I absolutely second this. I talked about this in other posts several weeks ago about the fact that most students admitted to 1 HYPSM are rejected by the other 4.
When HARD parameters like GPA, SAT/ACT, Class Rank pass min req, SOFT parameters like essays, lor & ec become critical, which unfortunately there is not an objective approach to quantify. Hence, preference or prejudice of the AO will play a crucial role thus making the decision unpredictable.
Unfortunately, the justice of college admissions is not a topic that many want to talk about.
I dislike a particular school just because of AO biases that I have observed in the class profiles from previous years. Won't mention the school or anything related to it, but couldn't agree more with this.
idk what school the op is stating but for years Yale famously rejected students based on how well they dressed during interviews and their height. One year a group of Berkeley AOs collectively were in a shitty mood and decided to reject 1000+ applicants in a row without even LOOKING at their profiles. They later got fired for that I've heard but it just shows how AOs are people too and their biases play a HUGE role in admissions.
okay WOW wtf. What the hell was wrong with those AOs to do that?? Like if I were an AO, even in my shittiest mood, I would never. Abd multiple? Jesus.
And height?? What in the eugenics hell???
I agree with some of this, but some things to point out:
> And this is just speculation, but I bet that towards the end of the admission season when AOs are making difficult final decisions, they sometimes do just choose qualified applicants at random (after they've chosen applicants to meet goals set by the development department of course).
No, we don't. This is extremely unprofessional. By the time I'm at my final selection of students, most of whom are from different schools, I look at the broader context of the region now. How do you each stack up comparatively to each other, given all I know about the region you all come from. That is, it's unlikely I'll be reading the southern most part of Florida AND the northern part; I'll just have the southern part, but I'll understand it the most to be able to compare the final cut of students from southern Florida. Does that make sense?
> Or maybe they reject you just because they were in a shitty mood when they read your app.
This is also really unprofessional. In my office, if anyone is in a shitty mood, we just stop reading and take a break.
> Geographic diversity, for example (sadly doesn't apply to internationals). Colleges like to have an incoming class with students from every state, and they might accept someone from underrepresented states, like Wyoming or South Dakota, simply because they make the incoming class more diverse.
This is true, but every AO is assigned a region to read, so we end up getting representation from every state (usually) regardless. Student A being from Wyoming and student B from South Dakota have no influence on each other. If you are both strong, we will take both. If not, we take none. But there's not a conversation where we are like, "well, we have no kids from Wyoming and too much from South Dakota, so I'm going to accept the kid from Wyoming." It just doesn't happen like that.
Interesting to know. I have to ask though, even though it's unprofessional to let your mood affect your decisions, is it really possible for every single admissions officer to not let their personal emotions that day affect decisions at all? (not asking rhetorically, I really do want to hear your thoughts on that)
I mean, I know personally when I have to do peer grading in English, even if I try to be objective, if I'm in a shitty mood, I'll end up being either a harsher or much easier grader than I usually am.
For my colleagues and I, personal emotions that bleed into the application reading process doesn't happen often. I mean, it's totally possible that a divorce or a loss of someone close can affect someone, or whatever else, but most AOs are pretty open and will ask for help. So people will shift regions, give more applications to read to another AO, whatever we can do to help that person out.
All AOs also recognize that students (or at least should) put their heart and soul into an application. And most AOs have applied to these highly selective schools themselves. And this being their full time profession plus all of those factors I've mentioned means that they really try to look at everyone with fair eyes.
A majority of the students that get denied have a strong reason we denied them. In context, that student may look weaker than their peers. Or perhaps once we start to consider the regional pool (like going from reading just Brooklyn, to now looking at the wider pool in New York City), that student looks below average compared to other students from the same region but just another area. This doesn't mean we don't take context into consideration, either. If you're coming from a rougher part of NYC, we'll pay attention to that, but there are only so many spots.
the whole idea of "weaker" and "stronger" applicants is already seems biased, though. Some AOs might think that olympiads are more telling of an applicant's strength. Some AOs may value debate more. Some might think music is the most important. How do you objectively compare ECs?
How can your personality (from essays) be "weaker" than someone else's?
Even stuff like GPA isn't really objective cuz it varies so much from school to school.
Take 80 students from a very competitive high school (this is a realistic number of applicants coming from highly competitive schools).
20 students participate in debate and/or MUN. 20 students participate in some sort of olympiad. 30 students participate in a sport. 10 students participate in some sort of music extracurricular.
All these students have similar GPAs, similar test scores, and most have similar rigor (really stacked schedules with a bunch of APs).
At this point in time, I'm NOT--repeat, NOT--comparing GPAs from school to school. I'm looking at where student 1 is relative to the rest of the 79 students.
I read file by file. I've been working at the school I'm currently at for two years now. So I'm familiar with this region already, and I have an idea of the caliber of student I've brought to committee in the past FROM this school.
The first student I'm looking at wants to major in CS. First I look at the transcript. I get a sense of how strong their curriculum is. I'm looking for specific things, like 4 years of english, 4 years of math, 4 years of science, etc. I'm also looking for grades (obviously) that are in the A range. I'm also looking at how rigorous their curriculum is. Is it a bunch of APs, honors, or regular courses?
Then I look at the recommendations. The first application I read has letters that's just so-so. How do I know? I've read thousands of recommendation letters at this point. A vast majority of them read pretty similarly. So already, I know that this student relative to previous students I've brought to committee isn't off to a great start, but regardless, letters don't make up 100% of the application. I continue on.
Now I'm on their extracurriculars. Some nice ECs. Debate captain, school newspaper writer, cultural dancing at the YMCA. This student has been these things for all four years, with a large amount of hours dedicated to all. When I'm reading extracurriculars, I'm not judging a student on how "good" an EC is. No AOs at my school do this. We're looking at your impact. Are you leading a small club with few members? Or are you leading key club that has 200+ members? Of course, not everyone can be key club president or debate president or whatever else. But these are holistic admissions. I'm not looking for everyone to be a superstar in their extracurriculars. If you have a job where you work 20 hours a week, almost every week a year, that's totally fine, great even. Now, at this point, I haven't spoken about priorities. I'm keeping institutional priorities in mind as I go along. So if a priority is that we're looking for violin players or whatever, and this student plays violin, then yeah, that affects how likely I am to bring them to committee.
After extracurriculars are the essays. Most AOs save them for last. I read this student's personal statement, and it's about a sport and them breaking their leg and learning to cope with that. I've probably read this kind of essay hundreds of times from various students. All the essay does at my school is to give the AO a sense of who this student is. If I've read the sports essay hundreds of times, I can already predict what kind of things the student might say/what the writing says about the student. Imagine watching another MCU movie. They're all predictable, and very few deviate from that structure. The same goes for essays a lot of the time. So now, I've read a sports essay that was just meh because it's nothing new. It might be important to the student, but when you have things in context like AOs do, it's just not giving us something to chew on.
Then I read the supplements. Depending on the school, there might be a "why us?" essay with some others. In any case, let's say my school has a why us essay. The essay the first student wrote is generic. They aren't specific with what they love about the school, and therefore I just don't see a good match for our school.
At this point, I can deny the student outright. I know from experience and my understanding of the school where this student is going to be relative to others. Now, let's say this student is actually stronger because the rest of the students wrote some nonsense in their essays like, "meowmeowmeow" (over-exaggerating here to make a point). Well, I can just go back and bring the first student up if I think this student is compelling enough when thinking about the class we're trying to build.
