You guys need to read The Gatekeepers! (OK I know I already said this but, if you want to see how they evaluate in 10-12 min, this book gives an example.)
The AO in the book was given a card with the main stats of each applicant and it was put on the top of the application. It had school name, location, whether you are an URM, GPA, number of APs, and SAT/ACT scores and any other stats like SAT 2s or AP test info. I know that many schools say they don’t take AP test results into account but I think, with top 50 schools or so, they look at them if you self report them. After he looked at the card, he dove into the app. Now, if those scores and grades were lower, he was looking for something to help the student in the essays and recs. Maybe there were extenuating circumstances or maybe the student is a leader at school or excelled in something else interesting to the school. If the scores were better, he was hoping to find things in the rest of the app that supported what a good catch the student might be. He wanted to know how they would CONTRIBUTE on campus.
He was also charged with looking for things that would help the school accomplish its goals - whether it was females in the sciences, kids from Alaska, first-gen kids, more music kids, etc. All that was already discussed by all AOs and is on their minds when they read. He kept a close eye on the school profile and was told who else from the school was applying so he could see where all of those kids stood in relation to each other. If those kids were from a wealthy school district or private school, he all but expected high SAT/ACT scores. It was a red flag if kids like that had average scores. At the end, he had to circle one of four things on his paperwork - Admit, Admit Minus, Deny Plus, or Deny. Then, the app was sent to a second reader who would not see his comments. (Admit Minus and Deny Plus were ways to say he was leaning a certain way but wasn’t 100 percent sure.) If the second reader ended up agreeing on the Admit or Deny, then that app was done. Otherwise, it went to committee.
(This particular AO seemed to be admitting more than his fair share in the first few weeks so he felt pressure to admit fewer kids in his pile as the reading weeks went by. That is scary. Your child’s fate may depend on when the app is plucked off of the pile and who reads it.)
At the committee, they looked at the Admit Minus kids first. At that point, they had a pool of Admit kids and knew what they were still looking for in the class. They would go through those kids and each of the two readers would defend why they decided what they did. The committee could ask questions and then they voted. It happened quickly. At least at Wesleyan during this year, there were a lot of waitlisted kids and it seemed like that’s where kids went when the committee just couldn’t agree. Ties were all sent to waitlist. There was no extra discussion to try to decide on Admit vs. Deny. So easy to waitlist.
Now, Wesleyan is pretty small but they had 9,000 apps that year. The author makes it sound like other schools up to 15,000 apps still did this about the same way.
At the very end, and get this, some of the AOs would be disappointed about one of the kids in their territory being denied and they would sometimes go to the head of admissions and ask for her to reevaluate the candidate and then give her more insight. Sometimes, they would be asked to pick two kids that they would be willing to take off of the Admit list to get their student on. Yikes.