My school is one of those, and I read every word of every app, as do my colleagues. Many schools that we are talking about hire as many external readers as they need to get the job done. It’s just simple math.
UCLA (not where I work) reads every app twice, and many other highly rejectives do the same.
Obviously some schools are screening apps, like Yale talked about in their podcast, and I expect AI will be utilized more in the coming years to help sort thru apps, should be interesting.
Gotcha. I’m sure some applicants get more read time than others based on how they are sorted. GT on a podcast said they received 213 applicants from one GA high school and had to go to #188 before finding under a 4.0 GPA. Clearly they are sorting in descending order.
I listened to that podcast as well, and I took that information as, “There are way more strong students than many people would believe”. Not surprising that at one school there could/would be a couple hundred students with 4.0 averages (especially since many schools give weighted averages).
Our kids attended a top public high school in our home state. Almost 3,000 students total. Not surprising at all to think that the top 200 students or so per grade would have above a 4.0 weighted average - the AP pass rate is well above 90%, almost 2 dozen NMF last year; it is a school filled with very smart students.
Update to add: our counselor was told UMD wouldn’t even “read” our student … per the Higher Ed Conference. IDK which school you are at, but it differs from one place to another.
Why not? IMO that type of comment is hyperbole to make a point, not fact.
It’s the exact words that were told to me. High SAT. Lower GPA. His HS mostly doesn’t do grade inflation (some exceptions).
Also totally do not appreciate the insinuation of your post TBH. CC is a friendly forum.
Is this an in-state or out-of-state student?
@TonyGrace didn’t insinuate anything, nor did their comment deny those words were said to you. They were making the point that the words that were said were hyperbole on the part of the counselor.
Unless…was your college counselor saying that they were told at a Higher Ed conference that UMD uses an automatic screening program to remove applications of students whose GPAs are below a certain level and those applications are not reviewed at all beyond that initial screening? If that wasn’t what they were saying…what information exactly were they giving?
No insinuation. I was just saying that sometimes people say things like that, but it is not “literal truth.” Maybe your GC knows for sure, but in most cases when GCs say these things they are just expressing an opinion. Very rarely does someone truly know what happens in the Admissions Office. And even if they do, well, it seem things are never quite the same from year to year.
Of course, if the weighting is heavy, then that can also be why there are many 4.0+ weighted GPAs.
OOS
And maybe why GTech went back to requiring tests. IIRC, Georgia is one of those states the REALLY reward APs (kind of like FL) and the public school system reflects that. I think there was a discussion about that here somewhere? Maybe in the U Georgia thread?
I get that then. Perhaps they just don’t have enough readers, and/or are screening out based on number of Bs, or whatever measure works for them.
Gtech, UGA, and Georgia College and State U had no say in that decision, it was made by the state Regents.
What was the reasoning?
I don’t really know the history. Chancellor Perdue is quoted in this article
Perdue said he’s loath to abolish the test requirement, believing tests plus high school grades are a better predictor of college success than grades alone.
I’m not aware that these schools have any data showing that, but could be. I guess a motivated person could go pull the Regents meeting minutes when that decision was being discussed and made to better understand.
Perhaps other schools too quickly eliminate applicants that don’t meet some minimal academic level?
I’m sure some might, including those that use rack and stack admissions. I see it as similar to the testing conversation, what works for one school doesn’t necessarily work for another.
The UCs and CSUs come to mind, as both do have minimum GPAs for acceptance. Although I have also heard (I believe from Gumbymom) that they still read every application, even if the applicant hasn’t met the minimum criteria. So I am not how they screen and eliminate in that case.
UCs supposedly read every application. There is a very small possibility of admission by exception for those who do not meet the stated minimum requirements. Note that the UC admission reading process is intended be scalable by hiring more admission readers – the “central committee” that other schools use to build their classes is presumably just a computer program that ranks applicants by the readers’ scores, with tie-breaking procedures.
CSUs that are impacted or have impacted majors just check for meeting minimum requirements, recalculated GPA, and calculated an admission index with GPA and bonus points for local area etc… Then they “rack and stack” within each major. For example, here are the thresholds for the most recent completed admission cycle at SJSU: Freshmen Impaction Results | Admissions . Most or all of the process can be done by a computer program.
I think there would be significant unintended consequences with this. Schools would get more applicants, but then schools would get more applicants — as in many more kids will be wasting time and money on applications to schools where they have no chance of getting in. Constructing balanced target lists would be difficult. More kids will overshoot and get stuck, or feel like they need to apply to 30 schools. Kids with clueless parents and/or weak college guidance will fair the worst.