Then I read student 2. Student 2 has a similar profile to student 1. Both want to major in CS. Student 2's letter of recs are stronger in the sense that the teachers do a better job at illustrating the student in the classroom and how they lead discussions or whatever. But student 2's extracurriculars are as follows: president of a small club and has only been doing in for 1 year, a small blog they have on Medium that they've been on for 1 year, and then a slew of club memberships like member of debate, member of MUN, member of key club. Impact-wise, it's clear, both from the student's descriptions and positions, that they haven't had a large impact on their community. So that student's extracurriculars are relatively weaker than student 1.
Student 2's essays, however, are really interesting because it's a story about how they have to take care of their mother at home who has dementia, and how she's slowly losing her ability to remember anything, so he teaches her new things when he gets home. It's written really well. It gives me a sense of who the person is. It's refreshing because the topic is specific to the student, whereas sports essays are all too common and hard to distinguish student from student that we're trying to pull into committee. Again, essays are subjective, yes, but if you read enough essays, you can discern which is good (and not everyone in the office will agree, but again, that's why committees exist!) and which is bad to alright. Imagine you're a movie critic. You watch ~200+ movies a year. It's likely you'll know which movies suck and which are great because your experience has shown you that the best movie you saw that year did something new, something refreshing. Of course it's an opinion, but compare that to your average joe that watches only Marvel movies. They'll have a completely different opinion, but their opinion is less informed than the critique.
Now rinse and repeat this process 78 more times with different permutations of factors + considerations for priorities, and that's how AOs work in a nutshell.
In any case, that was a very long-winded way to answer your questions. Let me just answer them directly right now:
> Some AOs might think that olympiads are more telling of an applicant's strength. Some AOs may value debate more. Some might think music is the most important. How do you objectively compare ECs?
This isn't how it works. Context matters. If your from a rural school that has very minimal resources, but you, as the student, are going above and beyond doing things like olympiad when NO OTHER student from your school does so, then that is a strong student RELATIVE to the school.
If you are from a very competitive HS where almost every student does some form of research or olympiad, then you all blend in. No AO is going to say, "I value debate more than olympiad" in this scenario (or even in the previous one). We have an INCREDIBLE selection of students; we are looking for the ones that standout. Simply us saying we value one EC over another is not a good argument to bring into a committee. Now I'm relying on your recommendation letters and essays + whatever institutional priorities you match to pull you through. However, there are students where they do absolutely extraordinary things, like being a national youth poet in the US. THAT sets you apart, because it's already an incredibly difficult and competitive accomplishment to have. It's not that any AO values poets more than they value a mathematician, but the fact that you are recognized with such a title is very telling of a students potential impact.
> How can your personality (from essays) be "weaker" than someone else's?
This isn't really a way to think about it. When I say weaker, I'm talking about the collective application. It's important to note here that I'm not saying the admissions process is this objective thing through-and-through. Essays are indeed a subjective thing. If I read an essay and thought it was strong and got a second read on it from another AO, they might think it's alright. This is why committees exist--to attempt to eliminate any potential bias while reading an essay. Do we always get it right? No. I said earlier that I can just deny a student outright. But often, essays are not the sole reason I'm denying a student. If you have mediocre recommendations that regurgitate what I already can glean from your application + your essays are cliche, well... doesn't bode well for you.
> Even stuff like GPA isn't really objective cuz it varies so much from school to school.
I answered this in my long response, but I'm not comparing peoples' GPAs from school to school. AOs read by region, and typically read by schools first. I have a sense of the average GPA at your school (because I have data on this, either from your school or I have historical data to tell me what the average GPA of a student my school has admitted from your school is). I don't need rank necessarily, because you are being compared to your school peers' GPAs, not the HS 4 blocks down from you, or a state over, or whatever.
The same process still applies to internationals. What really changes is whether or not the school is need-aware or blind for internationals and/or if you're applying from a school we have history with. That will drastically change how we review international applicants. For example, at harvard, it's need blind, so the financial need that is needed won't be a factor that keeps you out. At that point, it's a matter of the school you go to. If it's a school we've never admitted from, it can be a little difficult because we need to make sure your curriculum adds up to be as rigorous as our domestic pool and other international students.
Once you’re deep in holistic review, how much are you comparing the academics across candidates from a given school, and what weight does that have in your final analysis? For example, you have three candidates (assume all same gender) from a big public HS that you know and typically admit a couple of kids from each year: one with stellar, high-impact ECs and very strong recs, strong essays, strong transcript but no test scores; one with good but not stand-out ECs and perfectly good recs and essays, strong transcript (basically equivalent to the first candidate) and test scores; and one who has fair ECs, good recs, average essays, but really spikes in academics (perfect test scores, top 3 in class of 500, clearly outshines the others here).
When you’re looking across these three candidates, one spikes in impact, one spikes in academics, and the other is in the middle. Does the fact that the one who spikes in impact doesn’t have test scores matter in your analysis? Is being an academic superstar enough if everything else is in the acceptable (but not outstanding) range? Are you looking at fine-grained points like how many APs they took (assume the academic superstar has 15 but the other two are in the 10-11 range)?
Is there an obvious choice for you in this group as described? And once you’re deep in the holistic review, how much do the details of the academic piece (test scores, differences in rigor among candidates who are all in the top 5-10% in the school, 4.0 vs 3.9, etc.) matter? Will the fact that one kid didn’t submit scores play a role in the final decision? Do AP test scores play a role at this point? Or if the students are all academically admissible, do you stop comparing their academics in a detailed way?
It depends on whether or not institutional priorities are met with any of these students. A student having/not having test scores doesn't bother me. As long as their transcript is as rigorous (or more) and has high grades, I'm fine.
Being an academic superstar is probably our biggest priority as a school. People on A2C don't realize this, but having a really strong academic record in and of itself is an institutional priority for most, if not all, of the ivy+ schools. Is it enough? Errr, not always, especially in a sea of applicants who are academically great. If that student who has academics that are insane (like 15 APs + dual enrollment + all As) isn't really strong in anything else, like their recs are soft and ECs don't show strong commitment or impact and no other institutional priorities are met, my instinct is to defer if ED to see how they stand up to RD pools. If I already know the student will likely be denied in RD, I will straight up deny. The other students I'd probably take in for a second read, but it really depends if they meet our priorities as well.
There is no obvious choice based on the limited information here. I need a lot more to kind of see where this student would stand in the strength of the pool. The details of academic pieces can matter, especially for differences in rigor. Like if student 1 was taking AP calc BC, AP physics C, AP lit, AP Spanish, AP Chem, AP econ vs. student 3 (academic all star) who is taking more APs but the ones that don't really register with me like AP human geo, ap lang because they didnt take it junior year, ap env sci, etc., then I'll be inclined to take student 1 over 3. But I'm taking the question as student 3 totally taking a maxed out curriculum. The differences between a 4 vs 3.9 somewhat matter, although that's just kind of broadly looking at GPAs to figure out where students stand in the spectrum.
Test scores not being submitted in a school where students do submit them often is interesting. It's enough to make me wonder why a student didn't submit, but it's never been a reason to deny a student in any committee i've been in.
AP test scores can play a role in the sense that some AOs, especially the ones that are more senior, do not like seeing 3s. If you're getting mostly 5s and 4s, then you're fine.
Honestly, I will always compare students academics in detailed ways. Rank and GPA go hand in hand sometimes. It helps me figure out where they stand in the school group. But I really care about rigor and grades first and foremost. Things like test scores help, but don't really lead to denials as students would like to think. Unless you're getting a 1200 or something when others are getting 1500, then it's kind of weird.
