AI Is Killing the College Essay. Enter the “Video Essay”

The onslaught of AI into higher education has been especially worrisome for college admissions officers: Are the students they admit chatbots in disguise? According to one 2024 survey, as many as one in three high school seniors applying to college in the 2023-24 school year used AI for their essays. In response, a growing number of colleges and universities are inviting applicants to submit a “video introduction” of themselves, in addition to the usual gauntlet of personal essays, academic transcripts, extracurricular activities, and test scores. Many of these schools are highly selective, like Brown, Duke, Vanderbilt, the University of Chicago, and Claremont McKenna. But lower-profile schools like Babson College in Massachusetts and Lawrence University in Wisconsin encourage video submissions too.

Proponents argue that video submissions are a cheat-proof antidote to the rising scourge of AI-written essays. “When people ask me why colleges are using this, I think there are three reasons: ChatGPT, ChatGPT, and ChatGPT,” says Terry Crawford, CEO of the video interview and admissions company InitialView. “Essays don’t really have value anymore—that’s just the reality.” Crawford moreover argues that videos are arguably an easy lift for the digital natives of Gen Z and beyond, many of whom already share their lives on social media. “Students are on Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, and YouTube, and that is the way they communicate—via video,” he said.

According to Crawford, more than 30 schools have signed up for his company’s Glimpse platform since its launch in 2023. Students record 90-second “talking-head” videos from their phones or computers, which they can send to participating schools just like they send their SAT scores via the College Board or their applications through the Common App. Crawford says the platform expects to handle at least 50,000 video submissions this admissions cycle, but the total could be triple that. The number of colleges signing up, he said, is “growing daily.”

But video college applications also give wealthy applicants another leg up over less-affluent peers, especially when videos are slickly produced and the applicants well-scripted. Moreover, they worsen the risk of bias and even legal liability—a particular hazard in the anti-DEI era of Trump—because it’s impossible to avoid seeing what applicants look like. At worst, TikTok-style self-promotion could exacerbate inequities that have put elite colleges in the crosshairs.

Even before AI, college admissions essays were burnished by parents, teachers, counselors, and paid consultants. One fourth of Harvard’s Class of 2027 reportedly relied on paid help for their applications. Videos, however, elevate adult assistance to a new level of extravagance. “The whole process rewards people who can pay for help with these things,” said admissions counselor Anna Ivey, founder of Anna Ivey Consulting. “This is just one more thing that benefits people who can get paid help.”

To its credit, Glimpse’s platform does not allow students to upload lavish, Oscar-worthy productions, which means schools that sign up for Glimpse see a relatively uniform format.

Schools like Brown and the University of Chicago, however, have no such restrictions on format (although Brown also offers Glimpse as an option). This tacitly invites all sorts of over-the-top submissions—and is fueling a new cottage industry. Many private college counselors now offer video submission consultations as part of their services, while specialized college application video production companies have begun to sprout. Already, this option has launched an arms race among applicants posting their submissions online.

Anika Suman’s college admissions video, for instance, has racked up more than 905,000 views on YouTube. Titled “ACCEPTED Brown Video Portfolio (Class of 2027),” the video is a two-minute showcase of Anika’s accomplishments—performing with a traditional Indian dance troupe, singing in a choir, conducting research at a neuroscience lab to develop robotic prosthetics for amputees, and founding a STEM club at her school. Her presentation is charming, articulate, and confident—guaranteed to send envious parents and aspiring students spiraling into self-doubt. She might have skipped hiring a consultant – but only because of her comically perfect Ivy League resume and video editing skills.

Search for “college application videos” on YouTube, and you’ll find dozens more videos from overwhelmingly impressive—and creative—applicants. One student—whose video had amassed 188,000 views—used stuffed animals to introduce facets of his life, from rollercoaster enthusiast to poetry performer at national competitions. Another video (810,000 views) used an animated imaginary friend to highlight the student’s artistic skills.

Most videos feature engaging music, eye-catching graphics, seamless editing, and compelling narration. Every one of these adolescents has perfect skin. Most of these students appear affluent. Bedrooms and kitchens are well-appointed, and wardrobes are stylish. Exotic travel figures prominently in their digital autobiographies. While it’s possible that students edited these videos themselves, someone else was likely holding the camera. Someone might have also helped with the script, and parents certainly bankrolled the many activities captured on video. Ironically, AI video tools can enhance digital stories, even though digital stories are themselves supposed to be a check on AI.

While Chicago advises its applicants that the “recommended video profile” does not need to be extensively rehearsed or polished, the highly polished videos posted by accepted students on YouTube suggest otherwise. While a lower-income student could create an extraordinary video, similar to how a low-budget indie film sometimes becomes a hit, wealthier students—like a big-budget franchise flick—are likelier to be the winners.

