I VIEWED MY UMICH ADMISSIONS FILE.

Summary

In this video, the creator shares their experience of reviewing their undergraduate admissions file from the University of Michigan. They discuss the process of accessing the file and reveal the ratings they received on various aspects of their application, including extracurriculars, essays, and academic performance. The video offers insights into what admission officers look for and provides advice on how to improve one's application.

Takeaways

• 😀 The video creator was accepted into the University of Michigan and shares their undergraduate admissions file experience.
• 📧 The process to view the admissions file involved emailing the Ross undergraduate Office of Admissions and setting up an appointment.
• ⏰ The creator was given only 20 minutes to review their file and was not allowed to take pictures or videos.
• 📚 There were two readers who evaluated the file on a scale of one to five across six categories, plus an overall rating.
• 🏅 The categories included extracurriculars, common app essay, community essay, why Michigan essay, business case essay, and artifact essay.
• 🤔 The creator's extracurriculars were noted as lacking business-related activities, which was seen as a negative point.
• 📝 The common app essay received mixed reviews, with one reader rating it average and the other giving it the highest score.
• 🏛 The community essay was criticized for not showing individual contribution, but the creator's involvement in the community was acknowledged.
• 📈 The business case essay was seen as lacking a sufficiently meaningful problem and originality, but the creator's understanding of business principles was noted.
• 🎓 The artifact essay was appreciated for showing the creator's ability to provide societal impact through business.
• 📊 The final ratings from the readers varied, with one giving a 3.7 and the other a 4.3, highlighting the subjectivity in the evaluation process.
• 📘 The academic rating was very positive, with comments praising the creator's outstanding academics and extracurricular involvement.

Q & A

What was the process for the speaker to view their undergraduate admissions file?

The speaker emailed the Ross undergraduate Office of Admissions to request viewing their file, and after a couple of days, they set up an appointment for the following week. They were given 20 minutes in an empty room to take notes on their file without taking any pictures or videos.

How many readers reviewed the speaker's admissions file?

Two readers reviewed the speaker's admissions file.

What rating scale was used by the readers to evaluate the speaker's application?

The readers used a scale of one to five, with five being the best and one being the worst.

In which categories were the speaker's application evaluated?

The categories included extracurriculars, common app essay, community essay, why Michigan essay, business case essay, and artifact essay.

What was the speaker's rating for the extracurriculars category?

The speaker received a rating of 4.1 out of 5 for the extracurriculars category from both readers.

What was the feedback on the speaker's common app essay from the readers?

The first reader rated the common app essay a 3.3 out of 5, considering it average and typical, while the second reader rated it a 5 out of 5, appreciating the leadership and meaningful connections made.

What did the readers comment about the speaker's community essay?

The first reader rated it 3.7 out of 5, noting a lack of individual contribution, while the second reader rated it 4.1 out of 5, mentioning a lack of reflection on community members but appreciating the knowledge shared about the speaker's actions.

How did the speaker's 'Why Michigan' essay fare in the readers' ratings?

The first reader rated it 3.7 out of 5, and the second reader rated it 4.3 out of 5. The readers noted that while it didn't connect directly to business experience, it did a good job of convincing them of the speaker's aptitude through other experiences.

What was the speaker's business case essay about?

The speaker's business case essay discussed a local problem of crowding at their school and proposed a localized navigation app as a solution, touching on engagement, profit, margins, and marketing.

What were the readers' comments on the speaker's artifact essay?

The first reader rated it 3.7 out of 5, noting that it tells what the speaker did in the organization but doesn't show examples of how it was done. The second reader rated it 4.3 out of 5, appreciating the collaborative and communicative skills and the speaker's potential for positive societal impact through business.

What was the final rating given to the speaker's application as a whole?

Reader one rated the application as a whole 3.7 out of 5, while reader two rated it 4.3 out of 5.

What was the academic rating given to the speaker?

The first reader gave an academic rating of 2, indicating excellent overall curriculum, outstanding academics, and strong University of Michigan interests. The second reader did not provide a numerical rating but described the speaker as an outstanding student academically with strong leadership.