It’s not easy to catch. They could add a layer dedicated to checking authenticity, but the times you suspect are, eg, when writing in the CA essay out shines that in the rest. (But how do you spot if a 3rd party wrote the whole app?) I disagree this is about intuition, per se. You have to deal with what you do get in an app pkg. There isn’t a lot of time, eg, to contact every GC about ECs or go looking at Max Prep or local newspaper reports of All State athletes, even if it were just finalists.
In an interview, sure, we all get a sense of who’s genuine, even if flawed, versus an an Eddie Haskell. But that generally depends on alum interviewers. On CC, we see posters respond with some suspicion, when kids seem bogus, overinflating accomplishments, asking dodo questions, etc. But we don’t know.
Maybe the CA needs to ask GCs to list ECs? Some do now, but even so, they make mistakes. And do you trust them to verify out of school activities? And not all GCs have time, either .
She writes that they look to see if a kid got testing accommodations or an Illness.
I hope she means that they find out the kid was sick the first test and did better they would accept the score improvement. Or if they did poorly and had an improvement because the received an accommodation they also accepted the scores.
It read the opposite. But that is contrary to current ethos. It could be an ada violation.
I think I read it incorrectly. In light of the current scandal I am concerned kids with legitimate issues could be hurt.
A child with a diagnosed visual impairment couldn’t possibly be denied for hanging an accomodation on test two and improving dramatically.
F&M is not caught up in this scandal, so far, as far as I know. It’s a good school, but not need blind. So practices there aren’t going to shed light on more elite need blinds. She was there 2 years, left in 2010.
A legit LD issue might be mentioned by a GC. Save for that or the kid mentioning it, I can’t think of anywhere it shows in the app. And the more competitive a college is (unless it’s test optional,) without mention, it’s results that matter.
But this factor is layered inside the issue of stats, to begin with. For a top college, the grades and rigor need to be there. The expectation is this kid can thrive at that college. Of course there is assistance, and discrimination is illegal. But low grades can signal troubles and possibly a lower level of learning/prep for classes at the more competitive college. (Competitive isn’t just about admission. It reflects the expectations in college classes.)
Of course we know LD kids can do well, with the right support. But the record still needs to show it.
“Admissions officers and deans of admissions are some of the most intuitive human beings in our workforce.“
We’re having some fun with this on a Facebook group for consultants. Where’s the data on this? More intuitive than psychologists? FBI agents? Kindergarten teachers? It’s hogwash.
@Hanna I first read “in our workforce” to mean “employed at our institution”, but now I see she was making the much larger claim. Yes, that is pretty amusing.
Too bad none of you actually know Sara, or have ever worked with her. She is kind, genuine, honest, and humble, as well as extremely talented in her line of work. I am forever grateful to her.
She could be a phenomenal and awesome person. I am only speaking to the article. Great people and super college coaches can write a lousy “op ed” too, you know.
And, self congratulation isn’t a gender specific knock.
Other than the one paragraph quoted in the OP, I agree. How on earth did admissions not catch that a youtube star who basically lives her life online never one time mentioned crew, yet showed up as a recruit?
USC seems quite good at looking the other way, in this case and several others recently in the news.
@privatebanker No, it’s not gender specific. It’s just lobbed at women much more frequently than at men.
For the record, I am also personally acquainted with Sara, and I agree with you, PepperJo. She has integrity, she’s very professional, she’s conscientious, hard-working, kind, and, honestly, I think it was very brave of her to write this piece. I really don’t understand the criticism - jealousy perhaps?. So she feels she’s an intuitive person (she probably is, as she’s a very genuine person) and she is promoting her business. Big deal. Isn’t that how people make a living?
@Hanna: You misunderstand the concept of “mitigation” and seem to be confusing it with a legal defense that might exonerate one.
Also, the article wrote about intuitive abilities of admissions officers & you commented on that. My interpretation of the article’s comment was that experienced admissions officers are skilled at what they do & part of those skills involve using intuitive skills when evaluating application materials.
“You misunderstand the concept of “mitigation” and seem to be confusing it with a legal defense that might exonerate one.”
Do enlighten me. If my employer leaves the safe unlocked and I help myself to a million dollars, that’s mitigation?
“My interpretation of the article’s comment was that experienced admissions officers are skilled at what they do & part of those skills involve using intuitive skills when evaluating application materials.”
See, what you said there is reasonable. Too bad that isn’t what the author wrote.
@Hanna: Mitigation can occur during trial and / or at sentencing. During trial if there is a lesser included offense. At sentencing, to receive consideration for a light or minimal sentence.
Among many considerations, the fact that the applications are reviewed & signed off by experienced professionals can also be used by an experienced attorney as a consideration for mitigation.
P.S. As for your open safe example, I suppose that one could argue for a lighter penalty or sentence on the basis of lack of premeditation. If authorities are involved in the open safe example, it could lead to exoneration on an entrapment defense, as well as be used for mitigation of the charge to a lessor included offense as well as in the penalty phase (sentencing hearing).
As I said, enlighten me. How is a university’s failure to check up on cheating coaches going to help those coaches in court? Can you cite some federal cases where lax supervision by an employer mitigated fraud or theft against the employer?
These crimes required multiple actions at different times and thus were clearly premeditated, so there’s no impulse argument possible here. And entrapment requires a government plot to get the defendant to commit the crime; USC just creating circumstances that make crime tempting cannot be entrapment.
Indeed, and that’s why is can also be subject to criticism. There are plenty of intuitive persons in all kinds of jobs. And plenty who are not.
At my kid’s Ivy, the Regional Admissions officer was a recent grad. Just one year of experience. Hardly around long enough to know the key code to the restroom, much less have time to be experienced in intuition in reading apps. Sure, the Regional Officer reported to an experienced Admissions VP, but its the regional folks who make the first cut in app reading.
OTOH, good for her. She got invaluable press in a national news outlet that can only help her bidness.
@Hanna: I am not going to do legal research for you. But, I suspect that the number of federal criminal cases resulting in a lesser included offense, a more generous plea bargain or a lighter sentence (or low end of the sentencing guidelines) would easily number in the thousands.
The entrapment defense was in response to your open safe example & I clearly stated “if authorities are involved”.
The good news is that if you follow this case closely, you may be exposed to many such examples that you are seeking.
As for specific defendants, such as coaches versus parents, the circumstances and defenses will differ. And you should know that.
My impression is that you want to debate & argue, I am not interested in doing so. If you are genuinely interested in finding examples, then I encourage you to do your own legal research. Would be easiest to approach it from researching “mitigating factors in sentencing” for any particular offense. For lessor included offenses, research the charges & the elements of those particular offenses.