When I started out as a lawyer I worked in a very large law firm. Long about two or three years in, I got roped into being the associate on the hiring committee (kind of like the pledge representative to the social committee). We got boatloads of applications, all the time, for really very few lateral slots. I remember asking one of the younger partners how you were supposed to go through and pick a handful out to interview. He said that he had a personal test. Does the person seem like the kind of guy you would want to be around when you are trying to get a brief out at 1:00am and the copier breaks? It is beginning to sound to me like this is the same type of thing that @lookingforward et al are talking about.
lookingforward, if your post 477 was directed toward me, let me say no one is advocating students “throw out any old app”, as you put it. That’s a straw man. But if you look at the transcript of the admissions committee discussion cited on renaissancedad’s new thread, you’ll see that one student was rejected because of an ill-advised sentence in his essay that struck one adcom the wrong way but which the student thought was a good lead-in to how he discovered his passion–a concept that has been drilled into the students as something they need to show. What’s kind of random about that is if a different adcom been on the committee that day, his sentence might have been overlooked and the student might have been admitted because it wasn’t that terrible of a mistake. Or maybe under different circumstances, some staffer might have stood up for the poor kid but perhaps on that day she couldn’t because she had just fought for the previous applicant and needed to concede this one to her colleague. And then there were clearly “superstar” students, as described by the staff themselves, who nonetheless did not get the nod. Nothing was wrong with their applications except perhaps they lacked a compelling AND for that specific year. As the staffers themselves say on the transcript, what’s random is that one year it might be a good year to have a certain AND, and another year it’s better to have a different AND.
^ Yeah, I caught that too. No one ever said to “throw out any old app.” These strawman arguments posed by lookforward are beyond tedious. This thread is chock full of them. Please stick to what’s actually been written and don’t concoct things. Disagree, if you wish, but please stick to arguments that have actually been presented by posters.
I am curious whether anyone else looked at Ohiodad51’s post #480, about the “kind of guy you would want to be around when you are trying to get a brief out at 1:00 am and the copier breaks” and formed a mental picture of a male? I did (sort of embarrassed to admit that.)
I realize that this question has a metaphorical component as well as its no-doubt literal component.
Nevertheless, I would not be surprised if this type of question is asked in a lot of settings. I have heard of similar questions. In the college context, any question in this category tends to favor certain types of applicants–different types at different colleges, no doubt. The favored type at a particular college is not so easy for a 17-year-old with limited time, living in a “non-savvy” environment to discern. Granted, some preferences can be gleaned from a college’s web site. The web sites do differ somewhat, but in many ways they are “much of a muchness.”
Yes, the “copier test” as I have come to think of it over the years certainly has a sexist overtone. And this was at what is euphemistically called a BigLaw law firm, which was at that time maybe one of the last true bastions of a real live old boy’s club. It is slightly better now, although that is not saying all that much.
But I think the point I was trying to make is what you express in your last paragraph. Certain types of kids are going to appeal to certain reviewers. When you are looking at thousands of 4.0/2300 kids, how can it be any other way, really? That is why the whole race to fill the application up thing seems frivolous to me. Some kids will be a fit at some colleges. it seems useless to try and shoehorn kids into a fit everywhere.
GFG, it’s a long thread and a common sort of question. The issue of throwing out any old app or it not mattering comes up on CC. So, no one needs to “concoct” that I’m somehow after some poster. My comments are from the U side, not conjecture. And they are only my observations. If that’s beyond tedious, so be it. 
If you believe you know why a rodeo clown gets in, so be it.
This thread now exceeds 485 posts. I honestly don’t think that any one has advocated “throwing out any old app” or “standing by the beehives” as an AND. If so, please point us to those posts. If instead, you are constructing arguments that have not actually been posed in this thread, but are nevertheless common in your experience, please do us all the courtesy of adding that qualifier in your posts. It is more respectful and fosters honest discourse.
WQ, so no one on this thread except me said it. But it is common on CC for posters to say that the app doesn’t matter. Or that it’s content doesn’t need to ring (or that stats are or should be the only thing that matters.) So what if I added it? My comment was not aimed at anyone in particular. As Hunt, said and I’ve said before, mind your app.
The thread is about what might constitute an AND. And that either comes through on your app or not.
You are responding to posters, who naturally assume that your posts are directed at content existing in the thread. If you are introducing a new line of attack, based on comments presented elsewhere on CC, please say so. Put STRAWMAN ALERT at the top of your post. How about that? Problem solved.
