It's generic but better than I had expected. Frankly I've seen my fair share of human applicants write generic essays like this (mostly as early drafts, or when I do a ding analysis).
The thing with AI is it improves exponentially not linearly, so it's only going to get better fast with each version (the next version of GPT is currently private but will be released to the public later this year).
The other thing is that it's iterative as well - so this is just a first pass. You could ask a 2nd prompt to rewrite the essay but with more specifics (note I was purposely broad with the applicants stats/info in the prompt; only thing I would've changed to make it even more generic is to not list the post-MBA employers and see if GPT could list them on its own, just like it did with all the Wharton specific material). You could also ask it to write it in the style of Donna Tartt, Michael Lewis, Kurt Vonnegut or any of your favorite authors to give the writing style more personality.
The other thing is rec letters. What's preventing recommenders from using ChatGPT to generate them?
The thing is, it could accelerate the change in the application components and evaluation process. Kellogg has been using video essays for years now as a subset but it may make sense for others to follow suit.
If anything, video essays may be a better way to evaluate applicants, since so much of what executives do (in large orgs or startups) and are evaluated on is their verbal not written abilities. They're presenting in Board meetings, pitching to investors, schmoozing key customers/clients, leading employee zoom calls/meetings, interviewing with journalists, and testifying before Congress (or some version of that with regulators and lawmakers).
But depending on the format/length of the video essays, it may not be realistic given how constrained admissions offices are already. Having to wade through thousands of essays is hard enough. Watching thousands of videos may be even more taxing.
Again, this is new territory for everyone. Universities already are trying to figure out what to do, as students now have this tool that they're already using in their coursework.
This is the *dumbest* most incompetent version of AI we have now. It's only going to get more capable - which is going to have both amazing and awful consequences (we just won't know in what way). But in my opinion it's something not to dismiss and must be taken seriously. I've seen it in my other line of work, where visual artists, musicians and filmmakers are also not sure what to make of it - some are scared, others are summarily dismissive, and others are trying to wrap their heads around how to live with it and/or make use of it.