<p>I’ve been thinking about the entire process and would like to propose a different system for college applications. Interested in your thoughts.</p>
<li>Student fills out a common application with NO SCHOOL-SPECIFIC SUPPLEMENTS. Includes basic information, transcript, and recommendations. Call it the Stage One application.</li>
<li>Student electronically sends Stage One application to as many schools as desired for a fee specified by each school.</li>
<li>School reviews the preliminary application within 60 days and determines whether to (a) admit the student outright (presumably these would be less selective colleges but could be any school), (b) invite the student to submit a stage two application, or (b) reject the student outright.</li>
<li>If applicable, student competes the Stage Two application, which may consist of additional essays, additional recommendations, senior year grades or whatever the school deems appropriate. An additional fee may also be required.<br></li>
<li>Schools that require Stage Two applications notify applicants of decisions.</li>
</ol>
<p>The advantages of this system:
Student doesn’t need to fill out supplements unless they make it to the second round.
Schools don’t need to wade through lengthy applications from students who they know they will not admit.
Time and effort saved by all.
Ultimate outcomes probably not affected at all.</p>
<p>Problem: the only schools interested in seeing nothing more than Stage One already do it that way. A couple of the OOS public schools my son applied to had apps that asked for little more than “just the facts”, and they got back to him in less than a week.</p>
<p>Schools that receive more applications than they have spots for simply do not ever admit on the basis of objective data alone. They want to hear what teachers and counselors have to say, and they want to know something about the school. In other words, there would always be a need for Stage Two.</p>
<p>My modest proposal would be a bit more “out there.” I would require all colleges to use the common app and not allow any requirement of supplements. I think the application process should be completely uniform for all schools. Then kids could apply very easily to many, many places. I think that’s only fair since selective schools have so many, many applicants.</p>
<p>Both of you are removing the only factor that keeps Harvard from getting 50,000 applications. So, no.</p>
<p>I don’t understand what the problem is. If a school wants to use only the Common Application – and many do – it can. And students can choose to apply only to those schools. If a school wants to make decisions based solely on test scores and GPA, it can do that, too. Many do. And students can choose to apply there, too.</p>
<p>If a school wants to be certain students have made at least a half-considered decision to apply, and wants more evaluative material, it can have a supplement, and tailor the supplement to its needs. How many schools use supplements? 50? 60? 100? Whatever, it’s a small slice of the world. And for the students living in that small slice, I’m not in the least sympathetic to anything that makes it easier to apply to more colleges.</p>
<p>I don’t see what the problem is. Schools request the information that they care about…making the process uniform is ridiculous. And like JHS says, there’s an obvious downside to making it easier for students to apply to schools they haven’t considered.</p>
<p>Applications are hosing, but they are not THAT hosing. I’m fine with the status quo on this one.</p>
<p>I could envision a system where both schools and students rank their choices and a computerized draft rather like fantasy sports drafts determines the outcome.</p>
<p>I’m with JHS, I don’t see any problem with the system. I am totally opposed to “universalizing” any of the process. There are thousands of colleges and universities which is a really wonderful problem for our young people, the only problem I see is that too many kids are wrongly focused on a handful of schools and kids send in far too many applications. When this marketing trend ceases all the problems that a very small portion of students heading off to college have will end. In also reading posts I see some kids that really have no focus, can’t ascertain the differences in schools and in general are lacking in critical thinking skills…probably due to the fact they had too many cereal choices when they were 7.</p>
<p>British system is interesting. A large data bank like resident matching data bank (some posts have already mentioned this.) Student lists three top schools in order of preference. First school alone looks at it, if it passes, sends to next, and so forth. If all three schools pass on a candidate, three more schools are specified.</p>
<p>Problems for US student: No chance to compare FA packages.</p>
<p>This works in UK since school is so much less expensive or subsidized, and from what I’ve been told, this process happens in June. So students know even later.</p>
<p>I may be misinformed about this; this is what I’ve gleaned from British friends.</p>
<p>Of course the volume of students and number of schools is much less. It certainly benefits the schools to read way fewer applications, and of course, colleges don’t have yield issues.</p>
<p>I didn’t think application process was that bad. Actually getting recs, community service hour verifications and writing essays are all training for college and job hunting skills. I thought is actually a good process. The part I thought horrible is the protracted wait, admittedly worse in our case because both kids got deferred from ED schools.</p>
<p>I too agree with mammall. D has a friend who was applying to many schools simply for prestige – he doesn’t really have well-thought reasons for Stanford over Princeton, for example. The one thing that stopped him from applying to even more schools was he weeded out the ones that required new essays from him.<br>
Students should apply to fewer schools, not more. Simplying the process would make an already nutty system even more nuts.</p>
<p>my oldest applied to 4 schools when she was a senior and added a 5th the next year.
