<p>Any of us who have been through this year's college admissions know it has become insane. I am aware that consortiums of colleges are looking into ways to temper the insanity. There are key reasons why it is insane, the top being the peak of the "echo boom" hitting college age, the Common App going online, and that a greater percentage of students go to college than in the past. </p>
<p>So, what can be done to quell the insanity that has compelled parents to spend thousands on counselors and test prep, has driven our students to push themselves to the point of exhaustion, and yet often results in waitlists and rejections because there are just too many applications? </p>
<p>My first thought: Limit the number of schools a student can apply to online via the common app. Perhaps after 5, common app could charge a sizable fee. </p>
<p>Second thought: College rankings should not be based on percent rejected, thus reducing the motivation for colleges to heavily market to kids they would never admit anyway. (Which they do!). Find a better way.</p>
<p>5 schools used to be the norm for applying, and allows 1 reach, 2 match, 2 safety, so I don't view it as a hardship. They could always apply hard-copy too. My limit is recommended for online apps. If someone wants to print and mail 20, they can. I think the Common App has made it TOO easy, even with supplements. </p>
<p>If more apps were allowed with a fee, fee waivers could be available to those who are low income. This is done for AMCAAS, the medical school app system. </p>
<p>It's not unethical to require only one ED school, and some schools don't even allow EA if you've applied ED elsewhere. So, why would it be unethical to limit the number of applications? </p>
<p>If charging a fee after 5 online common applications is unfair to those with lower incomes, then just plain limit the number of online applications to some number between 5 and 10. Really, why would anyone need to apply to more than that anyway?? </p>
<p>I seriously think this is an approach to limit the craziness-- we can't reduce the number of kids that apply, but we can reduce the number of schools they apply to. Looking at the CC thread, it appears a huge number of kids applied to more than 10.</p>
<p>Personally, I'd like to see a true common application with no supplements allowed. It could even be much longer and more in depth than the existing one if necessary. We absolutely hated all the different extra essays, short answer questions, requests for graded papers, etc.. I do realize that this might make it easier to apply to more schools but perhaps it could be done in combination with one of your suggestions above. It would certainly reduce one part of the stress.</p>
<p>I would take away the rankings, at least as we know them now. I didn't used to be opposed to the rankings, because I feel that I used them for the right reason (to find schools in the ballpark of my credentials and then research them more), but I think that they create more problems than they do help. I would eliminate the peer assessment (nice in theory, ridiculously flawed and subjective in reality), the student/faculty ratio (easily tampered with), and Graduation rate performance (Don't really care/usually just a few percent (What's the margin of error on the prediction, anyway?)). I'm neutral about the faculty resources rank--it's influenced by easily fudged factors. </p>
<p>I think that the value in the rankings is giving you a lot of stats about a lot of colleges in one place. It still wouldn't be perfect, but I would be happier with the rankings if they eliminated the factors that I outlined above and went to unranked tiers (Tier 1 = top 50, Tier 2 = 50-100, etc.). That would still give you ballpark rankings, but eliminate #5 vs. #11 hysteria.</p>
<p>I agree with advantagious here, seriously how much difference would it make if a kid goes to Princeton as opposed to Harvard. Grouping them in tiers would be an excellent idea (less room to game the system).</p>
<p>AdvisorMom, I know where you're coming from, but limiting the number of college applications is not just unethical to low-income students (free-waivers are harder to get than many might think) and limiting people's freedoms (applying to colleges in general is different from applying ED/EA for traditional reasons), it is also impractical. It's not going to happen because colleges get a lot of money from application fees as well as perceived "prestige" from appearing selective. </p>
<p>I wholeheartedly agree with you that college rankings shouldn't use selectivity as a factor, but then again, college rankings in general is misleading at best.</p>
<p>Also, colleges are aware of yield, and therefore the amount of applications is not really the issue. If anything, it is the increase in the number of people rather than the number of colleges people are applying to that is causing so many rejections and waitlists respective to earlier times. Population boom seems to be the core of many of our society's comtemporary problems.</p>
<p>Limiting the number of apps (online or otherwise) would just create more stress. I would worry about which schools to cut; what if schools started using online apps as an indicator of interest? The same goes for fees; the last thing we need is for the process to become more expensive.</p>
<p>I like the concept of ranking by tiers. I wish the elites would push the 'match' more, rather than just alluding to the fact that they are the best college in the universe. People need to understand that there is no one perfect college for them and that arbitrary rankings do not need to define their priorities. A low acceptance rate doesn't necessarily indicate a better school.</p>
<p>I think the removal of early action programs is detrimental. While I can understand the benefits of eliminating ED, EA seems to temper the process significantly.</p>