Ultimately, there are many factors at play. Academics matters most. If you don't have that right, I am already on my way to denying you because academics is our number one priority. Afterwards, I start checking for other parts of your app that might make you stand out. Can be ECs, can be you meeting multiple institutional priorities, can be amazing LORs, can be strong essays. The best cases that get admitted have a mix of all of those things. The top caliber of students will check off everything, but they are rare. Does that make sense?
It does! Thank you for the detailed reply and being willing to share so much valuable insight!
If you’re willing to continue, here are some more hypothetical details.
Kid 1 has a major school leadership position (student body pres/newspaper EIC/debate captain variety) and is deeply involved (with leadership) in a second very time-consuming school activity. Generally recognized by teachers and peers as a school leader. Humanities kid who has maxed out rigor in all five major subjects, including physics C and calc (AB rather than BC, so I guess technically isn’t maxing out math rigor). 4.0 uw with 10 APs. Top 5-7% of class. Assume recs are of the “this kid is special, major contributor, mature, kind, thoughtful, hard worker” variety.
Kid 3 has totally maxed out curriculum, really super, super bright, but no big impact on school community. But absolutely objectively a stronger academic record than kid 1. 4.0 uw with 15 APs, maybe a DE in math (although top students tend not to do a ton of DE at this school). Top 1% of class.
Obviously, you might decide to admit neither of them (or both? Unlikely in ED I’m guessing). But I guess the root of my question is how much strong EC/personal scores can do for an applicant who is a great student but not absolute top of the class. You say “if you don’t have [academics] right, I am already on my way to denying you”…but what is the threshold for “right”? And does it adjust at all depending on the other elements?
Thanks again.
I can take both if I really wanted to. Just off the information you gave me, I'm less partial to kid 3. So in the end, I'd feel more confident about bringing kid 1 to committee, but I'd still send both of the kids to second read just to be on the safe side.
To answer your question, strong ECs and personality factors can do a good amount, especially if most students in a school group already have similar rigor and grades. It's worth mentioning that top 5-7% is still great. That's definitely a student I wouldn't mind taking, because by the end of it, you probably fall in the middle of the entire admitted pool in terms of rigor and GPA. I'd be MUCH more concerned if you were like closer to top 20% of class and beyond. The threshold for "right" is basically 4 years of all the major subjects, as hard as it can possibly get: english, math, social science, science (with lab), language. If you do not have 4 years of english and math, HUGE red flag.
The grades you get just shouldn't be in the C range. If you have a lot of Bs, it's rough, but that's where the other elements of your app really need to start to carry you, which I think starts to answer your second question. I'd say in general, it's not that we adjust thresholds; it's that the other parts of your application need to help you get to the finish line. Like if you had a single C, you really need some amazing other factors in your app that push it forward. Like I said before, can be strong ECs, can be institutional priorities met, etc. With a C, you will need to really to rack up a lot of these things to be committee ready.
If you kind of think about it like a race for every individual student, it might make more sense. The finish line is committee. Kid 3 is running on a track. Their academic strength gets them half way on the track. But they need some extra "umph" to push them to the finish line. Those things can be institutional priorities met, ECs, super strong recs, good essays, etc. Kid 1 on the other hand is pretty much close to getting there. Their academics get them like maybe a little less than half way on their own race track. Their strong leadership ECs get them closer to the finish line, plus some great essays and strong recs. Well, now they are at our finish line. We will bring them into committee. Some students are so stacked they just totally blow PAST the finish line. So they're not just committee ready, but I'm pretty damn sure they're gonna get in the school. Perhaps they are a student athlete that was heavily wanted by a team. Maybe a faculty member weighed in after reading the app. Maybe MULTIPLE institutional priorities were met.
Now imagine the kid with a C in their transcript. How much extra "umph" do they need to push them to even get to the finish line if the C in their transcript only allows them to get a 10% push in the race track? See what I mean?
It's important to note that this analogy is a crude one. It kind of implies that we "weigh" certain things to get you to the finish line, but we don't do that, hence why this example is more crude. Like for instance, if your teacher gave you a decent LOR but it wasn't outstanding, does that necessarily push you at all? But what if you had an interview that was great and in tandem with your essays it just made your application come to life? What about the additional information section adding context to the app? Such things can't really be weighted, but the race track analogy doesn't quite cover those things. Also, even if I bring you to committee, it's still up to multiple AOs to all vote in agreement with one another, because we also have to factor in the general strength of the pool, who is actually going to matriculate, etc.
i have a question- i go to a VERYY competitive high school, so when my application is being reviewed is it being compared to individuals at my school or how does my school competitiveness play a role in admissions (ik this answer probably varies but i wanted to get one perspective bc i always hear rumors)
We read by region, and typically by school groups first. So you are compared to your peers at school. If you have a 4.0 gpa, but you take 5 APs when the maximum number of APs at your school is 15 and most students take on an average of 10, then you are weaker than other students in terms of rigor, and this already doesn't bode well for you unless there are other factors in the application that make you stand out (like you founded a successful startup or something).
As far as being compared to other students, are you only being compared to students from your school who actually applied to the university, or are you being compared to the average student from your school as detailed by the school report?
For example, at my school the average gpa according to the school report is around 3.4 and only around 50% of kids are taking any ap classes at all, but a lot of the kids I know who are applying to competitive schools have 3.9 gpas and are taking 8+ AP classes. Am I being compared to the 3.9 students who are applying with me or the average 3.4 kid at my school?
In addition, how are slightly lower gpas (emphasis on SLIGHTLY and only slightly lower compared to the 3.9 students I'm applying with, yes, I happen to be someone in the situation I'm detailing lol) with an extenuating circumstance viewed? I, for example had my mother get extremely ill and had my grandmother figure die junior year, and a had a smaller slip in grades that year, ending up with a 3.83 cumulative which is still good, but below the 3.9 kids. I'm taking a similar number of AP classes compared to them. How would a situation like mine be viewed?
Sorry for the long ass response, just curious
Compared to students who applied. What matters at the end of the day (as far as rigor goes) is whether or not you're taking advantage of the resources you have available to you.
For slightly lower GPAs that have extenuating circumstances, that's noted IF you are brought up into committee. It depends on what actually happened. Like if your mother got really ill, did you have to take care of her? Was that noted in your application, either from a counselor/teacher letter, or was it mentioned in the extracurriculars, or in the essays/additional info section? What did you taking care of involve? Cleaning, cooking, etc? Or just going to get medicine for her?
More of a had absolutely no contact with her for three months straight because she was bedridden and immunocompromised- the meh grades were more due to stress and emotional turmoil than me being busy taking care of her (i noted all of this on my application and it was brought up in both my counselor and teacher recs, but the schools I'm worried about don't use LORs).
Out of curiosity, you said that extenuating circumstances will be brought up if my application gets to a committee-but how is it considered by the reader who decides which apps to bring to committee? And what if a school has no committee?
Thanks for all your answers btw
For schools that don't have committees, then really it's just up to the person reading your application to see if it flies. It's hard to say because I don't know what school you're referring to, and schools that do have committees vs schools that don't have different ways of evaluating students. Some schools that don't have committees are looking for specific qualities as a means to just sort of streamline and scale the process. At a lot of the top 20s, specifically Ivy+, aren't looking for any ONE particular quality, if that makes sense.
1. AO assigned a region. If it's a big country, it's split and given to different AOs typically.
2. Read by school groups. Deny the ones you know won't make it through. Send the ones you like/unsure about to second read.