Video submissions could also favor the beautiful as well as the rich- another way they make the admissions process less fair. Research has long shown evidence of a “beauty bias”—where attractive people are “perceived to be more successful, dominant, sociable, trustworthy, mentally stable and intelligent than unattractive people,” as a 2016 study by researchers at Scotland’s St. Andrews concluded. In a 2025 study of college admissions in China, researchers found that attractive students were more likely to be accepted into higher-ranked universities. On the flip side, a 2019 study published by the Association of American Medical Colleges found evidence of “discrimination against facially unattractive and obese applicants” seeking residencies in radiology.

Video submissions may not benefit colleges either. On the one hand, videos uploaded to Glimpse or its competitor Vericant are likely preferable to the alumni interviews many schools conduct. The relative standardization of Glimpse videos eliminates some of the hazards of in-person interviews, where it’s “hard to ensure what alumni might be asking 17-year-olds,” as InitialView’s Crawford points out.

On the other hand, video may not offer colleges much more than a splashier presentation of students’ resumes. In fact, colleges should question the fundamental premise of video applications—that the intrinsically shallow medium of video can, in fact, be more “authentic” than traditional essays. Do videos truly show a student’s true character, or their presentation of one? “You don’t see the child’s personality,” argues Mandee Adler, founder of International College Counselors, an admissions consulting firm. “You see the child’s personality on film.”

Videos, Adler argues, reward performance over authenticity and even achievement. “There are students who are just better at performing and presenting than other kids—so is that the attribute that we’re looking for?” she said. “I’ve had students who are extremely intelligent, who have done everything right on grades and test scores, and they’re not great in front of a camera.”

The potentially tenuous connection between a student’s video performance and their likelihood of college success is one reason the institution known for pioneering video applications no longer relies on them. In 2014, Maryland’s Goucher College made headlines by announcing it would accept two-minute videos in lieu of traditional applications. Initial cohorts of video applicants were strong performers, and the college was credited both for its creativity and for opening opportunities to students who might not shine on traditional metrics.

Perhaps surprisingly, the video option never took off, and the college has since returned to a traditional application process (videos aren’t even an option). “Not nearly as many students took advantage of it as you would have thought,” said Tania Rachkoskie, Goucher’s associate vice president for enrollment management. Ultimately, video applications became a relatively limited tool for admissions decision-making. “What was great about it was it gave students who maybe had some hidden talent or some hidden non-tangible application qualities—whether it’s grit or determination or those intangibles that won’t necessarily come through in a traditional application—an opportunity to showcase that information,” Rachkoskie said.

However, she continued, “There were some students admitted who perhaps didn’t have the academic ability or the preparation that they needed coming out of high school, and without seeing a transcript, without hearing from a school counselor, without seeing if they want to submit test scores, without seeing those other quantitative data points, it became more challenging to make a decision—can this student be successful here”?

Yet another risk for colleges from the rise of video submissions is legal. In the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling to end race-based affirmative action in college admissions, and the Trump Administration’s unrelenting hostility toward all things “DEI,” colleges can’t be too careful in how they make admissions decisions.

InitialView’s Crawford says his platform does not ask students about race when they upload a video, but it’s still potentially obvious to the universities receiving submissions. “Arguably, it would expose the university to some risk, for the same reason that under employment law, companies do not want you attaching a photo to your resume,” said admissions consultant Ivey, who also has a law degree from the University of Chicago. It’s the same reason universities stopped requesting photos with applications long ago. With the Trump administration now demanding that colleges hand over admissions data—including data on race—video submissions are just one more thing that could be weaponized against schools.

“Fairness” in college admissions may forever be an elusive goal, and AI is unquestionably making that task harder. Videos, however, would move the needle in the wrong direction.

But assuming video submissions are here to stay, the “fairest” way to administer them is to standardize them on platforms—like Glimpse or Vericant—without allowing uploads of professionally produced extravaganzas where the only “authentic” element is the privilege a student enjoys. Backgrounds should be neutral, as with passport photos (no Mt. Everest or Carnegie Hall). One creative way to level the field is the approach at Bowdoin, where students who opt for a video must respond spontaneously to a random question. While this doesn’t preclude professional coaching, students are less likely to be heavily scripted.

Videos should also remain optional, so students who don’t submit won’t be penalized. And for students who skip the video and want their voice to come through, the advice from admissions counselors is simple: Don’t use AI.

The post AI Is Killing the College Essay. Enter the “Video Essay” appeared first on Washington Monthly.