<p>Here are some more details on the workshop. They will be mostly stream of consciousness, I didn’t take more notes because I thought we would get more handouts before we went “into committee” but we didn’t.</p>
<p>Our school runs a workshop like this every year, this is the first year I think the Tufts guy has done it. I know a rep from Holy Cross had done it at least once in the past. The presentation we got was one he also gives to alumni interviewers. He said that often the interviewers get upset that the great kids they recommend don’t get in. Its purpose was to give them an eye into the reality of admissions at a highly competitive school which hie defined as one which accepts 30% or fewer kids, of which he said there are only about 40. Side note- the alumni at Tufts interview about 9k of 15k applicants, it is not held against them if they do not interview.</p>
<p>The things they look for are categorized as follows- Data (ex gpa, test scores), Talent (sports, music), Voice (essays, recommendations, etc), and institutional priorities. This last one they don’t have much control over, it is the outside forces telling them they need that oboe player etc. Later in the talk he also talked about how if they are starting up a new department in near east studies, they would look at interest in that area to beef up that area. Also a new performing arts center makes them want to take more kids who would use (and showcase) it.</p>
<p>The application is given four grades. This part was very similar to the gatekeepers for those who have read that book. The grades are for: academics, ECs, Personal Qualities (PQ), and overall. Overall is not an average, but just an overall rating of the applicant. Personal qualities I was surprised included things like race, ethnicity, and demographic info as well as the more obvious recommendations and essays. The grades are on a scale of 1 being the best to 7 being the worst. They have added 3.5 and 4.5 this year because of too much of a bunch in the middle. The definitions of the grades are something like 3=admit with committee approval, 4=waitlist/deny plus. 4 and 5 were also called qualified but not competitive.</p>
<p>The grades between the 10 applicants were all in the ball park, he told us he had normalized the school differences in the data he gave us. They don’t recalculate GPA, but they do take the differences and rigor into account when they give the academic grade. I had never thought of this aspect before, makes perfect sense.</p>
<p>The then went through a summary of the ECs and PQs for each applicant, I should have taken notes here because we didn’t see these again. I did put checks next to the people whom I thought were compelling. One boy was an Eagle scout, and some other leadership ec, and some other stuff. One girl worked 12h/week, she got an internship over the summer. Those were my two strong admits. There was one boy who had the highest grades/scores and had also won a science prize. Many of them just had lists of activities without showing anything compelling to stand out.</p>
<p>The PQ section and a comment about how well the essay was written which seemed more stressed than the actual topic of the essay. Some were said to be formulaic, young, disconnected. The writing style was mentioned prominently. A line was written to summarize the teacher recs and the gc rec. Side note, doesn’t penalize the kids from the megaschools, but with our small school they expect good recs which show they know the kid. I don’t know what I really focused on to give a plus to some candidates, I liked the essays deemed strong and if the recs seemed to tie into an other activity or passion.</p>
<p>So at the end he showed the four scores per kid and the decision.</p>
<p>As I said I looked for non-run-of-the-mill items in the ecs and leadership and initiative. I think the third kid I admitted was one who started a business. The girl I liked who was waitlisted was an independent type who did her own thing and seemed to be less packaged than others. The boy with the high scores and science prize wrote very generic essays and he was denied. One girl that a couple people liked was quiet introverted, her essays were “young” but the gist from the recs was that she was about to bloom in college. Didn’t get up to the bar in my mind since we could only pick three. One parent picked out a photo interest and that was important to her. Tufts guy said everyone will have their biases, which is why they go over everything in committee. He said the eagle scout (for example) mgiht be important to some, be no big deal to others (and I thought and a negative to some) and they all seem to know what pushes the buttons for their coworkers. The girl I liked who was waitlisted was from a rural school, I mentioned that was a factor for me liking her, he said that is important to him personally as he is from a rural area. </p>
<p>That’s about it. I would say I didn’t learn any big lessons, but I did see things weighted a little differently and saw some clues into the Tufts way of doing this. It seems to be similar to other competitive schools, since it closely followed Wesleyan in the gatekeepers.</p>