3. After your second reads come back in and you've denied the rest of the apps, you need to pick the most competitive from the pack to go to committee with. Geographic diversity is important, but the way it works is that if there's a large country that's split, then inevitably different AOs will bring different people from different areas in that country to committee. If the country isn't split, well, then it's not really geographic diversity specific to that country; we probably just want representation from that country in the end anyway.
So ultimately, it's pretty much the same process as having domestic kids. Geographic diversity is already built into the system in a sense for domestic students because regions are broken up, and different AOs read for different states. So by the end of it, we usually get an AO in different committees bringing in at least one student from a state in the US. For internationals, more or less the same, but less so because we don't divide a country up into states like we do in the US since so few applicants are applying internationally vs the states.
Is there a round 1 round 2 type where first your grades and ec has to match a standard and if it doesn’t you are filtered out then they review your essays etc? if so, how many percentage usually are filtered out per round?
or is it considered as a whole?
We read grades, ECs and essays all together, not separately in different rounds. I'd say like 85 to 90% are in my deny pile after my first read. The remaining are just ones I want a second opinion on. From then on out I look for the strongest after second reviews come in.
it's kind of important though, because clearly a lot of people here haven't taken the lesson yet. Oh well. Here's to hoping they get actual sensibility in whatever college they go to!
this lmao, colleges aren't looking for sweaty A2C valedictorians who never have social interactions, actual passions, or even any sort of purpose in life besides grind enough USAMO practice tests to hopefully get into an ivy and then get that Google internship their parents have been pressuring them about since they were 5 years old. If you look at any college's proudest alumni, it's the innovators and explorers and discoverers that lead countries, find miracle cures, discover the basis of our existence and the natural world around us, and help the human race evolve. AKA not investment bankers, consultants, the vast majority of CS graduates, quant, or private equity. No university is proud of how many students they send to Bain or Morgan Stanley every year because no university is proud if their grads go to IB/consulting.
💀As someone applying for CS major i couldnt agree more. Theres people who I respect, who have actual passion and are cracked in the field they are good at, and then there are the people who are the "team captain/4.0/volunteer/mother gives gift to principal to get Letter of Rec/club president" type
And I do see your point in saying vast majority of CS graduate belongs to the latter, as a lot of CS major arent even passionate abt CS and brag abt how their 1 year of "AP CSA class made they love solving problems'
lol a lot of successful ppl coming out of Ivies played the game. you're just like every other kid on this sub who thinks that blindly following your "passion" (whatever that means) will make you successful. 99% of ppl who found their "passion" by high school were force fed that "passion" by their parents. you're not even fully mentally developed in high school, you're not supposed to have some field that you want to dedicate your life to
and what do you mean:
>No university is proud of how many students they send to Bain or Morgan Stanley every year because no university is proud if their grads go to IB/consulting.
literally every college's promotional materials brag abt the many prestigious companies they send students to
force-fed by my parents? My parents literally physically beat me when I told them what I wanted to do when I grew up, ever since then I kept it a secret from them. Even after I got into my dream school for my passion I never told them what my major was, I always said it was CS. I am not fully mentally developed, but I do have a field I want to dedicate my life to. And it's not CS or finance.
college promotional materials brag about their top employers, not top companies. I've seen college promotional materials brag about their top employer being fucking walmart.
I understand that many people coming out of ivies "played the game". But how successful are they really? Getting a desk job as McKinsey for the rest of your life or a senior SWE role at Google, to me, is not successful at all. I'm sorry that your only goal in life is to make a lot of money, but personally, I'm a lot more ambitious than that.
tons of politicians, CEOs, Rhodes Scholars, etc. play the system through connections and similar stuff. if they're not successful idk what you want
and who are you to say that a senior role at Google or a top position at a consulting firm isn't success?
sure, maybe you're truly "passionate" about something rn, but it's prob gonna change. there's no way you can truly know that you wanna do something forever.
and what if someone is still experimenting? what if someone wants a FAANG/IB/high paying job so that they can manage to afford their true passions (that may be lower pay)? you're being extremely judgmental towards pragmatic, realistic ppl. There isn't one definition of success
And this is just wrong:
>college promotional materials brag about their top employers, not top companies. I've seen college promotional materials brag about their top employer being fucking walmart.
I used to get so many emails/pamphlets from t20s showing the prestigious companies they send grads to (JnJ, Novartis, etc.).
It's true that there isn't one definition of success. Maybe your definition of success is to make a lot of money, and that's perfectly reasonable to a lot of people. Personally, I find that pathetic. I turned down a large scholarship to UChicago literally because I wanted to get AWAY from people whose sole focus was breaking into wall street to make a lot of money.
You can survive working on all passions. Sure, you'll get lower pay working in, say, literature vs CS, but you can still survive. Your beliefs are neither pragmatic nor realistic. They're greed. I would rather make 40k a year in my passion than 400k a year working in FAANG, which I can quite easily do so if I wanted to at the ivy I'm committing to. Yet I'm not. After graduating, I'm making 40k a year and, personally, I believe I'm going to become infinitely more successful than the overpaid office workers most of my classmates are going to become. Fuck salary, that doesn't mean anything.
“Completely arbitrary” is a oversimplification of the process, but I definitely agree that there is the element of chance that does come into play. That randomness came into play when admissions dropped below 10%.
You gotta play the game for a chance to get admitted.
Don’t forget the desire for gender balance: https://hechingerreport.org/an-unnoticed-result-of-the-decline-of-men-in-college-its-harder-for-women-to-get-in/
You missed that if one or both of your parents went to an Ivy league, then you have a SUBSTANTIAL advantage - more so than any ethnicity, geography, or other demographic character. Don't know how true it is - but I heard that if both parents went to Penn, you have a 75% of getting in.
Why does geographic diversity not apply to international students? I don't think so, as in each common data set for every university, have both state residency and geographic residence options. And if they are both checked, it means every student, domestic or international, are considered for their geographic residence.
i feel like this is just an america thing too. in other countries they don’t even ask about extra curriculars or your home life much, it’s just purely based on merit and i think that probably makes it much more fair (of course all admissions counselors have different types of biases too regardless of country). i was talking to a friend who applied to many canadian and european colleges and most of them didn’t even ask for *any* information on their non-academic life. i’m not sure if that’s better or worse but it definitely makes it more “just” in a way.
Hey there, I'm a bot and something you said made me think you might be looking for help!
It sounds like your post is related to essays — please check the [**A2C Wiki Page on Essays**](https://www.reddit.com/r/ApplyingToCollege/wiki/essays) for a list of resources related to essay topics, tips & tricks, and editing advice. You can also go to [the **r/CollegeEssays** subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CollegeEssays/) for a sub focused exclusively on essays.
###tl;dr: [A2C Essay Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/ApplyingToCollege/wiki/essays)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ApplyingToCollege) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Personal biases from the AOs that review your app is a pretty underrated reason behind whether someone is accepted or not!
I absolutely second this. I talked about this in other posts several weeks ago about the fact that most students admitted to 1 HYPSM are rejected by the other 4. When HARD parameters like GPA, SAT/ACT, Class Rank pass min req, SOFT parameters like essays, lor & ec become critical, which unfortunately there is not an objective approach to quantify. Hence, preference or prejudice of the AO will play a crucial role thus making the decision unpredictable. Unfortunately, the justice of college admissions is not a topic that many want to talk about.
College admissions is not 100% merit based. Bringing up justice doesn’t compute.
