[Stymie]

[quote author=Stymie link=topic=16747.msg191396#msg191396 date=1491703813]
I've been involved with Stanford Admissions for several years, and think that they/we? have "Jumped the Shark" in 2017 for many reasons.  I do not plan to be involved further.

Why has Stanford Admissions "Jumped the Shark?"
[/quote]

Firstly, I am not a paid cog in the admissions machine—just a volunteer who has interviewed 35-40 applicants over the past 7 years, primarily from Europe, all of whom were impressive in their own way.  Of the 35-40, 3 were admitted (of which 2 enrolled) and 4 ended up on the joke that is the “waiting” list. To me there was no significant separation in the top half of people I had the privilege of interviewing and those who were admitted.  Aiming blindfolded towards the center of a Bristish dart board with my top 20 people on it would have achieved as good results as what the Admissions Office came up with.  I am also sure that amongst the bottom half of my “pool” there were more than a few applicants who could have become stars at Stanford, if given the chance.

As for “jumping the shark,” I see it as when the Ahabesque obsession of getting a lower admit and higher enrolled rate than Harvard began.  Probably 10 years or so ago, when it seemed to become possible. Added to that has been the creeping commodification of “diversity” where every admit has to be not just unique (as we all are) but REALLY UNIQUE in order to be admitted.  The current mission of the Admissions office seems to be to “Terraform” a class of REALLY UNIQUE people into an indistinguishable commodity known as “The Class of 20XX.”  Within this meme, we can give special admission props to legacies, children of the glitterati and elite athletes, most of whom would not be admitted in a truly democratic process.

More personally, as an interviewer you get the privilege of meeting with incredibly talented young people, 97+% of whom will never be able to experience their dream school, aka LSJU.  Why 97+%?  Well, this year we admitted 721 people on ED, which means that of the 44,073 who applied and were in the April Fool’s pool was only 3% (1329/44,073).  Add in the elite athletes, the Children of the Glitterati and the legacies who were accepted and the chances of admission for the Plebs are far closer to 1 out of 40 than 1 out of 20.  Given this, as an interviewer I am much more a Miss Lonelyhearts than a game changer.  I can spend my time more productively elsewhere.

[Stymie]

[quote author=Stymie link=topic=16747.msg191396#msg191396 date=1491703813]
I've been involved with Stanford Admissions for several years, and think that they/we? have "Jumped the Shark" in 2017 for many reasons.  I do not plan to be involved further.

Why has Stanford Admissions "Jumped the Shark?"
[/quote]

Firstly, I am not a paid cog in the admissions machine—just a volunteer who has interviewed 35-40 applicants over the past 7 years, primarily from Europe, all of whom were impressive in their own way.  Of the 35-40, 3 were admitted (of which 2 enrolled) and 4 ended up on the joke that is the “waiting” list. To me there was no significant separation in the top half of people I had the privilege of interviewing and those who were admitted.  Aiming blindfolded towards the center of a Bristish dart board with my top 20 people on it would have achieved as good results as what the Admissions Office came up with.  I am also sure that amongst the bottom half of my “pool” there were more than a few applicants who could have become stars at Stanford, if given the chance.

As for “jumping the shark,” I see it as when the Ahabesque obsession of getting a lower admit and higher enrolled rate than Harvard began.  Probably 10 years or so ago, when it seemed to become possible. Added to that has been the creeping commodification of “diversity” where every admit has to be not just unique (as we all are) but REALLY UNIQUE in order to be admitted.  The current mission of the Admissions office seems to be to “Terraform” a class of REALLY UNIQUE people into an indistinguishable commodity known as “The Class of 20XX.”  Within this meme, we can give special admission props to legacies, children of the glitterati and elite athletes, most of whom would not be admitted in a truly democratic process.

More personally, as an interviewer you get the privilege of meeting with incredibly talented young people, 97+% of whom will never be able to experience their dream school, aka LSJU.  Why 97+%?  Well, this year we admitted 721 people on ED, which means that of the 44,073 who applied and were in the April Fool’s pool was only 3% (1329/44,073).  Add in the elite athletes, the Children of the Glitterati and the legacies who were accepted and the chances of admission for the Plebs are far closer to 1 out of 40 than 1 out of 20.  Given this, as an interviewer I am much more a Miss Lonelyhearts than a game changer.  I can spend my time more productively elsewhere.