Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oxford and Cambridge do just fine having faculty make the last cut. After grades and test scores makes the first cut.

I'm the PP who is opposed to professionals in the industry making these calls. But I could absolutely get behind the professors being involved.

What’s the distinction?

Anonymous wrote:Oxford and Cambridge do just fine having faculty make the last cut. After grades and test scores makes the first cut.

I'm the PP who is opposed to professionals in the industry making these calls. But I could absolutely get behind the professors being involved.

Oxford and Cambridge do just fine having faculty make the last cut. After grades and test scores makes the first cut.

Anonymous wrote:Its interesting to consider the feedback loop.

AOs ar people who are wgood at gaming admissions, but ad at doing anything of note after graduation, so they go work in the Admissions Office, selecting for more people like themselves, until admissions evolvies into a parody of itself.

It's similar to other activities where winners become judges, pushing the activity into more extreme weirdness. Policy Debate is famous for this. They don't debate anymore, it's now a speed talking contest with weird requirements for what you need to say to get points.

Admissions should be a service task performed part time by the kind of people the school wants to develop -- professors, industry professionals, artists, political and nonprofit leaders, etc.

This is a bad idea, and reveals a serious misunderstanding that is harmful to a lot of organizations.

The skill set that makes somebody really good at chemistry, for example, is NOT the same skill set that makes people good at discerning the qualities and attributes of other people from a written submission. And even if those people are good at finding the applicants that are similar to themselves, that leads to a stagnant field without a lot of the diversity that leads to innovation and fresh thinking in the field over time.

This is exactly the problem with professional workplaces that assume the person who is really good at sales or something would also be really good at leadership.

Anonymous wrote:Its interesting to consider the feedback loop.

AOs ar people who are wgood at gaming admissions, but ad at doing anything of note after graduation, so they go work in the Admissions Office, selecting for more people like themselves, until admissions evolvies into a parody of itself.

It's similar to other activities where winners become judges, pushing the activity into more extreme weirdness. Policy Debate is famous for this. They don't debate anymore, it's now a speed talking contest with weird requirements for what you need to say to get points.

Admissions should be a service task performed part time by the kind of people the school wants to develop -- professors, industry professionals, artists, political and nonprofit leaders, etc.

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We sold our home a few years ago to an AO at one of the top colleges in the country. She was very silly and vain, extremely pleased with herself. Completely put us off the college.

If her initials are SS and the school is in New York, we met her and she is insufferable. (She's no longer with that school.) It put us off that school too.

Opposite coast.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

AO's are most likely female in 20s and 30s, mostly from humanities, well educated and really nice people. AO's are more likely to be well adjusted outgoing personalities. That is your audience.

100% agree. Also explains why boys are at such a disadvantage if they have traditional boy majors.

Nothing to do with the AOs. The senior university admins set the admissions priorities: Too many boys trying to major in the same thing with limited seats and the need to gender balance the class.

So a female women’s studies major should take a boy’s Econ spot?

It is not a matter of "should" or fairness. The university is a business and if there is a women's studies department then there is a need for majors to support the department. The admissions office has no say in this process bedsides picking the students that will fill those pre-determined spots.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

AO's are most likely female in 20s and 30s, mostly from humanities, well educated and really nice people. AO's are more likely to be well adjusted outgoing personalities. That is your audience.

100% agree. Also explains why boys are at such a disadvantage if they have traditional boy majors.

Nothing to do with the AOs. The senior university admins set the admissions priorities: Too many boys trying to major in the same thing with limited seats and the need to gender balance the class.

So a female women’s studies major should take a boy’s Econ spot?

If that’s what the admissions director wants, yes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

AO's are most likely female in 20s and 30s, mostly from humanities, well educated and really nice people. AO's are more likely to be well adjusted outgoing personalities. That is your audience.

100% agree. Also explains why boys are at such a disadvantage if they have traditional boy majors.

Nothing to do with the AOs. The senior university admins set the admissions priorities: Too many boys trying to major in the same thing with limited seats and the need to gender balance the class.

So a female women’s studies major should take a boy’s Econ spot?

It's not the boy's spot. The problem is your narrow perspective.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

AO's are most likely female in 20s and 30s, mostly from humanities, well educated and really nice people. AO's are more likely to be well adjusted outgoing personalities. That is your audience.

100% agree. Also explains why boys are at such a disadvantage if they have traditional boy majors.

Nothing to do with the AOs. The senior university admins set the admissions priorities: Too many boys trying to major in the same thing with limited seats and the need to gender balance the class.

So a female women’s studies major should take a boy’s Econ spot?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

AO's are most likely female in 20s and 30s, mostly from humanities, well educated and really nice people. AO's are more likely to be well adjusted outgoing personalities. That is your audience.

100% agree. Also explains why boys are at such a disadvantage if they have traditional boy majors.

Nothing to do with the AOs. The senior university admins set the admissions priorities: Too many boys trying to major in the same thing with limited seats and the need to gender balance the class.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

AO's are most likely female in 20s and 30s, mostly from humanities, well educated and really nice people. AO's are more likely to be well adjusted outgoing personalities. That is your audience.

100% agree. Also explains why boys are at such a disadvantage if they have traditional boy majors.

Anonymous wrote:

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?

AO's are most likely female in 20s and 30s, mostly from humanities, well educated and really nice people. AO's are more likely to be well adjusted outgoing personalities. That is your audience.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We sold our home a few years ago to an AO at one of the top colleges in the country. She was very silly and vain, extremely pleased with herself. Completely put us off the college.

How would you know this? Sellers and buyers generally have limited direct interaction with each other.

They gave us a folder of photos of their family describing everyone's job and with photos of the woman with her newborn in hospital.

Not really my thing.

That's her "application essay" for buying your house.
That's the kind of tripe AOs are looking for from students trying to learn meaningful skills.

Its interesting to consider the feedback loop.

AOs ar people who are wgood at gaming admissions, but ad at doing anything of note after graduation, so they go work in the Admissions Office, selecting for more people like themselves, until admissions evolvies into a parody of itself.

It's similar to other activities where winners become judges, pushing the activity into more extreme weirdness. Policy Debate is famous for this. They don't debate anymore, it's now a speed talking contest with weird requirements for what you need to say to get points.

Admissions should be a service task performed part time by the kind of people the school wants to develop -- professors, industry professionals, artists, political and nonprofit leaders, etc.