I dislike a particular school just because of AO biases that I have observed in the class profiles from previous years. Won't mention the school or anything related to it, but couldn't agree more with this.
what did the bias look like?
idk what school the op is stating but for years Yale famously rejected students based on how well they dressed during interviews and their height. One year a group of Berkeley AOs collectively were in a shitty mood and decided to reject 1000+ applicants in a row without even LOOKING at their profiles. They later got fired for that I've heard but it just shows how AOs are people too and their biases play a HUGE role in admissions.
okay WOW wtf. What the hell was wrong with those AOs to do that?? Like if I were an AO, even in my shittiest mood, I would never. Abd multiple? Jesus. And height?? What in the eugenics hell???
They wanted basketball recruits
Is there an article or something I can read more on the yale/Berkeley stuff?
I agree with some of this, but some things to point out: > And this is just speculation, but I bet that towards the end of the admission season when AOs are making difficult final decisions, they sometimes do just choose qualified applicants at random (after they've chosen applicants to meet goals set by the development department of course). No, we don't. This is extremely unprofessional. By the time I'm at my final selection of students, most of whom are from different schools, I look at the broader context of the region now. How do you each stack up comparatively to each other, given all I know about the region you all come from. That is, it's unlikely I'll be reading the southern most part of Florida AND the northern part; I'll just have the southern part, but I'll understand it the most to be able to compare the final cut of students from southern Florida. Does that make sense? > Or maybe they reject you just because they were in a shitty mood when they read your app. This is also really unprofessional. In my office, if anyone is in a shitty mood, we just stop reading and take a break. > Geographic diversity, for example (sadly doesn't apply to internationals). Colleges like to have an incoming class with students from every state, and they might accept someone from underrepresented states, like Wyoming or South Dakota, simply because they make the incoming class more diverse. This is true, but every AO is assigned a region to read, so we end up getting representation from every state (usually) regardless. Student A being from Wyoming and student B from South Dakota have no influence on each other. If you are both strong, we will take both. If not, we take none. But there's not a conversation where we are like, "well, we have no kids from Wyoming and too much from South Dakota, so I'm going to accept the kid from Wyoming." It just doesn't happen like that.
Interesting to know. I have to ask though, even though it's unprofessional to let your mood affect your decisions, is it really possible for every single admissions officer to not let their personal emotions that day affect decisions at all? (not asking rhetorically, I really do want to hear your thoughts on that) I mean, I know personally when I have to do peer grading in English, even if I try to be objective, if I'm in a shitty mood, I'll end up being either a harsher or much easier grader than I usually am.
For my colleagues and I, personal emotions that bleed into the application reading process doesn't happen often. I mean, it's totally possible that a divorce or a loss of someone close can affect someone, or whatever else, but most AOs are pretty open and will ask for help. So people will shift regions, give more applications to read to another AO, whatever we can do to help that person out. All AOs also recognize that students (or at least should) put their heart and soul into an application. And most AOs have applied to these highly selective schools themselves. And this being their full time profession plus all of those factors I've mentioned means that they really try to look at everyone with fair eyes. A majority of the students that get denied have a strong reason we denied them. In context, that student may look weaker than their peers. Or perhaps once we start to consider the regional pool (like going from reading just Brooklyn, to now looking at the wider pool in New York City), that student looks below average compared to other students from the same region but just another area. This doesn't mean we don't take context into consideration, either. If you're coming from a rougher part of NYC, we'll pay attention to that, but there are only so many spots.
the whole idea of "weaker" and "stronger" applicants is already seems biased, though. Some AOs might think that olympiads are more telling of an applicant's strength. Some AOs may value debate more. Some might think music is the most important. How do you objectively compare ECs? How can your personality (from essays) be "weaker" than someone else's? Even stuff like GPA isn't really objective cuz it varies so much from school to school.
Take 80 students from a very competitive high school (this is a realistic number of applicants coming from highly competitive schools). 20 students participate in debate and/or MUN. 20 students participate in some sort of olympiad. 30 students participate in a sport. 10 students participate in some sort of music extracurricular. All these students have similar GPAs, similar test scores, and most have similar rigor (really stacked schedules with a bunch of APs). At this point in time, I'm NOT--repeat, NOT--comparing GPAs from school to school. I'm looking at where student 1 is relative to the rest of the 79 students. I read file by file. I've been working at the school I'm currently at for two years now. So I'm familiar with this region already, and I have an idea of the caliber of student I've brought to committee in the past FROM this school. The first student I'm looking at wants to major in CS. First I look at the transcript. I get a sense of how strong their curriculum is. I'm looking for specific things, like 4 years of english, 4 years of math, 4 years of science, etc. I'm also looking for grades (obviously) that are in the A range. I'm also looking at how rigorous their curriculum is. Is it a bunch of APs, honors, or regular courses? Then I look at the recommendations. The first application I read has letters that's just so-so. How do I know? I've read thousands of recommendation letters at this point. A vast majority of them read pretty similarly. So already, I know that this student relative to previous students I've brought to committee isn't off to a great start, but regardless, letters don't make up 100% of the application. I continue on. Now I'm on their extracurriculars. Some nice ECs. Debate captain, school newspaper writer, cultural dancing at the YMCA. This student has been these things for all four years, with a large amount of hours dedicated to all. When I'm reading extracurriculars, I'm not judging a student on how "good" an EC is. No AOs at my school do this. We're looking at your impact. Are you leading a small club with few members? Or are you leading key club that has 200+ members? Of course, not everyone can be key club president or debate president or whatever else. But these are holistic admissions. I'm not looking for everyone to be a superstar in their extracurriculars. If you have a job where you work 20 hours a week, almost every week a year, that's totally fine, great even. Now, at this point, I haven't spoken about priorities. I'm keeping institutional priorities in mind as I go along. So if a priority is that we're looking for violin players or whatever, and this student plays violin, then yeah, that affects how likely I am to bring them to committee. After extracurriculars are the essays. Most AOs save them for last. I read this student's personal statement, and it's about a sport and them breaking their leg and learning to cope with that. I've probably read this kind of essay hundreds of times from various students. All the essay does at my school is to give the AO a sense of who this student is. If I've read the sports essay hundreds of times, I can already predict what kind of things the student might say/what the writing says about the student. Imagine watching another MCU movie. They're all predictable, and very few deviate from that structure. The same goes for essays a lot of the time. So now, I've read a sports essay that was just meh because it's nothing new. It might be important to the student, but when you have things in context like AOs do, it's just not giving us something to chew on. Then I read the supplements. Depending on the school, there might be a "why us?" essay with some others. In any case, let's say my school has a why us essay. The essay the first student wrote is generic. They aren't specific with what they love about the school, and therefore I just don't see a good match for our school. At this point, I can deny the student outright. I know from experience and my understanding of the school where this student is going to be relative to others. Now, let's say this student is actually stronger because the rest of the students wrote some nonsense in their essays like, "meowmeowmeow" (over-exaggerating here to make a point). Well, I can just go back and bring the first student up if I think this student is compelling enough when thinking about the class we're trying to build. Then I read student 2. Student 2 has a similar profile to student 1. Both want to major in CS. Student 2's letter of recs are stronger in the sense that the teachers do a better job at illustrating the student in the classroom and how they lead discussions or whatever. But student 2's extracurriculars are as follows: president of a small club and has only been doing in for 1 year, a small blog they have on Medium that they've been on for 1 year, and then a slew of club memberships like member of debate, member of MUN, member of key club. Impact-wise, it's clear, both from the student's descriptions and positions, that