<p>Most of MIT’s adcoms are from elsewhere including some recent hires. </p>
<p>Despite some people’s negative outcomes and the perception that MIT might shortchange some kids, I find their process more open and honest based on pure meritocracy than most Ivies (did I say that?).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not necessarily. Some academic divisions or majors may be at full capacity, and have higher entrance standards to declare the major, while others at the same school may have plenty of capacity to accept anyone who passes the prerequisites.</p>
<p>Schools which allow free choice of any major to any student who passes the prerequisites can be assumed to be maintaining excess capacity in each major to accommodate the usual year to year fluctuation in popularity of each major. However, this does not mean that each major has a similar amount of excess capacity; some majors may be closer to their limit than others.</p>
<p>Also, the capacity constraints on majors may differ. For example, some majors are constrained by labs or studios, while others just need classroom space. Of course, classroom space is shared by all majors, so that capacity limit applies to the entire student population more than any individual major. So do some other facilities like libraries.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Which doesn’t mean they can’t fully understand their department’s mission and how it fits in the broader sense to the university’s mission. Like JHS, it’s run like a real, honest-to-goodness business – strategic planning, use of data and also use of intuition. Nothing wrong with intuition, either. (Don’t tell me, let me guess - you’re all Myers-Briggs "S"s all the time.)</p>
<p>I was surprised at how many of the young admissions officers did not attend the undergrad institutions they were representing. One reason might be because this parent’s immediate thought is, you graduated from this university and this is the best job you could get?</p>
<p>(I particularly thought this about the young woman who ran the Bard info session many years ago - she grew up within 20 miles of Bard, attended Bard, and now was working for them. I really felt sorry for her! Especially as she was so uninspiring - we’d really liked Bard up until that point - she was last on our agenda, not first.)</p>
<p>It actually means they are out looking for knowledgeable people who fit the role as opposed to sliding in the next kid from their own school hanging around admissions while trying to find a job outside.</p>
<p>It is annoying to see adcoms that show up each year in our area that just graduated from their own school and a different one shows an year later. Some of the schools are quite bad in this respect.</p>
<p>Yes, YES, on some CC post lots of people SAID adcoms tend to be young, etc. I saw that thread. THEY DON’T KNOW- and you don’t- just because a handlful of posters said it, saw lots of young-ish in the waiting room or were interviewed by a young person. fgs. sheesh. Remember, we aren’t talking about Anywhere U. [My friend’s son is a junior person in a dept at a school a half-notch lower than where he went, same state, same city.] We’re talking big leagues.</p>
<p>The team I know best has maybe 3 young 'uns (brand new sorts) in a group that swells to over 30 in high season. Some with lower school age kids, a large portion, oh, I’d say early 40’s to early 60’s. Now, don’t go criticizing the ones who fall near OUR age group. All are remarkably savvy about kids, what they can do, viable expectations, what’s impressive and what’s not, what the U needs and what makes a great balance for a campus vitality. They know what’s up, ed-wise and SES-wise in their regions. Plus, the most senior know what their sister schools are up to. Many have been there long term. Because they deal with kids from across the nation and world, year in and year out, I often think they know more about all this than a hs teacher or parent can.</p>
<p>In the end, of course, some decisions are hunchy.</p>
<p>You need a certain level of energy and relatability in a field dealing with young people. Why shouldn’t they be young and enthusiastic? Doesn’t mean they can’t be good and competent and take what they do seriously and do it with pride.</p>
<p>Oh wait, the only 20-somethings who are “good” at things are 20-somethings who do well in USAMO, etc.</p>
<p>If people are changing constantly among the recruiting staff of a major college, it means the college does not take the adcom job seriously. If someone takes that role, it should be someone who is willing to put in the time and stick around for a few admission cycles and not someone looking for another job while they have just accepted this one. </p>
<p>I will accept someone who is 15 if there is some level of permanency in their role.</p>
<p>Relatibility is a fluid concept. Remember Duke’s Rachel Toor? Not all adcoms do relate well to other human beings! Now, relating to a pet pig, that is another story! :)</p>
