raises concerns about the evaluation of male applicants.

Now imagine how POC feel knowing that the vast majority of AOs are white.
Anonymous
Post 09/21/2024 16:02     Subject: Admissions officers
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Our school hosted a panel with eight AOs, mostly well-known/brand-name schools plus a couple of in-state. They gave the expected answers to questions like, how do you view test scores, using AI in essays, that kind of thing. My big takeaway: the AOs mostly seemed well-meaning but frankly not all that bright. It was like, oh, THIS is who makes these big decisions about my kid? Frankly one that stood out as most impressive was the in-state rep. Anyway, I'm not sure what my point is, it's not like I really thought AOs were a bunch of Harvard MBAs but it was still eye-opening.


AOs usually are people who fell into the role after college (often lesser known college) by working their way up in admissions after other career paths stalled. They are usually nice, people-oriented people but few have intellectual gravitas or are as impressive as the kids they are judging and sometimes rejecting. Most are middle-class and went to lesser known schools and not A students with slates of impressive ECs themselves. The heads of admission at Georgetown, Emory and a few others are exceptions.

It's useful perspective for our kids to know they're being judged by people with lesser credentials and accolades than they have.


+1

One person who knows AO's extremely well since he worked with so many of them over many decades, writes this about them:

"This is your audience. Study them well. Not exactly the Nobel Prize panel."

This is intended as a guide to students.
Anonymous
Post 09/21/2024 14:04     Subject: Admissions officers
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Our school hosted a panel with eight AOs, mostly well-known/brand-name schools plus a couple of in-state. They gave the expected answers to questions like, how do you view test scores, using AI in essays, that kind of thing. My big takeaway: the AOs mostly seemed well-meaning but frankly not all that bright. It was like, oh, THIS is who makes these big decisions about my kid? Frankly one that stood out as most impressive was the in-state rep. Anyway, I'm not sure what my point is, it's not like I really thought AOs were a bunch of Harvard MBAs but it was still eye-opening.


AOs usually are people who fell into the role after college (often lesser known college) by working their way up in admissions after other career paths stalled. They are usually nice, people-oriented people but few have intellectual gravitas or are as impressive as the kids they are judging and sometimes rejecting. Most are middle-class and went to lesser known schools and not A students with slates of impressive ECs themselves. The heads of admission at Georgetown, Emory and a few others are exceptions.

It's useful perspective for our kids to know they're being judged by people with lesser credentials and accolades than they have.


Excuse me while I vomit. That is not a useful perspective for an 18 year old. We don’t need these kids blaming other peoples’ imagined stupidity every time they don’t get what they want. Talk about entitled.
Anonymous
Post 09/21/2024 13:50     Subject: Re:Admissions officers
How would you all feel if your brilliant young adults told you they wanted to pursue a career in admissions?
Anonymous
Post 09/21/2024 13:38     Subject: Admissions officers
Lol so many bitter snobs on this thread.
Anonymous
Post 09/21/2024 13:06     Subject: Admissions officers
Anonymous wrote:Our school hosted a panel with eight AOs, mostly well-known/brand-name schools plus a couple of in-state. They gave the expected answers to questions like, how do you view test scores, using AI in essays, that kind of thing. My big takeaway: the AOs mostly seemed well-meaning but frankly not all that bright. It was like, oh, THIS is who makes these big decisions about my kid? Frankly one that stood out as most impressive was the in-state rep. Anyway, I'm not sure what my point is, it's not like I really thought AOs were a bunch of Harvard MBAs but it was still eye-opening.


AOs usually are people who fell into the role after college (often lesser known college) by working their way up in admissions after other career paths stalled. They are usually nice, people-oriented people but few have intellectual gravitas or are as impressive as the kids they are judging and sometimes rejecting. Most are middle-class and went to lesser known schools and not A students with slates of impressive ECs themselves. The heads of admission at Georgetown, Emory and a few others are exceptions.

It's useful perspective for our kids to know they're being judged by people with lesser credentials and accolades than they have.
Anonymous
Post 09/21/2024 12:15     Subject: Admissions officers
Totally agree.
Anonymous
Post 09/21/2024 12:14     Subject: Admissions officers
Anonymous wrote:You're seeing the entry-level AOs, who did the initial reviews. You probably didn't see the senior staff who make the decisions.


If you even get to senior staff?