<p>
[quote]
As for crowding out another applicant who really, really wants Yale and only applies there -- that's nonsense. Yale will accept enough students to get the yield they want and the OP isn't hurting anybody's chances.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>celloguy . . .
When Yale factors in the people to accept to produce the right yield, they don't assume the person's applying to 19 schools. Besides, regardless of how miniscule, the acceptance to Yale will mean some other person is rejected, that's a fact. However, the OP will have Yale in addition to however many other good schools they end up accepted to--which I'm saying will probably be a sizable number. Is it fair? I don't think so. If it's easy for the OP, cheap, managable, whatever, that's fine. But what if everyone applied to 19 schools? The yields of schools would be ridiculous (and they're already getting worse), applying to this many schools just furthers that problem. 1 person, maybe, but it's still a contribution. As I said in this post, I don't think schools messin' around with their yield assume the applicant is applying to 18 other schools. Inevitably, a person accepted to multiple schools will take up many slots of other schools, but since they accept more that can attend, it's managable. However, I don't think it's right for a person that's only going to attend one to fill up so many potential slots (and it's even more unfair for those who are actually restricted in the schools they can apply to, or simply don't have to the time to apply to this many). There's going to be disparity, naturally. Some can apply to as many as 10 or 11, while some are limited to maybe 5 or 6 by their school, or others only want to apply to 1 place. But 19? The topic asks if it's too many and I think yes.</p>
<p>
[quote]
A highly qualified student who has a decent chance at any college and who is shooting for superselective colleges (all of which give good need-based aid) can obviously improve chances by applying to more -- that's simple logic. In this case it absolutely makes sense.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>My argument on this would be that as far as superselective colleges, applying to more doesn't increase your chances at a particular college, however, the superselectives are unpredictable enough to the point that you can't expect a significant increase in acceptances among them by applying to tons more unless you were unbelievably talented enough to get into all of them in the first place.</p>
<p>
[quote]
In other words, "crap shoot." If she had applied to fewer, she might well be stuck with UC.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Now let me give a counterexample (or 2). Friend of mine applied to all ivies minus Dartmouth and Columbia--accpeted only to Cornell. Or another . . . applied to all ivies (and matches and safeties, of course), rejected from every ivy. My point here is that what probably happens is that unless you're a phenomenal candidate, you might end up accepted at 1 or 2 more for every 5-8 more you apply to.</p>