It’s Football signing day - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: It’s Football signing day (/thread-25332.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: It’s Football signing day (/thread-25332.html)
RE: It’s Football signing day - Goose - 12-05-2024
(12-05-2024, 09:52 PM)paloalto Wrote: When you have thousands and thousands of applicants all with essentially the same GPA and similar extracurricular activities, how do you differentiate?I believe the essay is "absolutely critical" for admission to Stanford. That does nothing to demonstrate it "accurately" identifies the "best" (in any sense of the word) students. That is why I stated it was a bogus but notionally objective roll of the dice. Evaluating essays is an inherently subjective activity. It may filter out students that are poor writers, but they may be great physicists. There are lots of authors (both fiction and non-fiction) in the world. Some of them I like, some of them I don't. Doesn't mean I am objectively "right".
I have read articles that say the essay is absolutely critical for admission to Stanford and can separate one from the masses. College prep companies stress the importance of the essay for Stanford and the Ivy League schools.
There are other discriminants. Test scores are one. Recommendations are another. Employment record is relevant Some students have to help support themselves. Others do relevant work for civic reasons. Some play sports. In the end it is still a value judgement that is not wholly objective. Test scores are not subjective, although there is an ongoing argument that the tests are. How do you trade off working for a non-profit vs working to pay the rent? Yes, once you get past grades, admissions is not an exact science (and even the grades have to be weighted by their source).
For these reasons IMO all that is necessary to admit a student is that there is a rationale to do so that isn't obviously flawed. IMO essays are flawed because they rely on a relatively small subset of the abilities needed to be a good student. Some of these other discriminants cover a wider range. It is still a roll of the dice though.
RE: It’s Football signing day - PVTree - 12-06-2024
When I was an OVAL volunteer (alums who interview students who have applied to Stanford) in the Boston area, I met with 8 Stanford applicants.
All 8 had very impressive credentials and had accomplished more than I had at their age. I wrote glowing recommendations for 7 of them. To my surprise, I was informed that none of the 8 got in. It made me wonder how accomplished the ones that did get in were, and that I probably would not be accepted if I applied today.
The only one that I did not recommend was probably the brightest of the 8. She was also the only one that was 16, the others were older.
I always started with the question "What do you know about Stanford?" I was hoping to hear some of the same passion about the school that I have. The answer the 16 year old gave me was that she knew that Stanford was a top 10 school, and she wanted to be accepted by all 10.
To me, that was a sign that she was on an ego trip and not serious about attending Stanford. I included that in my review, and she, along with the others, did not get in.
I think there should be an interview in the process (by admissions officers) because you can learn a lot about the candidates beyond what's on paper (gpa, test scores, essays, etc.).
RE: It’s Football signing day - needle - 12-06-2024
(12-06-2024, 04:48 AM)PVTree Wrote: I always started with the question "What do you know about Stanford?" I was hoping to hear some of the same passion about the school that I have. The answer the 16 year old gave me was that she knew that Stanford was a top 10 school, and she wanted to be accepted by all 10.
To me, that was a sign that she was on an ego trip and not serious about attending Stanford. I included that in my review, and she, along with the others, did not get in.
I think she gave an honest answer that's probably typical of being a very goal-oriented 16 year old, and I think you are way off base in deciding that "passion about the school" should play any factor in deciding whether someone is academically qualified and likely to contribute to the Stanford community.
RE: It’s Football signing day - JohnR34231 - 12-06-2024
(12-06-2024, 08:01 AM)needle Wrote:(12-06-2024, 04:48 AM)PVTree Wrote: I always started with the question "What do you know about Stanford?" I was hoping to hear some of the same passion about the school that I have. The answer the 16 year old gave me was that she knew that Stanford was a top 10 school, and she wanted to be accepted by all 10.
To me, that was a sign that she was on an ego trip and not serious about attending Stanford. I included that in my review, and she, along with the others, did not get in.
I think she gave an honest answer that's probably typical of being a very goal-oriented 16 year old, and I think you are way off base in deciding that "passion about the school" should play any factor in deciding whether someone is academically qualified and likely to contribute to the Stanford community.
The way I understand it, there are thousands and thousands of applicants who are academically qualified and likely to contribute to the Stanford community. So in trying to decide among those applicants, I don't have a problem with passion about the school being one of the deciding factors.
RE: It’s Football signing day - gailtate - 12-06-2024
(12-06-2024, 08:01 AM)needle Wrote:(12-06-2024, 04:48 AM)PVTree Wrote: I always started with the question "What do you know about Stanford?" I was hoping to hear some of the same passion about the school that I have. The answer the 16 year old gave me was that she knew that Stanford was a top 10 school, and she wanted to be accepted by all 10.
To me, that was a sign that she was on an ego trip and not serious about attending Stanford. I included that in my review, and she, along with the others, did not get in.
