Anonymous wrote:

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: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.

there is ZERO evidence that AOs are good at "discerning the qualities and attributes of other people from a written submission". literally zero evidence. it's just an assumption. whatever studies of admission to various programs have been conducted always show the same thing - that you get better results when you REMOVE all human judgment and rely on scores only.

it's so annoying when people here argue that, oh, if you only admitted 1600s and 4.0s, everybody would be the same. no, not at all. there would be more diversity because students would be allowed to just be themselves instead mold themselves to appeal to some random AO panel.

Most of us don't want applicants reduced to test scores because we know our kids have talents and positive characteristics that make them interesting that aren't captured by the tests. You seem to think scores are the best thing your kid has to offer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

there is ZERO evidence that AOs are good at "discerning the qualities and attributes of other people from a written submission". literally zero evidence. it's just an assumption. whatever studies of admission to various programs have been conducted always show the same thing - that you get better results when you REMOVE all human judgment and rely on scores only.

it's so annoying when people here argue that, oh, if you only admitted 1600s and 4.0s, everybody would be the same. no, not at all. there would be more diversity because students would be allowed to just be themselves instead mold themselves to appeal to some random AO panel.

Most of us don't want applicants reduced to test scores because we know our kids have talents and positive characteristics that make them interesting that aren't captured by the tests. You seem to think scores are the best thing your kid has to offer.

Narrator: your kid is not very interesting and is essentially identical to tens of thousands of other kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

there is ZERO evidence that AOs are good at "discerning the qualities and attributes of other people from a written submission". literally zero evidence. it's just an assumption. whatever studies of admission to various programs have been conducted always show the same thing - that you get better results when you REMOVE all human judgment and rely on scores only.

it's so annoying when people here argue that, oh, if you only admitted 1600s and 4.0s, everybody would be the same. no, not at all. there would be more diversity because students would be allowed to just be themselves instead mold themselves to appeal to some random AO panel.

Most of us don't want applicants reduced to test scores because we know our kids have talents and positive characteristics that make them interesting that aren't captured by the tests. You seem to think scores are the best thing your kid has to offer.

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.

NP. Many selective colleges, those just below the top, are off-balance with a greater proportion of females than males in recent years.

Reasons for this might include heavily weighing high school grades, where females tend to do better, moreso than scores, where males tend to do better. But that's another thread...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

there is ZERO evidence that AOs are good at "discerning the qualities and attributes of other people from a written submission". literally zero evidence. it's just an assumption. whatever studies of admission to various programs have been conducted always show the same thing - that you get better results when you REMOVE all human judgment and rely on scores only.

it's so annoying when people here argue that, oh, if you only admitted 1600s and 4.0s, everybody would be the same. no, not at all. there would be more diversity because students would be allowed to just be themselves instead mold themselves to appeal to some random AO panel.

Most of us don't want applicants reduced to test scores because we know our kids have talents and positive characteristics that make them interesting that aren't captured by the tests. You seem to think scores are the best thing your kid has to offer.

So you are saying that students with top scores are not interesting? What makes you think that?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

there is ZERO evidence that AOs are good at "discerning the qualities and attributes of other people from a written submission". literally zero evidence. it's just an assumption. whatever studies of admission to various programs have been conducted always show the same thing - that you get better results when you REMOVE all human judgment and rely on scores only.

it's so annoying when people here argue that, oh, if you only admitted 1600s and 4.0s, everybody would be the same. no, not at all. there would be more diversity because students would be allowed to just be themselves instead mold themselves to appeal to some random AO panel.

Most of us don't want applicants reduced to test scores because we know our kids have talents and positive characteristics that make them interesting that aren't captured by the tests. You seem to think scores are the best thing your kid has to offer.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

there is ZERO evidence that AOs are good at "discerning the qualities and attributes of other people from a written submission". literally zero evidence. it's just an assumption. whatever studies of admission to various programs have been conducted always show the same thing - that you get better results when you REMOVE all human judgment and rely on scores only.

it's so annoying when people here argue that, oh, if you only admitted 1600s and 4.0s, everybody would be the same. no, not at all. there would be more diversity because students would be allowed to just be themselves instead mold themselves to appeal to some random AO panel.

Anonymous wrote:

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: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.

there is ZERO evidence that AOs are good at "discerning the qualities and attributes of other people from a written submission". literally zero evidence. it's just an assumption. whatever studies of admission to various programs have been conducted always show the same thing - that you get better results when you REMOVE all human judgment and rely on scores only.

it's so annoying when people here argue that, oh, if you only admitted 1600s and 4.0s, everybody would be the same. no, not at all. there would be more diversity because students would be allowed to just be themselves instead mold themselves to appeal to some random AO panel.

Anonymous wrote:

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:

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:

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.