- Joined
- Feb 26, 2008
- Messages
- 150
- Reaction score
- 2
I was rejected from Ohio State, my state school in which I am currently enrolled, this year and went in a few weeks ago to have a required reapplication interview to talk about how to improve my application. What I was told was mind-boggling to me although maybe this is how it works everywhere. When I first sat down I was shown a computer screen that basically had an excel spreadsheet with different categories on it as well as a corresponding number for each category. At the bottom was a box with a bold border containing a number. The advisor started to walk me through what each number was and how it was derived. Essentially, they read all of your information (extra-curricular form, shadowing form, DAT form, and then your AADSAS info) and then give you a number grade from 1-100 with 100 being the maximum you can get for that particular category. All of those numbers go into some secret formula with each element weighted differently which spits out some big number. This number is used to compare you with all other applicants and determine if you get an interview.
The admissions advisors, of which there are two, are the ones that assign number grades to all of the qualitative info such as PS, experiences, etc. Additionally, things like research, volunteering, extra observation, ect. are all lumped into one category and the way she made it sound, one really only needs to have listed a few things to get the 100 for that category. Anything above that is not even factored into their formula. I asked how things like a rising GPA over the course of 3 years is considered and she told me that it wasn't...something I found disheartening as I have had 3.75-4.0s since the second quarter of my sophomore year (I am a senior now). Really, it is the 2.9-3.0s the first 2-3 quarters or so of my freshman year that is hurting my 3.62 gpa.
I was really disappointed to see just how impersonal the whole interview selection process really is. To determine what I needed to do to improve, she really just fudged around with the spreadsheet numbers to get my overall score above an 79.3 (I had a 77.6) which was the average final score for the people invited for interviews. She said that a Dr. Iannucci (not sure if spelled right) comes and asks for the top whatever final scores I mentioned above and invites those people for interviews. I then asked how they go about inviting people that had below a 79.3, since people with lower scores are certainly invited (it is an average after all). She really didn't offer any meaningful answer and I left the interview feeling like a number who wasn't evaluated as the type of person I was or experiences I had along with my DAT and gpa...something they claim is important on their website....The whole reapplication interview and application process in general left me feeling pretty bad. As it turns out...if I can increase my PAT score to an 18 from a 17..I will then be invited for an interview--thats all lol.
The admissions advisors, of which there are two, are the ones that assign number grades to all of the qualitative info such as PS, experiences, etc. Additionally, things like research, volunteering, extra observation, ect. are all lumped into one category and the way she made it sound, one really only needs to have listed a few things to get the 100 for that category. Anything above that is not even factored into their formula. I asked how things like a rising GPA over the course of 3 years is considered and she told me that it wasn't...something I found disheartening as I have had 3.75-4.0s since the second quarter of my sophomore year (I am a senior now). Really, it is the 2.9-3.0s the first 2-3 quarters or so of my freshman year that is hurting my 3.62 gpa.
I was really disappointed to see just how impersonal the whole interview selection process really is. To determine what I needed to do to improve, she really just fudged around with the spreadsheet numbers to get my overall score above an 79.3 (I had a 77.6) which was the average final score for the people invited for interviews. She said that a Dr. Iannucci (not sure if spelled right) comes and asks for the top whatever final scores I mentioned above and invites those people for interviews. I then asked how they go about inviting people that had below a 79.3, since people with lower scores are certainly invited (it is an average after all). She really didn't offer any meaningful answer and I left the interview feeling like a number who wasn't evaluated as the type of person I was or experiences I had along with my DAT and gpa...something they claim is important on their website....The whole reapplication interview and application process in general left me feeling pretty bad. As it turns out...if I can increase my PAT score to an 18 from a 17..I will then be invited for an interview--thats all lol.