<p>Ooooh, I like that idea too, ever_after. I really, really personally dislike ED, but I think that regular old EA should stick around. It's a great way for those ready and motivated enough to apply in April to get back some early admissions decisions and judge there chances elsewhere. I think that it might also eliminate some of the application frenzy--a certain amount of kids who get in early to their top choice school will stop applying/send out many fewer applications. Now, you might claim that that already happens, but many kids are limited because maybe they have a couple of top choices, but they both only have ED, or maybe they need to wait for finaid, or whatever. </p>
<p>Back in the day, college-bound kids applied to between two and four local colleges, got into most of them, and picked one that made sense or that your parents went to. There were a few kids who went to colleges in neighboring states, and every few years one of the boys would aspire to one of the service academies. There was the occasional kid who went off to the opposite coast, but they were rare. College was mostly an in-state or at least regional affair.</p>
<p>Today we have what I call the National Applicant. Among the "Echo Boomers," fueled by rankings and informed by websites and viewbooks at their fingertips on the internet, smart kids who used to aspire no higher than Flagship State U. now all apply to HYPSM as well. The result: Feeding Frenzy.</p>
<p>What to do? Well unfortunately, there's not much we can do. The current situtation is a perfect storm caused by the convergence of the Echo Boom, the internet, and the rankings. We can't get rid of rankings because, protected by freedom of the press, USN&WR is going to keep on publishing their highly lucrative rankings issues. The Echo Boom isn't going away. We are just going to have to wait it out. And in another generation I suppose we'll have the Echo Echo Boom to deal with. And lastly the internet isn't going away any time soon either.</p>
<p>Getting rid of ED/EA is a great idea, but that would be only an incremental rather than a fundamental improvement. So I don't think there is any hope of restoring sanity to the process any time soon, perhaps never. Sorry.</p>
<p>I think that all those minor changes won't have any effect at all.</p>
<p>As long as the SAT is a factor, people will spend a fortune on SAT prep.
As long as applications include essays, some families will pay thousands to enjoy professional essay editing services.
As long as ECs play into college admission, some high school students will continue to participate in varsity athletics while holding a part-time job and doing some community service.
Even if conventional rankings were to be abolished, HYPSM would still be considered the most prestigious and students would still cheat to attend a first tier school instead of a second tier.</p>
<p>You would have to change the whole system to avoid those things.</p>
<p>I would like to see more schools with rolling admission, a limit on the number of times one can take the SAT (twice?), a general limit on the number of schools one might apply to (6?) and tier rankings instead of individual ranks. But let's be realistic: how many "average" (= non CC) high school students apply to 10+ colleges? How many students bother taking the SAT more than twice anyways? No one is forced to go insane about the admission process, and most students don't.</p>
<p>Do like med school: One prelimary application sent out to as many as you like, and they invite you to fill out a more complete secondary app. Some schools may already do this. </p>
<p>For example, in the med school process, the AMCAS (sp?) includes GPA, MCAT scores and a personal statement. With one click it sails to the med schools of your choice, who then decide if they want to learn more and invite you to complete a secondary app. </p>
<p>This might not be feasible across all schools, but certain Consortiums could consider it, like the Ivy League.</p>
<p>I think the problem with my fee idea is more that it will provide an unfair advantage for the wealthy-- who will pay anything. (Like people who would rather pay a $250 fine for driving in HOV lanes than sit in traffic). I hadn't thought about that, that's why this is "brainstorming"!</p>
<p>The lower income kids are likely not the one contributing to this problem, because they cannot afford to apply to 10 or more schools, as it is.</p>
<p>quote: "But then wouldn't we be alienating kids from not so privileged backgrounds if we just bas it on GPA and SAT scores." </p>
<p>A preliminary application would include a Personal Statement/essay, which would address that. Not sure what else is on current apps that this doesn't include which is the cause of your concern? They'll see what high school you went to, as well, which will give a clue.. </p>
<p>Colleges already base it on GPA and SAT scores.... and those from less privileged backgrounds sometimes have an advantage as they currently seek first generation college students. That info could easily be on a preliminary app. Actually, preliminary app would pretty much be the common app, and the secondary would be like the supplement, only you'd send it after the college decided if you were even in their ballpark. </p>
<p>Anyway, it's an idea. What ideas do you have?</p>
<p>So how would the preliminary app differ from the current apps ?</p>
<p>I'm thinking the Tier would be great. The ideas I usually have regarding these kinds of stuff are too radical.</p>
<p>However if you want a glimpse into my head, here.</p>
<p>My Philosophy Club sponsor was talking about how choice makes one's life miserable and we would be much better off if there was only concrete choice with no room for growing out of that position. </p>
<p>So I think the govt. actually deciding people's careers on talent rather than personal freedom would solve Unemployment and Underemployment.</p>
<p>Quote: "So how would the preliminary app differ from the current apps ?"</p>
<p>Actually, the preliminary app could be the existing common app, just with a lower app fee and no supplements (saving lots of essay writing time) till the second round. </p>
<p>There are logistics to figure out (deadlines, etc), but it's a possiblity.</p>