Why assume 20 readers? Harvard, last year around 43k apps. In the past (when closer to 32k,) they admitted to a pool of 50+ reviewing. And some of us feel, at H, up to 50% don’t make it past first cut (which is not a “quick glance.”) The Ivy I know best just about doubles it’s staff, in review season.
No, that’s not Purdue. But Purdue has nearly 30 employed reps, to begin with. Add in some faculty and seasoned extra readers. Call it ten weeks (say, mid-Dec thru Feb.) 53k/30 reps/50 days = 35/day. Reality is, many work weekends during this time. And most of the year 'round AO’s will complete a large proportion of their first reviews before the final deadlines, to allow second reads (sometimes more) by another staffer Of course, they lose time in meetings, re-reading apps/notes to cull for the smaller number they will recommend in committee, and those committee meetings. Etc. But that’s just counting the 30 FT reps, not the extra.
Most apps are double read, a “second read.” But that doesn’t translate to 220/per staffer/day.
220/day for 12 5-day weeks x 20 reps would be 250,000+ apps.
Why assume and pull random numbers?
As it is, too many kids never hit what makes them a match, assume it’s just like getting high school accolades or that lightning will strike…or, as on CC, that it’s all a crapshoot, so why take the time to expore deeper than what the kid wants.
Grit is a distraction. When it means work ethic- terrific. When it’s a code word for “kid does not have the skills required to be successful in a particular academic program and there is no evidence that kid can learn these skills, but kid has grit” then it’s a pernicious vehicle leading to failure.
I don’t think of grit as work ethic necessarily. It’s resilience. A lot of kids have fabulous work ethic and the grades to prove it. Grit is different. It’s the ability to move forward when being knocked down and to remain focused on a goal. A lot of top HS students find they don’t actually have that once they do face adversity.
Part of the problem with measuring grit in the college app process is you often can’t see it, either in well-positioned students that look good on paper or embattled students who claim it on paper. There have to be people trying to measure it, though. And it is learned. I was one of the top students in my class as a kid but I did not learn resilience either on an academic level or personal level. My classmates who struggled more in school have -predictably - been way more successful in their careers than I have. The concept of grittiness is often misapplied but I do think it’s a valuable concept.
Imo, it’s not code for won’t be successful. It’s part of the extra many colleges seek, to begin with. Vision, persistence, resilience. It may be the kid who lives rural, but finds the right local (ish) opps, rather than make excuses. The kids who overcome challenges throughout high school, not just ask on CCif they can explain their lesser grades. The LoR that reflects the continued work a kid puts in toward higher goals than an A or A+. And more.
Ime, no fixed algorithms in holistic. And “predicting” success is not about post college, to the degree so many think. Pick the right kids for your UG and they will continue to be successful after, however the grads define that. Nor ar they focused on college gpa. You can see more of how a kid might contribute on campus and in the local community by what he’s done in hs, how she chooses to write and on what.
Yes, they need to read the apps/supps. It’s only the rack-and-stacks that just look at stats.
@lookingforward totally agreewith everything you say. You know they have those algorithms down just like the employment apps do, though. Everyone swoops in like vultures when there is a dilemma in the education industrial complex.
I’m sure not all the applications even get to a reader. I have to believe that no matter how much lip service is given to holistic review, there is a minimum level of GPA and standardized test scores necessary to make it to a reader.
I also agree that grit isn’t worth ethic either. To me it’s the ability to work your tail off, get a C or worse on a big exam or project, but emotionally dust yourself back off, and figure out what you need to do to improve without making excuses.
I’m on a parent FB group for my daughter’s graduating class. What Mitch Daniels is talking about with parents is alive and well. Can’t tell you the number of posts following each round of exams about how unfair profs are being, that the exams are too hard, too fast paced, too hard to understand, too this, too that. There were even parents complaining of lack of academic supports and there are recitations, TA office hours, Prof office hours, subject specific help rooms, group and one on on tutoring (in each and every dorm), exam review sessions, etc… An abundance of academic supports but obviously students need to make use of them. IMO, many parents are the enemy of the development of grit.
^^ “I also agree that grit isn’t worth ethic either. To me it’s the ability to work your tail off, get a C or worse on a big exam or project, but emotionally dust yourself back off, and figure out what you need to do to improve without making excuses.”