I think she gave an honest answer that's probably typical of being a very goal-oriented 16 year old, and I think you are way off base in deciding that "passion about the school" should play any factor in deciding whether someone is academically qualified and likely to contribute to the Stanford community.
The word "passion", used in association with anything other than hot sex, has been beaten beyond recognition. Like a stack of used tires. It, and "amazing" are hollow, lazy cliches.
RE: It’s Football signing day - Goose - 12-06-2024
(12-06-2024, 10:07 AM)gailtate Wrote:I am not going to "take a stand" on this issue as such. However, what the discussion clearly demonstrates is that the result in terms of who gets a good evaluation is highly subjective depending on who does the interview. That is simply inevitable. If one gets lucky and "connects" with the interviewer, good things may happen. It is in no way an "objective" evaluation of anything.(12-06-2024, 08:01 AM)needle Wrote:(12-06-2024, 04:48 AM)PVTree Wrote: I always started with the question "What do you know about Stanford?" I was hoping to hear some of the same passion about the school that I have. The answer the 16 year old gave me was that she knew that Stanford was a top 10 school, and she wanted to be accepted by all 10.
To me, that was a sign that she was on an ego trip and not serious about attending Stanford. I included that in my review, and she, along with the others, did not get in.
I think she gave an honest answer that's probably typical of being a very goal-oriented 16 year old, and I think you are way off base in deciding that "passion about the school" should play any factor in deciding whether someone is academically qualified and likely to contribute to the Stanford community.
The word "passion", used in association with anything other than hot sex, has been beaten beyond recognition. Like a stack of used tires. It, and "amazing" are hollow, lazy cliches.
On the conjecture that many of us would not have been admitted to Stanford if applying today, that is unquestionably true. How true is a bit fuzzy, but in general our raw odds of admission would be much lower. In 1967 when I was admitted your "odds" were 20%. Today it is 4%. It may be that today a much higher percentage of applicants to Stanford are reaching beyond what their qualifications will support and actually have almost no chance of being admitted. Conversely, many highly qualified applicants may be applying to all the "elite" schools simply hoping they get admitted to at least one of them. That didn't happen much back in 1967. Massive grade inflation is also a factor, as well as the much more common availability of AP classes. Probably the best guess for our class if applying today, 80% of the admits would be different people than were actually admitted in 1967, just based on the acceptance percentage alone.
RE: It’s Football signing day - SkiBum80 - 12-06-2024
I have a friend who is an English Lit professor (not at Stanford)
He & colleagues are struggling with how to detect & prevent students from using AI to write their papers.
Anyone know what Stanford admissions doing in regard to application essays?
If no effective detection in place it diminishes the relevance of essays in my mind.
RE: It’s Football signing day - MV72018 - 12-06-2024
(12-06-2024, 10:02 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote:(12-06-2024, 08:01 AM)needle Wrote:(12-06-2024, 04:48 AM)PVTree Wrote: I always started with the question "What do you know about Stanford?" I was hoping to hear some of the same passion about the school that I have. The answer the 16 year old gave me was that she knew that Stanford was a top 10 school, and she wanted to be accepted by all 10.
To me, that was a sign that she was on an ego trip and not serious about attending Stanford. I included that in my review, and she, along with the others, did not get in.
I think she gave an honest answer that's probably typical of being a very goal-oriented 16 year old, and I think you are way off base in deciding that "passion about the school" should play any factor in deciding whether someone is academically qualified and likely to contribute to the Stanford community.
The way I understand it, there are thousands and thousands of applicants who are academically qualified and likely to contribute to the Stanford community. So in trying to decide among those applicants, I don't have a problem with passion about the school being one of the deciding factors.
How many students that apply to Stanford for undergrad admission have any notion of what Stanford is all about and where that knowledge is the basis of the "passion" they have for wanting to be admitted to Stanford? I would guess that a good percentage of the nerdy students have heard about Stanford as a great place to study engineering with a view to launching or working in a tech startup. Apart from that and awareness of the fact that the campus is beautiful and that the area around Stanford including SF is an interesting and vital place, I doubt many students have any real knowledge of what makes Stanford special that motivates them to apply. Sure, most realize it's hard to get in and that gets the competitive juices of some flowing. But most have little idea of the range and quality of the non-technical majors, of the intellectual opportunities for undergrad research, of the relationships between teachers and students, etc. So, in light of all this, I think that the "passion for Stanford" that applicants for undergrad admission show to interviewers should count in their favor only to the extent that they actually know something non-trivial and meaningful about Stanford.