Oh, come on. Let’s get back on track. I was neither responding to Gfg nor Cameron. Do you need me to respond to post 475? Otherwise, let’s move on.
"you’ll see that one student was rejected because of an ill-advised sentence in his essay that struck one adcom the wrong way but which the student thought was a good lead-in to how he discovered his passion–a concept that has been drilled into the students as something they need to show. What’s kind of random about that is if a different adcom been on the committee that day, his sentence might have been overlooked and the student might have been admitted because it wasn’t that terrible of a mistake. Or maybe under different circumstances, some staffer might have stood up for the poor kid but perhaps on that day she couldn’t "
Yes. There’s a randomness about it. There’s no way to correct for that - such is life. You just have to hope that it all comes out in the wash. But there’s a randomness about pretty much everything - you met your spouse because you both took the 8:21 am train and sat in car 15, little did you know your “true” soulmate was really in car 16 but you never met him. I don’t see why this is so difficult to grasp. Unless you have computers make selections based on objective criteria (test scores and such), there will always be some subjectivity.
It’s not hard for me to grasp, pg; my earlier post 703 about meetings was designed to say just that. I don’t believe the process is completely random, nor does anyone on this thread. The student obviously needs the basic goods, but the student also needs an additional attention-grabber, whether it be an interesting EC, an impressive character trait, or an exceptional accomplishment. But I also don’t buy that the admissions committees are composed entirely of very intelligent, highly discerning, completely objective, preternaturally perceptive individuals whose decisions are perfectly professional and lacking in any personal bias. Humans are humans, and that’s where the randomness kicks in.
lookingforward, please calm down and please don’t conflate my words with others’ comments. Asking if a post was directed to me does not mean I am “concocting” you are “after me.” You’re sounding defensive and paranoid about what has been a friendly discussion. Secondly, I did not use the word “tedious,” that was another poster. And my comments are meant as conjecture about the nature of the process, just like everyone else’s. If we knew exactly how this all worked, there wouldn’t be 33 pages of discussion.
^ But all human processes involve some degree of randomness. Other than that admitted fact, I don’t see it being a particular feature of the admissions process.
“But I also don’t buy that the admissions committees are composed entirely of very intelligent, highly discerning, completely objective, preternaturally perceptive individuals whose decisions are perfectly professional and lacking in any personal bias.”
Of course not. Where has anyone ever claimed this? They do the best they can for the needs of their organization, and obviously some personal biases will creep in. As long as they aren’t systematic (e.g., I won’t admit Indians), what’s the problem here?
There’s no “problem.” This is a discussion that is attempting to define the non-random method for deciding what constitutes the additional something that the highly qualified students still need in order to be accepted once all the lesser candidates have been eliminated.
At the same time, though, the results are not always due solely to the professional acumen of the committee. Personal bias can mean the otherwise highly qualified kid who wrote a sentence one person didn’t like gets rejected. The kid was honest and said that he was not passionate about anything until he discovered music, and she decided the kid needed to have been super passionate his whole life or he’s not good enough for their school. This is not the best example, because at this level your application does need to be flawless. Still, in the end the kid had to have had a lot of drive and work ethic to accumulate the resume needed to make it that far in the process. So the adcom may not have been professional in that she discounted the factual evidence of accomplishment that would have told her the student was employing literary hyperbole when he wrote that phrase and it should not be taken literally to mean he never cared about anything.
Not on this thread, but in general on CC I have read quite a few assurances that the adcoms are professionals, they have years of experience reading apps, and therefore they tend to get it right.
Both are true. They can generally "get it right’ from the perspective of what their organizations are asking them to get, AND they can be not-perfectly-objective-without-a-scintilla-of-human-bias.
But more broadly speaking, there IS no Platonic “perfect class.” There could be lots of possible permutations of a great class.
I agree.
And even a great class is going to have some losers in it. Either because the admissions officer overlooked something, the student (or others) lied in the application, or other circumstances came up (perhaps severe mental illness that did not exist at the time of the application.
I remember my son shaking his head that the biggest cheater in their class got into Cornell. I asked if anyone had ever ratted him out in high school. He said no. Well how the heck were the admissions committees and teachers who recommended him supposed to know he didn’t earn his grades? He somehow figured the universe would make it right - and maybe it will eventually. Maybe the kid flunked out of college, but somehow I doubt it.