I don’t know that grit can be all that well-rewarded, though, under the current system. My daughter is in a community college math class (mostly math or CS majors). It is notoriously difficult. Her dad took the class recently in CS grad school at an Ivy and it’s too hard for him to help her with it. Most students have withdrawn. Of the less than ten students left she knows over half are taking the class a second time and praying to get a C. She is praying to get a C. Having learned a hell of a lot and failing to weed out probably won’t help her when she goes to apply for four year colleges, though. In the end, though, what you learn for yourself and about yourself is really all you have post-graduation.
CCtoAlaska- the employment Apps do NOT try and predict success (I’ve been a beta tester for many of them). What they do is weed out the clear failures which is an entirely different animal. No algorithm can tell a recruiter who will be successful- but if a job requires a degree in economics, programming skills, and at least two years of work experience, by eliminating everyone who applies (thousands of people) who do NOT have any of the above, the algorithm saves time and money.
Just wanted to correct you on a factual point. Even the very sophisticated users of these algorithms (CIA, Mossad, Google, Apple) don’t claim to be able to predict success… but by eliminating the folks who don’t have the minimum requirements, human beings can spend their time assessing the folks who do.
I have a colleague who recruited for the CIA for many years. We would joke that even when a job posting said in three different places “fluency in Korean required”, the applicants would tout HS level Spanish, French or Latin.
Many of the college predictive analytic models used by admission offices are designed to identify students who will matriculate. So, at schools that use these tools, applicants are put thru the model before final admission decisions are made. Simply said, schools want to offer admission to students who will attend.
Of course, the school constructs the model to include variables (and their relative weightings) that they believe are predictive of success.The schools have a great deal of data on each student, gleaned and/or purchased from many sources, as discussed in many other CC threads. Many firms (including ACT and collegeboard) offer predictive analytic consulting services, some schools use privately developed models.
How’s grit different from work ethic? I don’t think any of us meant just doing it, as long as it takes, to get the minimum for a check mark. (Clock in/Clock out, pick up your paycheck.) Or that it only factors when you don’t hit the mark you wanted.
And what blossom just noted is similar to first cut in admissions. All the apps get looked at. Yes, if you won’t graduate from hs or some other fatal issues, you hit an insurmountable wall. But solid kids will be sent for second (and any subsequent) reads. Yes, it’s more than stats, in holistic.
How do you suppose they can predict who will matriculate? What models? This idea WUSTL arbitrarily rejects great kids because they’re great enough for another tippier tippy top is bogus. Yes, you need a good Why Us. You need to have done some self-matching. You can’t tell Yale you’re excited about volunteering at Mass General. Or describe programs X doesn’t offer. Or, go generic. (I’m mostly talking about top schools, not those working just to get enough kids to make a class.)
Sure, this is talked about on CC, but most of that is speculation.
Of course, Inst Research looks at trends. But you think they can reach down and predct your kid will enroll?
@CCtoAlaska I can’t speak to your specific examples of a kid who “can’t read or write at any level of fluency” being admitted to a selective college, but be assured that if that is truly the case, they don’t graduate.
However, unless you actually understand the accommodations given to a particular child, you are in no place to judge. And if wealthier kids get accommodations at higher rates, it is still not a “marker of
privilege “ to require accommodations.
My daughter is very bright, and hearing impaired. She experiences high levels of anxiety when she cannot hear what is going in around her, especially in a fast-paced
learning environment. She gets extra time in standardized tests, and can ask for a copy of the teacher notes or outline, or a note-taking buddy instead of having to write and
listen at the same time, which requires far more cognitive effort than for a child with normal hearing.
Is this cheating?Or “privilege”? Because it hasn’t felt like a
privilege dragging her from doctor to doctor and therapy to therapy and fighting the school and finally paying for her private school tuition…
Her program now includes kids with language based LD
ranging from hearing impairments and auditory processsing issues to dyslexia. Somemof the kids use audiobooks. Is this cheating? Would it be cheating if it were braille?
You really should keep your nose i. your own plate as my gramma would say, unless you have an intimate knowledge of the individual situation. You can’t generalize disability.
@Gudmom the student did not even make it through their first semester. That was my only point. It’s not wrong to have accommodations - it’s the right thing to do for every student who needs them - but if the parents’ or teachers’ focus is on admission to a prestigious school that will not be an environment where a student can be successful, it’s a huge disservice to the student to push, push, push the most prestigious school possible regardless of need for accommodations and whether or not the school can offer accommodations. It’s magical thinking. I have one daughter who spent a few years in Special Ed and another with a visual impairment 504.