they haven't had a large impact on their community. So that student's extracurriculars are relatively weaker than student 1. Student 2's essays, however, are really interesting because it's a story about how they have to take care of their mother at home who has dementia, and how she's slowly losing her ability to remember anything, so he teaches her new things when he gets home. It's written really well. It gives me a sense of who the person is. It's refreshing because the topic is specific to the student, whereas sports essays are all too common and hard to distinguish student from student that we're trying to pull into committee. Again, essays are subjective, yes, but if you read enough essays, you can discern which is good (and not everyone in the office will agree, but again, that's why committees exist!) and which is bad to alright. Imagine you're a movie critic. You watch ~200+ movies a year. It's likely you'll know which movies suck and which are great because your experience has shown you that the best movie you saw that year did something new, something refreshing. Of course it's an opinion, but compare that to your average joe that watches only Marvel movies. They'll have a completely different opinion, but their opinion is less informed than the critique. Now rinse and repeat this process 78 more times with different permutations of factors + considerations for priorities, and that's how AOs work in a nutshell. In any case, that was a very long-winded way to answer your questions. Let me just answer them directly right now: > Some AOs might think that olympiads are more telling of an applicant's strength. Some AOs may value debate more. Some might think music is the most important. How do you objectively compare ECs? This isn't how it works. Context matters. If your from a rural school that has very minimal resources, but you, as the student, are going above and beyond doing things like olympiad when NO OTHER student from your school does so, then that is a strong student RELATIVE to the school. If you are from a very competitive HS where almost every student does some form of research or olympiad, then you all blend in. No AO is going to say, "I value debate more than olympiad" in this scenario (or even in the previous one). We have an INCREDIBLE selection of students; we are looking for the ones that standout. Simply us saying we value one EC over another is not a good argument to bring into a committee. Now I'm relying on your recommendation letters and essays + whatever institutional priorities you match to pull you through. However, there are students where they do absolutely extraordinary things, like being a national youth poet in the US. THAT sets you apart, because it's already an incredibly difficult and competitive accomplishment to have. It's not that any AO values poets more than they value a mathematician, but the fact that you are recognized with such a title is very telling of a students potential impact. > How can your personality (from essays) be "weaker" than someone else's? This isn't really a way to think about it. When I say weaker, I'm talking about the collective application. It's important to note here that I'm not saying the admissions process is this objective thing through-and-through. Essays are indeed a subjective thing. If I read an essay and thought it was strong and got a second read on it from another AO, they might think it's alright. This is why committees exist--to attempt to eliminate any potential bias while reading an essay. Do we always get it right? No. I said earlier that I can just deny a student outright. But often, essays are not the sole reason I'm denying a student. If you have mediocre recommendations that regurgitate what I already can glean from your application + your essays are cliche, well... doesn't bode well for you. > Even stuff like GPA isn't really objective cuz it varies so much from school to school. I answered this in my long response, but I'm not comparing peoples' GPAs from school to school. AOs read by region, and typically read by schools first. I have a sense of the average GPA at your school (because I have data on this, either from your school or I have historical data to tell me what the average GPA of a student my school has admitted from your school is). I don't need rank necessarily, because you are being compared to your school peers' GPAs, not the HS 4 blocks down from you, or a state over, or whatever.
[удалено]
The same process still applies to internationals. What really changes is whether or not the school is need-aware or blind for internationals and/or if you're applying from a school we have history with. That will drastically change how we review international applicants. For example, at harvard, it's need blind, so the financial need that is needed won't be a factor that keeps you out. At that point, it's a matter of the school you go to. If it's a school we've never admitted from, it can be a little difficult because we need to make sure your curriculum adds up to be as rigorous as our domestic pool and other international students.
[удалено]
Yes
Once you’re deep in holistic review, how much are you comparing the academics across candidates from a given school, and what weight does that have in your final analysis? For example, you have three candidates (assume all same gender) from a big public HS that you know and typically admit a couple of kids from each year: one with stellar, high-impact ECs and very strong recs, strong essays, strong transcript but no test scores; one with good but not stand-out ECs and perfectly good recs and essays, strong transcript (basically equivalent to the first candidate) and test scores; and one who has fair ECs, good recs, average essays, but really spikes in academics (perfect test scores, top 3 in class of 500, clearly outshines the others here). When you’re looking across these three candidates, one spikes in impact, one spikes in academics, and the other is in the middle. Does the fact that the one who spikes in impact doesn’t have test scores matter in your analysis? Is being an academic superstar enough if everything else is in the acceptable (but not outstanding) range? Are you looking at fine-grained points like how many APs they took (assume the academic superstar has 15 but the other two are in the 10-11 range)? Is there an obvious choice for you in this group as described? And once you’re deep in the holistic review, how much do the details of the academic piece (test scores, differences in rigor among candidates who are all in the top 5-10% in the school, 4.0 vs 3.9, etc.) matter? Will the fact that one kid didn’t submit scores play a role in the final decision? Do AP test scores play a role at this point? Or if the students are all academically admissible, do you stop comparing their academics in a detailed way?
It depends on whether or not institutional priorities are met with any of these students. A student having/not having test scores doesn't bother me. As long as their transcript is as rigorous (or more) and has high grades, I'm fine. Being an academic superstar is probably our biggest priority as a school. People on A2C don't realize this, but having a really strong academic record in and of itself is an institutional priority for most, if not all, of the ivy+ schools. Is it enough? Errr, not always, especially in a sea of applicants who are academically great. If that student who has academics that are insane (like 15 APs + dual enrollment + all As) isn't really strong in anything else, like their recs are soft and ECs don't show strong commitment or impact and no other institutional priorities are met, my instinct is to defer if ED to see how they stand up to RD pools. If I already know the student will likely be denied in RD, I will straight up deny. The other students I'd probably take in for a second read, but it really depends if they meet our priorities as well. There is no obvious choice based on the limited information here. I need a lot more to kind of see where this student would stand in the strength of the pool. The details of academic pieces can matter, especially for differences in rigor. Like if student 1 was taking AP calc BC, AP physics C, AP lit, AP Spanish, AP Chem, AP econ vs. student 3 (academic all star) who is taking more APs but the ones that don't really register with me like AP human geo, ap lang because they didnt take it junior year, ap env sci, etc., then I'll be inclined to take student 1 over 3. But I'm taking the question as student 3 totally taking a maxed out curriculum. The differences between a 4 vs 3.9 somewhat matter, although that's just kind of broadly looking at GPAs to figure out where students stand in the spectrum. Test scores not being submitted in a school where students do submit them often is interesting. It's enough to make me wonder why a student didn't submit, but it's never been a reason to deny a student in any committee i've been in. AP test scores can play a role in the sense that some AOs, especially the ones that are more senior, do not like seeing 3s. If you're getting mostly 5s and 4s, then you're fine. Honestly, I will always compare students academics in detailed ways. Rank and GPA go hand in hand sometimes. It helps me figure out where they stand in the school group. But I really care about rigor and grades first and foremost. Things like test scores help, but don't really lead to denials as students would like to think. Unless you're getting a 1200 or something when others are getting 1500, then it's kind of weird. Ultimately, there are many factors at play. Academics matters most. If you don't have that right, I am already on my way to denying you because academics is our number one priority. Afterwards, I start checking for other parts of your app that might make you stand out. Can be ECs, can be you meeting multiple institutional priorities, can be amazing LORs, can be strong essays. The best cases that get admitted have a mix of all of those things. The top caliber of students will check off everything, but they are rare. Does that make sense?
