Colleges could absolutely measure rigor if they wanted to, but it would take significantly more time and staff.
I know when we were looking at private schools, one had a very informative document with classes offered, level (regular, honors, AP, IB), how many students in each level, grade distribution, AP tests taken, etc. It also noted what the criteria were to differentiate a regular class from an honors class. A document like that alone from each school would put GPAs and rigor into perspective.
Just as art, theatre and music majors must submit a portfolio, colleges could ask for the same from all students to include a graded writing sample, notes on a group project, syllabi from honors classes, etc. As far as I know, there aren’t any colleges that do this. Although, I am sure some people with the money to game the system would be hiring “portfolio experts” to best position their child, wouldn’t this be the most holistic representation of applicants?
For the most selective colleges that are the focus of these forums, HS GPA may be a less significant predictor simply because almost all students had HS GPA at or very close to 4.0. SAT and ACT scores have similar issues due to compression at the top.
While some of those colleges that are looking for academically top-of-the-top-end students (e.g. Caltech) look for other academic indicators beyond that, it may be that most of the most selective colleges are satisfied with this situation, since it allows them to “build a class” based on whatever non-academic criteria they want (including “hooks”) out of the sufficiently large pool of “typical excellent” (i.e. HS GPA and SAT or ACT near the ceilings). Test optional may be even better for them, since it expands the “typical excellent” pool for them to choose from.
At the beginning of COVID-19-related problems in getting an SAT or ACT test date, UC gave each campus an option to be test optional or test blind. Some campuses did choose test optional, but then someone sued UC claiming that test optional was unfair in some way. UC lost the lawsuit, so all campuses had to go test blind. Given that lawsuit result, UC is not likely to try test optional.
May be their stated reason, but that may be at least partially marketing themselves as better than a typical public school with AP courses as the top end courses. AP courses started as a collaboration between elite high schools and colleges so that the more advanced students would not have to repeat what they learned in high school (AP used to mean “advanced placement”). But now that AP courses and tests are common, the elite high schools need to market themselves in some other way. Claiming that their own courses are better than AP courses commonly found elsewhere (which may be true in some cases) is one way.
As far as it being a trend, it probably will not go further than high schools that market themselves as academically top-end. A typical high school may not have the resources to do its own curriculum development, so the already-made AP courses are convenient options for the more advanced level course offerings.
Would adequate research and guidance (either better advising at the public high school level or free or affordable online guidance) prevent a cap on college app number from disadvantaging these families?
I was marketed-to extensively by the privates who claim to offer classes that are more rigorous than AP. I have also met many graduates from these schools. There is no substance to this claim. That is, of course, a perfectly acceptable position to take. The AP curriculum is highly restrictive in both pace and content, and that might not be right for all students served by a private school population. It is a logical leap (to claim higher relative rigor), however, that is not supported by the reality of their offerings or their results.
Limiting apps in the common app (or in total, which really wouldn’t be possible) disadvantages merit hunting families because merit at many schools is highly unpredictable. Some merit awards are also highly competitive, so another unpredictable outcome. Many NPCs don’t include a merit estimate either, so one can’t know which schools may or may not be affordable until the student applies and is accepted.
Most schools do still have either their own app (some are also on coalition app), so if common app were to limit apps, students would just move to one of those platforms, as appropriate.
As someone noted above the number of students applying to 14 or more schools on common app isn’t that many, so this seems like another ‘problem’ that doesn’t need solving. Of course the common app only has a proportion of all the college apps…as noted above theres coalition app, a school’s own app, the UC and CSU system apps, UT system app, etc.
With NPCs, financial aid based on need is far more predictable than that based on “merit”. The process for merit awards can similarly use a little more transparency, which would reduce the need for “merit” hunting. Many of those colleges, however, benefit from the opaque process and are unlikely to change on their own if not required by law.
I don’t disagree. Really what we are talking about is discounting (discount rate includes need based financial aid and merit based financial aid, and is on average, greater than 50% across all colleges), and in any given year which admitted applicants receive the larger discounts (especially the ‘merit’ piece) is often not even predictable by the school (ahead of time).
I’m not sure how schools benefit from discounting though. Some may enroll more students by giving more discounts, but obviously that comes at a cost.
Read up on the economic concept of price discrimination. Charging different prices based on what each customer is willing to pay can increase the revenue from a given set of customers (getting a lot of money from those willing to pay a lot), while also attracting desired customers (e.g. stronger students, athletes, etc.) who may not be willing or able to pay that much.
Many high schools don’t send counselor recs, the average student:counselor ratio in the US is around 450:1. Most HSs don’t have dedicated college counselors, the social emotional counselors cover college counseling.
Many colleges allow self-reporting of transcript info, others allow unofficial copies the student can download from PowerSchool, et al, so counselor often not involved in that until an official transcript required for matriculation.
Some schools do limit apps, but those tend to be private schools with low student:counselor ratio, where the counselors can help students build balanced, reasonable college lists.
Lastly limiting apps can hurt students who have to merit hunt, as some have already mentioned here.
sure they could, but why would they? If a B- student wants to apply to Harvard, why should the HS say ‘sorry, we won’t send them a preliminary transcript.’ ? Why should the HS be the one to reject the kid from Harvard? (That is Harvard’s job.)
IMO, limiting apps across the board is just as wrong as a Lottery. An applicant can only attend one school. Sure, applying to 20+ schools may result in more wait lists, but those clear by early June.
Recommendation rationing has been reported here, but mainly in the context of teachers getting booked up early for recommendations, not for the purpose of limited the number of college applications.