RE: It’s Football signing day - 82lsju - 12-06-2024
(12-06-2024, 10:55 AM)Goose Wrote: On the conjecture that many of us would not have been admitted to Stanford if applying today, that is unquestionably true. How true is a bit fuzzy, but in general our raw odds of admission would be much lower. In 1967 when I was admitted your "odds" were 20%. Today it is 4%. It may be that today a much higher percentage of applicants to Stanford are reaching beyond what their qualifications will support and actually have almost no chance of being admitted. Conversely, many highly qualified applicants may be applying to all the "elite" schools simply hoping they get admitted to at least one of them. That didn't happen much back in 1967. Massive grade inflation is also a factor, as well as the much more common availability of AP classes. Probably the best guess for our class if applying today, 80% of the admits would be different people than were actually admitted in 1967, just based on the acceptance percentage alone.
so in your day there were probably ~13,000 applicants (I'm assuming round numbers to make the math easy so SWAGGING ~2,000 enrolled, lets assume a 75% yield so ~2,700 admitted at 20% rate so ~13,000 applicants).
The last info I saw on number of applicants to Stanford was a year or two ago and it was on the order of ~55.000 so ~4x the applicants today.
This more or less maps to what I see for my friends kids applying to college, when I applied in 1978 most of my peers applied to 3-5 colleges, today many of my friend's kids apply to 10-20 colleges.
RE: It’s Football signing day - qwerty49 - 12-06-2024
(12-06-2024, 02:33 PM)SkiBum80 Wrote: I have a friend who is an English Lit professor (not at Stanford)
He & colleagues are struggling with how to detect & prevent students from using AI to write their papers.
Anyone know what Stanford admissions doing in regard to application essays?
If no effective detection in place it diminishes the relevance of essays in my mind.
I think the answer is to bring interviews into the process. Given the numbers, at one of the last stages. And possible to do it via Zoom, Google Meet, or another app.
RE: It’s Football signing day - 81alum - 12-07-2024
(12-06-2024, 02:33 PM)SkiBum80 Wrote: I have a friend who is an English Lit professor (not at Stanford)I now no longer assign any out-of-class writing. All essays are written in class. I do not allow electronic devices in the classroom. And if you think this is harsh--the students seem to like it, based on their evaluations. AI has indeed destroyed the term paper. But maybe the term paper deserved to be destroyed.
He & colleagues are struggling with how to detect & prevent students from using AI to write their papers.
Anyone know what Stanford admissions doing in regard to application essays?
If no effective detection in place it diminishes the relevance of essays in my mind.
As far as Stanford admissions essays are concerned, there is more to worry about than AI. Professional essay writers abound, and thousands of successful applicants post their essays online after they are admitted.
I am of the opinion that interviews are superior to essays since they assure a degree of authenticity. But yes, they are subjective. Every single aspect of the admissions process is subjective. Even "quantitative" test scores are subjective, since it is a subjective debate as to whether they carry any meaning or predictive value. But at least with the interview, the evaluator is subjectively reacting to something that is real, as opposed to an essay reader subjectively reacting to something that may be fake.
Spoken as a former Stanford essay admissions reader. (But very long ago.)
RE: It’s Football signing day - 82lsju - 12-07-2024
(12-07-2024, 07:55 PM)81alum Wrote:(12-06-2024, 02:33 PM)SkiBum80 Wrote: I have a friend who is an English Lit professor (not at Stanford)I now no longer assign any out-of-class writing. All essays are written in class. I do not allow electronic devices in the classroom. And if you think this is harsh--the students seem to like it, based on their evaluations. AI has indeed destroyed the term paper. But maybe the term paper deserved to be destroyed.
He & colleagues are struggling with how to detect & prevent students from using AI to write their papers.
Anyone know what Stanford admissions doing in regard to application essays?
If no effective detection in place it diminishes the relevance of essays in my mind.
As far as Stanford admissions essays are concerned, there is more to worry about than AI. Professional essay writers abound, and thousands of successful applicants post their essays online after they are admitted.
I am of the opinion that interviews are superior to essays since they assure a degree of authenticity. But yes, they are subjective. Every single aspect of the admissions process is subjective. Even "quantitative" test scores are subjective, since it is a subjective debate as to whether they carry any meaning or predictive value. But at least with the interview, the evaluator is subjectively reacting to something that is real, as opposed to an essay reader subjectively reacting to something that may be fake.
Spoken as a former Stanford essay admissions reader. (But very long ago.)
if they would interview all applicants finding people to do ~55,000 interviews might be challenging, as well as having any sort of uniform reporting/grading of the interviews. Maybe they do a "first cut" to weed out the obvious "no" applicants to cut down on the number of interviews....
RE: It’s Football signing day - 81alum - 12-07-2024
(12-07-2024, 08:06 PM)82lsju Wrote: if they would interview all applicants finding people to do ~55,000 interviews might be challenging, as well as having any sort of uniform reporting/grading of the interviews. Maybe they do a "first cut" to weed out the obvious "no" applicants to cut down on the number of interviews....True.
The danger is that the applicants who are judged successful are actually those who are superior at using tools to curate and produce a false impression. Somehow admissions needs to find a way of not just getting past artificial intelligence, but artificial everything. Otherwise we will wind up with a student body of master manipulators, not those intellectually inquisitive and able students who will genuinely benefit from a Stanford education.