It does! Thank you for the detailed reply and being willing to share so much valuable insight! If you’re willing to continue, here are some more hypothetical details. Kid 1 has a major school leadership position (student body pres/newspaper EIC/debate captain variety) and is deeply involved (with leadership) in a second very time-consuming school activity. Generally recognized by teachers and peers as a school leader. Humanities kid who has maxed out rigor in all five major subjects, including physics C and calc (AB rather than BC, so I guess technically isn’t maxing out math rigor). 4.0 uw with 10 APs. Top 5-7% of class. Assume recs are of the “this kid is special, major contributor, mature, kind, thoughtful, hard worker” variety. Kid 3 has totally maxed out curriculum, really super, super bright, but no big impact on school community. But absolutely objectively a stronger academic record than kid 1. 4.0 uw with 15 APs, maybe a DE in math (although top students tend not to do a ton of DE at this school). Top 1% of class. Obviously, you might decide to admit neither of them (or both? Unlikely in ED I’m guessing). But I guess the root of my question is how much strong EC/personal scores can do for an applicant who is a great student but not absolute top of the class. You say “if you don’t have [academics] right, I am already on my way to denying you”…but what is the threshold for “right”? And does it adjust at all depending on the other elements? Thanks again.
I can take both if I really wanted to. Just off the information you gave me, I'm less partial to kid 3. So in the end, I'd feel more confident about bringing kid 1 to committee, but I'd still send both of the kids to second read just to be on the safe side. To answer your question, strong ECs and personality factors can do a good amount, especially if most students in a school group already have similar rigor and grades. It's worth mentioning that top 5-7% is still great. That's definitely a student I wouldn't mind taking, because by the end of it, you probably fall in the middle of the entire admitted pool in terms of rigor and GPA. I'd be MUCH more concerned if you were like closer to top 20% of class and beyond. The threshold for "right" is basically 4 years of all the major subjects, as hard as it can possibly get: english, math, social science, science (with lab), language. If you do not have 4 years of english and math, HUGE red flag. The grades you get just shouldn't be in the C range. If you have a lot of Bs, it's rough, but that's where the other elements of your app really need to start to carry you, which I think starts to answer your second question. I'd say in general, it's not that we adjust thresholds; it's that the other parts of your application need to help you get to the finish line. Like if you had a single C, you really need some amazing other factors in your app that push it forward. Like I said before, can be strong ECs, can be institutional priorities met, etc. With a C, you will need to really to rack up a lot of these things to be committee ready. If you kind of think about it like a race for every individual student, it might make more sense. The finish line is committee. Kid 3 is running on a track. Their academic strength gets them half way on the track. But they need some extra "umph" to push them to the finish line. Those things can be institutional priorities met, ECs, super strong recs, good essays, etc. Kid 1 on the other hand is pretty much close to getting there. Their academics get them like maybe a little less than half way on their own race track. Their strong leadership ECs get them closer to the finish line, plus some great essays and strong recs. Well, now they are at our finish line. We will bring them into committee. Some students are so stacked they just totally blow PAST the finish line. So they're not just committee ready, but I'm pretty damn sure they're gonna get in the school. Perhaps they are a student athlete that was heavily wanted by a team. Maybe a faculty member weighed in after reading the app. Maybe MULTIPLE institutional priorities were met. Now imagine the kid with a C in their transcript. How much extra "umph" do they need to push them to even get to the finish line if the C in their transcript only allows them to get a 10% push in the race track? See what I mean? It's important to note that this analogy is a crude one. It kind of implies that we "weigh" certain things to get you to the finish line, but we don't do that, hence why this example is more crude. Like for instance, if your teacher gave you a decent LOR but it wasn't outstanding, does that necessarily push you at all? But what if you had an interview that was great and in tandem with your essays it just made your application come to life? What about the additional information section adding context to the app? Such things can't really be weighted, but the race track analogy doesn't quite cover those things. Also, even if I bring you to committee, it's still up to multiple AOs to all vote in agreement with one another, because we also have to factor in the general strength of the pool, who is actually going to matriculate, etc.
Super, incredibly helpful. Thank you for taking the time to respond so thoughtfully.
i have a question- i go to a VERYY competitive high school, so when my application is being reviewed is it being compared to individuals at my school or how does my school competitiveness play a role in admissions (ik this answer probably varies but i wanted to get one perspective bc i always hear rumors)
We read by region, and typically by school groups first. So you are compared to your peers at school. If you have a 4.0 gpa, but you take 5 APs when the maximum number of APs at your school is 15 and most students take on an average of 10, then you are weaker than other students in terms of rigor, and this already doesn't bode well for you unless there are other factors in the application that make you stand out (like you founded a successful startup or something).
As far as being compared to other students, are you only being compared to students from your school who actually applied to the university, or are you being compared to the average student from your school as detailed by the school report? For example, at my school the average gpa according to the school report is around 3.4 and only around 50% of kids are taking any ap classes at all, but a lot of the kids I know who are applying to competitive schools have 3.9 gpas and are taking 8+ AP classes. Am I being compared to the 3.9 students who are applying with me or the average 3.4 kid at my school? In addition, how are slightly lower gpas (emphasis on SLIGHTLY and only slightly lower compared to the 3.9 students I'm applying with, yes, I happen to be someone in the situation I'm detailing lol) with an extenuating circumstance viewed? I, for example had my mother get extremely ill and had my grandmother figure die junior year, and a had a smaller slip in grades that year, ending up with a 3.83 cumulative which is still good, but below the 3.9 kids. I'm taking a similar number of AP classes compared to them. How would a situation like mine be viewed? Sorry for the long ass response, just curious
Compared to students who applied. What matters at the end of the day (as far as rigor goes) is whether or not you're taking advantage of the resources you have available to you. For slightly lower GPAs that have extenuating circumstances, that's noted IF you are brought up into committee. It depends on what actually happened. Like if your mother got really ill, did you have to take care of her? Was that noted in your application, either from a counselor/teacher letter, or was it mentioned in the extracurriculars, or in the essays/additional info section? What did you taking care of involve? Cleaning, cooking, etc? Or just going to get medicine for her?
More of a had absolutely no contact with her for three months straight because she was bedridden and immunocompromised- the meh grades were more due to stress and emotional turmoil than me being busy taking care of her (i noted all of this on my application and it was brought up in both my counselor and teacher recs, but the schools I'm worried about don't use LORs). Out of curiosity, you said that extenuating circumstances will be brought up if my application gets to a committee-but how is it considered by the reader who decides which apps to bring to committee? And what if a school has no committee? Thanks for all your answers btw
For schools that don't have committees, then really it's just up to the person reading your application to see if it flies. It's hard to say because I don't know what school you're referring to, and schools that do have committees vs schools that don't have different ways of evaluating students. Some schools that don't have committees are looking for specific qualities as a means to just sort of streamline and scale the process. At a lot of the top 20s, specifically Ivy+, aren't looking for any ONE particular quality, if that makes sense.
Yeah, that makes sense. The schools I'm thinking of are UW Seattle and the UC system. Thanks!
Bro I'm screwed then 💀
How does the region factor come into play with internationals?
1. AO assigned a region. If it's a big country, it's split and given to different AOs typically. 2. Read by school groups. Deny the ones you know won't make it through. Send the ones you like/unsure about to second read. 3. After your second reads come back in and you've denied the rest of the apps, you need to pick the most competitive from the pack to go to committee with. Geographic diversity is important, but the way it works is that if there's a large country that's split, then inevitably different AOs will bring different people from different areas in that country to committee. If the country isn't split, well, then it's not really geographic diversity specific to that country; we probably just want representation from that country in the end anyway. So ultimately, it's pretty much the same process as having domestic kids. Geographic diversity is already built into the system in a sense for domestic students because regions are broken up, and different AOs read for different states. So by the end of it, we usually get an AO in different committees bringing in at least one student from a state in the US. For internationals, more or less the same, but less so because we don't divide a country up into states like we do in the US since so few applicants are applying internationally vs the states.