My younger daughter is applying to three or 4 schools.
Many schools already just ask for the common app. There isn’t a reason to make the process more complicated by adding “rounds” of applications like call backs for job.</p>
<p>Here’s why I supported my D in applying to 15 schools. One of her best friends, an excellent student, was rejected on 12/15 at her true love ED school. No other applications had been submitted. This young lady then had to get serious about safeties, matches and more reaches in the midst of seventh semester finals. A horrific experience. And her applications were not completed with the time and care she would have liked. Another friend who gradutate HS last year applied to one saftey (which she never really liked), one match (which was as it turned out a reach and rejected her) and two reaches (which rejected her). She ended up at the safety, was miserable about it and is now trying like mad to transfer. </p>
<p>With admissions as capricious as they have become, it is just prudent to apply to as many schools as you can manage. It also can put you in a good bargaining position for funds in the spring.</p>
<p>EA is useful for this. DS applied to two wonderful EA schools; accepted at both. This eliminated the need for safeties, especially since DD had been accepted at one, and we knew what our financial aid would be since finances had not changed much except for having two in school</p>
<p>There’s lots of middle ground between applying to 15 schools and applying to one reach. </p>
<p>I understand, however, why some people might want to apply to 15 schools. And I don’t think there should be any system, except perhaps social pressure from peers, to stop them from doing that. On the other hand, I don’t think they have a right to have it made any easier, either.</p>
<p>In some senses, it’s a classic Prisoner’s Dilemma. Everyone would probably be better off if no one applied to more than 5 or 6 schools, but each individual can believe rationally that he or she will be better off by applying to many more than that.</p>
<p>I like the IDEA of improving the process with a modest proposal or two. But the OP’s suggestion would have done nothing for our family since it doesn’t address the issue of MONEY. And outside the rarefied air at CC it doesn’t address the radically different circumstances of students in many large city and small rural high schools where going away to college isn’t automatic.</p>
<p>The UK has a system not dissimilar to the one describe by the OP. It’s a little more complicated that mythmom put it (i.e. you can apply to up to 6 universities, and you don’t rank in order of choice any more), but essentially that’s it. </p>
<p>I’m not sure how it would work in the US though, since in the UK we apply to a specific degree programme. I don’t think it would work if you could apply ‘undecided’, since the point of the UK application system is that you’re expected to produce an application tailored to a specific programme, rather than a university.</p>
<p>Don’t get me wrong- my Ds may have only applied to 4 schools- but that wasn’t my idea.
By limiting your schools- you restrict your chances at admission, your ability to compare aid packages and because you may change in perspective more in the last months of high school than you anticipate, it can limit your choices for “fit”</p>
<p>Both my kids applied to ten schools, not including safeties, matches and reaches. I am glad they did because it was entirely unpredictable where they were accepted.</p>
<p>D: Barnard, Mt. Holyoke, yes, Sarah Lawrence, Smith WL
NYU, Brandeis, Bard, Wellesley yes, Skidmore, WL (huh?)
Vassar, rejected</p>