The admissions game for college, particularly in the United States and elite international programs in Asia, is undergoing a swift transformation. Even though the COVID-19 pandemic has largely receded and students are back on campus, shifting social and technological forces -- such as global job market uncertainties and the rise of generative AI -- are reshaping how students pursue higher education. Many students and parents find themselves wondering whether conventional admission strategies and name-brand universities still offer a reliable route to future success.
Traditionally, students completed high school before applying to international college programs. However, as a college degree no longer guarantees a stable career, many question the time and financial investment required. Despite these doubts, top universities with prestigious names continue to attract applicants in large numbers. Yet the approach to getting into those institutions is changing in subtle but significant ways. As a faculty member at Chulalongkorn University in Thailand, I’ve observed a fair number of students from elite international schools “testing the waters” with the US GED diploma, while hedging their bets by remaining high school students, to apply a year or two earlier. The focus seems to be shifting from where students graduate to what they have experienced. Fast-tracking into college seems to be appealing, especially for those eager to start internships or early career opportunities sooner, or save parents fees.
Until recently, admissions consulting firms thrived on premium services--personal statements, supplemental essays and overall application portfolio strategies. Now, generative AI is leveling the playing field with polished essays a few prompts away, reducing the competitive advantage once held exclusive by consulting agencies.
A Harvard Business Review article by Jay Barnie in 2024 is particularly insightful on this topic: When AI tools become ubiquitous, no single firm gains a lasting advantage simply by using them. Refusing to adopt generative AI, of course, risks losing market relevance, much like refusing to use a computer in the internet era. Yet once everyone adopts the same tools, any early-mover advantage fades, as the same level of polish and efficiency is accessible to all. Namely, gen AI adoption is essential to stay competitive but insufficient alone for sustained success.
In this context, a lasting edge arises only when gen AI is applied to amplify unique, hard-to-replicate resources. In higher education, top universities have historically leveraged their distinctive assets -- renowned faculty, robust research facilities and strong industry partnerships -- to build well-reputed brands. These institutions can absorb new technologies more seamlessly, enhancing operational efficiency and reducing certain costs. And they recognize the heightened importance of authenticity in the admissions game. Yale, for example, has introduced proctored, timed essay writing within an AI “honor-locked” environment, while it also requires applicants to provide unscripted video responses.
Whether one realizes it or not, a well-established reputation in the admissions game can enable the adoption of AI to have a far greater impact than at less prestigious or under-resourced institutions. What begins as a moderate advantage can grow into a significant gap, illustrating how even subtle differences in resources can be amplified into profound disparities when enhanced by AI. The key is not solely the faster adoption, but rather the unique resources that truly benefit from AI’s magnifying effects.
Applicants to these universities, however, must carefully consider what unique evidence they can present in the admissions process. A generic portfolio, similar to the cookie-cutter submissions of many others, not only fails to help but cheapens its purpose, as admissions officers have updated parameters for what to prioritize and evaluate, especially at top institutes. When the cost of creating generic portfolios drops, their value is diminished, and authentic features become significantly more important.
Although the pandemic has receded, certain innovations have stuck. Students can continuously earn US college credits online before formally enrolling, showcasing their readiness and shortening their overall degree length once admitted. This approach appeals to prospective students eager to demonstrate college-level aptitude or lighten their future course loads.
Once a mandatory requirement, the SAT became optional during the pandemic because of logistical challenges in administering the exam. In the post-pandemic world, top institutions have continued this test-optional policy, suggesting a deeper shift in its perceived necessity. The practice of US universities publishing the average scores of only the highest-achieving, self-selected applicants has discouraged students who believe their scores might lower the university’s reported average.
Yet, admission requirements continue to evolve alongside broader job market disruptions: for example, ABA-accredited US law schools, once bound to the LSAT, now accept GRE or GMAT scores -- or sometimes no test at all -- to attract a broader pool of talent. Some have shortened the Juris Doctor to two years, reflecting the profession’s evolving realities.
To thrive in this landscape, both students and institutions need to showcase their genuine strengths. Students can stand out by pursuing meaningful activities or original projects that technology alone cannot replicate. Meanwhile, universities and policymakers can adjust their admissions criteria to recognize true ability -- through proctored writing tests, live interviews or real-life projects. By reinforcing authenticity on both sides, technology can become a catalyst for richer expressions of individual character rather than a driver of superficial uniformity.
Will technology pivot education? The answer is a qualified yes -- but only if its magnifying effect is harnessed to enhance, rather than overshadow, the unique voices and resources that will serve higher education for interactive quality improvement beyond cost saving.
Francis D. Kim
Francis D. Kim is a professor at Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok (CSII) and a former visiting scholar at Harvard Law School. The views expressed here are the writer’s own. -- Ed.