<p>I think the desire and “need” for more seats at “good schools,” as noted upthread, is being adequately met by ALL OF THE OTHER GOOD SCHOOLS! sheesh.</p>
<p>QM feels they should include a USAMOer because she thinks they may be better able to evaluate what the test means and doesn’t mean. I would think they would have some experience with what the other high level contests mean as well.</p>
<p>It seems people have strong opinions that the test doesn’t mean much, yet they won’t even look at the exam when QM posted a link to it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Baseball, like an election, has an easily quantifiable metric of doing a good job. You win. Adcoms DO use data for yield management, and I’d expect they also are looking at the four and six year graduation rate. Other than that, colleges don’t have an easily defined way to say “good job!” It’s all squishy: being highly regarded (in academia, by the general public, by the media, by high school students and their parents, throughout the world, by USNWR or on CC ;)), having loyal alumni who are successful/noteworthy/wealthy/generous, attracting high caliber students and faculty. It takes time–years, if not decades-- to build all of that up, or to see the results. </p>
<p>So, not convinced that Billy Beane or Nate Silver could do much with college admissions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I do not think that the issue is about “seriousness” as much as it is about logistics and ROI. It so happens that your typical HS/Adcoms “meeting” is through the least experienced and most underpaid staff members. Pretty much along the same lines as the organized tours at the school that are the domain of the most junior staff members and volunteers.</p>
<p>It all makes sense when you consider the value of all of that recruiting. Or the lack of it. The reality is that what we see (as potential customers) is akin to stepping on a used-car lot. The real decision-makers are hiding in the back, while the high energy salespeople beat the pavement and give and take abuse. </p>
<p>There is a reason why those jobs are low-paying and almost seasonal. To move up, it is important to make lateral changes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Who has a pet pig? Is that a hook?</p>
<p>“What do you do for fun?”
“I play with my pet pig.”</p>
<p>c.alum, the exam is impressive. And?</p>
<p>xiggi, senior reps do travel. They do hold info sessions.</p>
<p>But, see how the comment that there’s high turnover and few qualifications has caught here?</p>
<p>Xiggi - I don’t think they are moving up as much as getting a job more appropriate for their qualification.</p>
<p>I remember asking one ivy kid who showed up in Houston a couple of years ago if he would be around for the next year since he had just graduated from his school. He said of course, this what I want to do for a few years. Lo and behold, a brand new graduate kid showed up representing her school last year and the other kid is gone from the ranks of adcoms. </p>
<p>These are supposed to be people who are building relationships with the schools in their area, keeping up with the counselors and keeping tabs on the best available candidates. They are also supposed to be screeners for their areas or the first readers. They keep disappearing after one cycle.</p>
<p>I could be totally wrong and it is that some of the important colleges think Texas/Houston is a dump not requiring career minded adcoms. :D</p>
<p>@lookingforward</p>
<p>Well, what’s your opinion on what’s more impressive?</p>
<p>Mandelbrot, ARML, USAMO/IMO?</p>
<p>Or comparing to other fields: does it mean more to make USAPho or USAMO, in terms of academic talent or ability within the particular fields tested.</p>
<p>What about Intel? Science Olympiad?</p>
<p>People who have participated in these things and done reasonably well have a better idea of what they mean. Some have suggested if you go to a good school and are pretty smart these things are pretty easy. Lumping them all in the “impressive” bin is not good enough when you have to decide between people that have different awards. Someone who has participated and done well in these things would have some intuition on this subject.</p>
<p>[Book:</a> Admissions Confidential | Rachel Toor](<a href=“http://racheltoor.com/books/book-admissions-confidential/]Book:”>Book: Admissions Confidential – Rachel Toor)</p>
<p>“that elite colleges spend thousands of dollars recruiting students they will never admit
why some students at the bottom of their high school classes are admitted to top schools when the valedictorians are rejected
how pricey independent college counselors can hurt an applicant’s chances
why admission to a top school depends on who reads your application
why the top of the class at a high-performing high school may end up at their second and third choice”</p>
<p>We have darling pygmy goats who are pig like. When our old dog goes, I’m going to lobby DH for a pig. They’re lovely.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Congratulations! ;)</p>