This seems to be the kind of question for which the answers shouldn’t be taken at face value. Imagine they’d given concrete preferences for certain extracurriculars—the potential trouble that could get them into
I agree, but even if it did not cause them trouble, they might reasonably decide to keep the details of their selection criteria vague—so people are less likely to game the system. Imagine what would happen if they announced that they really like lacrosse and field hockey players.
And that’s even assuming they are consciously aware that they favor some extracurriculars over others.
And that’s even assuming they are consciously aware that they favor some extracurriculars over others.
Individual admissions officers have biases, but many of these are washed out when one considers them in the aggregate (one doesn’t know ahead of time which admissions officers will be reading one’s application), though Gwern points out evidence of systemic bias on at least one dimension.
Individual admissions officers have biases, but many of these are washed out when one considers them in the aggregate (one doesn’t know ahead of time which admissions officers will be reading one’s application), though Gwern points out evidence of systemic bias on at least one dimension.
I would guess a lot of important biases don’t wash out in this way. For one thing, some biases are pretty much universal. For another, it is likely that most admissions officers, particularly in elite schools, generally belong to the elite liberal sub-culture. So if you do extracurriculars which go against that subculture, one can expect to be at a disadvantage, all things being equal.
I agree with this. But applicants are often from the elite liberal sub-culture, too, and if one restricts consideration amongst the activities that they would plausible engage in, there will be less systematic bias.
if one restricts consideration amongst the activities that they would plausible engage in, there will be less systematic bias.
That may be so, but it doesn’t really change the bottom line—you can’t trust what admissions officers say about which extracurriculars they prefer and there’s a good chance that admissions officers suffer from subconscious bias. Probably it’s worth mentioning to your advisees that they should be careful about extracurriculars like riflery.
one doesn’t know ahead of time which admissions officers will be reading one’s application
At one East Coast university I’m familiar with, this is not true. Admissions officers are assigned geographic territories so the location of your high school determines which particular admission officer will be reading your application.
It’s true that admissions officers are assigned geographic territories, though I don’t know that the admissions officer from the territory is the only one to read one’s application. One would have to go to heroic efforts to determine the biases of that particular admissions officer.
though I don’t know that the admissions officer from the territory is the only one to read one’s application.
In the system that I’m familiar with, the admissions officer to whom the school “belongs” is the primary reader of the application. Whatever he rejects is briefly scanned by a second reader and whatever he passes goes to the admissions committee for the offer-or-reject decision.
Admission officers also travel fairly extensively in the fall, visiting “their” high schools and holding orientation sessions. A high school senior from one of the schools visited can meet and talk to the person who will be reading his/her applicaton.
I agree, but even if it did not cause them trouble, they might reasonably decide to keep the details of their selection criteria vague—so people are less likely to game the system. Imagine what would happen if they announced that they really like lacrosse and field hockey players.
And that’s even assuming they are consciously aware that they favor some extracurriculars over others.
Individual admissions officers have biases, but many of these are washed out when one considers them in the aggregate (one doesn’t know ahead of time which admissions officers will be reading one’s application), though Gwern points out evidence of systemic bias on at least one dimension.
I would guess a lot of important biases don’t wash out in this way. For one thing, some biases are pretty much universal. For another, it is likely that most admissions officers, particularly in elite schools, generally belong to the elite liberal sub-culture. So if you do extracurriculars which go against that subculture, one can expect to be at a disadvantage, all things being equal.
I agree with this. But applicants are often from the elite liberal sub-culture, too, and if one restricts consideration amongst the activities that they would plausible engage in, there will be less systematic bias.
That may be so, but it doesn’t really change the bottom line—you can’t trust what admissions officers say about which extracurriculars they prefer and there’s a good chance that admissions officers suffer from subconscious bias. Probably it’s worth mentioning to your advisees that they should be careful about extracurriculars like riflery.
At one East Coast university I’m familiar with, this is not true. Admissions officers are assigned geographic territories so the location of your high school determines which particular admission officer will be reading your application.
It’s true that admissions officers are assigned geographic territories, though I don’t know that the admissions officer from the territory is the only one to read one’s application. One would have to go to heroic efforts to determine the biases of that particular admissions officer.
In the system that I’m familiar with, the admissions officer to whom the school “belongs” is the primary reader of the application. Whatever he rejects is briefly scanned by a second reader and whatever he passes goes to the admissions committee for the offer-or-reject decision.
Admission officers also travel fairly extensively in the fall, visiting “their” high schools and holding orientation sessions. A high school senior from one of the schools visited can meet and talk to the person who will be reading his/her applicaton.