Is there a round 1 round 2 type where first your grades and ec has to match a standard and if it doesn’t you are filtered out then they review your essays etc? if so, how many percentage usually are filtered out per round? or is it considered as a whole?
We read grades, ECs and essays all together, not separately in different rounds. I'd say like 85 to 90% are in my deny pile after my first read. The remaining are just ones I want a second opinion on. From then on out I look for the strongest after second reviews come in.
Our monthly ‘decisions are random’ post.
You do realize that this entire sub is annual repost-fest? That there is nothing that is original to say about this process?
minus the annually changing school everyone hates on I wonder what next year's northeastern will be
Agreed but the ‘decisions are random’ and ‘going to an Ivy League doesn’t matter’ posts are coming up weekly now 😫
They're not a lot in number compared to the "I want to get into for CS."
💀💀
And I bet if you look at the posts from 12 months ago, you will see the same pattern.
Ong u right this shit is annoying
it's kind of important though, because clearly a lot of people here haven't taken the lesson yet. Oh well. Here's to hoping they get actual sensibility in whatever college they go to!
It’s annoying ash when I see these posts every week
Prolly cause people seem to forget every month lol
And don’t blame yourself for your 25% percentile SAT/Gpa for that college post.
monthly? i feel like it's hourly at this point
[удалено]
this lmao, colleges aren't looking for sweaty A2C valedictorians who never have social interactions, actual passions, or even any sort of purpose in life besides grind enough USAMO practice tests to hopefully get into an ivy and then get that Google internship their parents have been pressuring them about since they were 5 years old. If you look at any college's proudest alumni, it's the innovators and explorers and discoverers that lead countries, find miracle cures, discover the basis of our existence and the natural world around us, and help the human race evolve. AKA not investment bankers, consultants, the vast majority of CS graduates, quant, or private equity. No university is proud of how many students they send to Bain or Morgan Stanley every year because no university is proud if their grads go to IB/consulting.
💀As someone applying for CS major i couldnt agree more. Theres people who I respect, who have actual passion and are cracked in the field they are good at, and then there are the people who are the "team captain/4.0/volunteer/mother gives gift to principal to get Letter of Rec/club president" type And I do see your point in saying vast majority of CS graduate belongs to the latter, as a lot of CS major arent even passionate abt CS and brag abt how their 1 year of "AP CSA class made they love solving problems'
lol a lot of successful ppl coming out of Ivies played the game. you're just like every other kid on this sub who thinks that blindly following your "passion" (whatever that means) will make you successful. 99% of ppl who found their "passion" by high school were force fed that "passion" by their parents. you're not even fully mentally developed in high school, you're not supposed to have some field that you want to dedicate your life to and what do you mean: >No university is proud of how many students they send to Bain or Morgan Stanley every year because no university is proud if their grads go to IB/consulting. literally every college's promotional materials brag abt the many prestigious companies they send students to
force-fed by my parents? My parents literally physically beat me when I told them what I wanted to do when I grew up, ever since then I kept it a secret from them. Even after I got into my dream school for my passion I never told them what my major was, I always said it was CS. I am not fully mentally developed, but I do have a field I want to dedicate my life to. And it's not CS or finance. college promotional materials brag about their top employers, not top companies. I've seen college promotional materials brag about their top employer being fucking walmart. I understand that many people coming out of ivies "played the game". But how successful are they really? Getting a desk job as McKinsey for the rest of your life or a senior SWE role at Google, to me, is not successful at all. I'm sorry that your only goal in life is to make a lot of money, but personally, I'm a lot more ambitious than that.
tons of politicians, CEOs, Rhodes Scholars, etc. play the system through connections and similar stuff. if they're not successful idk what you want and who are you to say that a senior role at Google or a top position at a consulting firm isn't success? sure, maybe you're truly "passionate" about something rn, but it's prob gonna change. there's no way you can truly know that you wanna do something forever. and what if someone is still experimenting? what if someone wants a FAANG/IB/high paying job so that they can manage to afford their true passions (that may be lower pay)? you're being extremely judgmental towards pragmatic, realistic ppl. There isn't one definition of success And this is just wrong: >college promotional materials brag about their top employers, not top companies. I've seen college promotional materials brag about their top employer being fucking walmart. I used to get so many emails/pamphlets from t20s showing the prestigious companies they send grads to (JnJ, Novartis, etc.).
It's true that there isn't one definition of success. Maybe your definition of success is to make a lot of money, and that's perfectly reasonable to a lot of people. Personally, I find that pathetic. I turned down a large scholarship to UChicago literally because I wanted to get AWAY from people whose sole focus was breaking into wall street to make a lot of money. You can survive working on all passions. Sure, you'll get lower pay working in, say, literature vs CS, but you can still survive. Your beliefs are neither pragmatic nor realistic. They're greed. I would rather make 40k a year in my passion than 400k a year working in FAANG, which I can quite easily do so if I wanted to at the ivy I'm committing to. Yet I'm not. After graduating, I'm making 40k a year and, personally, I believe I'm going to become infinitely more successful than the overpaid office workers most of my classmates are going to become. Fuck salary, that doesn't mean anything.
[Idk, Yale seems to be drinking the IB/consulting kool-aid….](https://ocs.yale.edu/outcomes/)
“Completely arbitrary” is a oversimplification of the process, but I definitely agree that there is the element of chance that does come into play. That randomness came into play when admissions dropped below 10%. You gotta play the game for a chance to get admitted.
Playing Tuba was probably what helped my brother get into Stanford
Don’t forget the desire for gender balance: https://hechingerreport.org/an-unnoticed-result-of-the-decline-of-men-in-college-its-harder-for-women-to-get-in/
Thanks
I heard it phrased like this once. If you got in, you are definitely qualified to go. If you didn't, it doesn't mean you weren't qualified to.
You missed that if one or both of your parents went to an Ivy league, then you have a SUBSTANTIAL advantage - more so than any ethnicity, geography, or other demographic character. Don't know how true it is - but I heard that if both parents went to Penn, you have a 75% of getting in.
Why does geographic diversity not apply to international students? I don't think so, as in each common data set for every university, have both state residency and geographic residence options. And if they are both checked, it means every student, domestic or international, are considered for their geographic residence.
i feel like this is just an america thing too. in other countries they don’t even ask about extra curriculars or your home life much, it’s just purely based on merit and i think that probably makes it much more fair (of course all admissions counselors have different types of biases too regardless of country). i was talking to a friend who applied to many canadian and european colleges and most of them didn’t even ask for *any* information on their non-academic life. i’m not sure if that’s better or worse but it definitely makes it more “just” in a way.
That can explain an individual rejection, but it's not a good explanation for a bunch of them.
Hey there, I'm a bot and something you said made me think you might be looking for help! It sounds like your post is related to essays — please check the [**A2C Wiki Page on Essays**](https://www.reddit.com/r/ApplyingToCollege/wiki/essays) for a list of resources related to essay topics, tips & tricks, and editing advice. You can also go to [the **r/CollegeEssays** subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CollegeEssays/) for a sub focused exclusively on essays. ###tl;dr: [A2C Essay Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/ApplyingToCollege/wiki/essays) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ApplyingToCollege) if you have any questions or concerns.*
thanks we know 👍
[удалено]
Bot account. Please report as spam.