<p>Eh the USSR tried a lot of things that would've worked out great in a perfect world.</p>
<p>I think your idea could work out great AdvisorMom. So colleges would be selecting people to select from ?</p>
<p>i like that tier thing, but then some colleges would be mad at which tier they were in. for example if you went tier1: 1-50, tier 2: 51-100, tier 3: 101-150, the top school in tier 2 would complain about being grouped the schools in the bottom of tier 2. it would be hard to find a reasonable cutoff.</p>
<p>i also like limiting the number of schools people apply to to 6-9 schools. it gives 2-3 safteys 2-3 match and 2-3 reach. also for people who need aid can apply to 6-9 saftey/match because it is harder to get aid if admitted into a reach. plus those who really need aid dont have the money to apply to 10+ schools. also applying to less schools equals less stress.</p>
<p>however for the 6-9 school system to work, people would need to be smart about where they are applying. no more applying to HYSPM because then they wouldnt have a good rage of choices if they didnt get in those. </p>
<p>im lazy so i only applied to 4 schools and got in all of them.</p>
<p>Yes but if a school really is at the Top of Tier II, it wouldn't be that hard for it to move up to Tier I. So it would be a bit tougher for schools to game the rankings (as well as reduce the incentives)</p>
<p>common application...that is a HUGE issue</p>
<p>and in California many kids apply to almost all the schools, with no interest in many but out of fear</p>
<p>Maybe, just maybe, the process isn't really so insane.</p>
<p>Why should anyone feel depressed about being rejected by a college that rejected 90% of its applicants? They're obviously rejecting a lot of extremely bright, highly accomplished people. </p>
<p>Those who got in everywhere they have applied have only postponed the moment they realize that not everything will go their way every day of their lives.</p>
<p>To everyone else: you've had a realistic taste of the adult world. It can be a ruthlessly competitive place; finding peace in it usually involves scaling back one's ambitions at some point. Besides, those who insist they must always have the biggest piece of every pie are rarely the best of companions.</p>
<p>If you prepare yourself diligently for your career, and enter a highly competitive field, you will find that there are many, many well-qualified candidates for every job in that field. </p>
<p>I just went through the process of finding a new job for the first time in many years. I applied for at least a dozen jobs for which I was (on paper) exceptionally well qualified, and where I got no further in the application process than an automated email response saying they had received my resume. Two companies set up interviews; one of them offered me a job, which I accepted.</p>
<p>In the adult world, this counts as a resounding success. Fourteen applications, two interviews, and one job offer.</p>
<p>If my yield had been higher, it probably would have meant that I was aiming too low.</p>
<p>18-year-old skin can generally use a little thickening, and college rejection letters are marvelous for that purpose. Don't throw them away - hang on to them. You might want to read them again someday; you never know when you might need a little hubris removal.</p>
<p>“Limit the number of schools a student can apply to”</p>
<p>More regulation is almost never the answer. </p>
<p>I wrote the following post in another thread. Please forgive the length, but I think there is some relevance to this discussion as I believe that this “insanity” will ultimately prove to be a positive. </p>
<p>“The pie, as represented by the universe of outstanding students, is getting bigger. </p>
<p>Each year, about 15,000 new students matriculate to Ivy League schools. For the other twelve private schools ranked in the Top 20, there are approximately another 17,000 students. That's 32,000 spots for a total graduating universe of 3.2 million students. I don't know for sure, but I don't believe that those matriculation numbers are appreciably different from 1993 when "only" 2.3 million were graduating from high school. </p>
<p>Over that same time period, we have had several other influences: 1) a growing economy which has brought more people into the middle class and increased the desire/need for a college degree; 2) more minority applicants due to increased economic ability, more receptive admissions offices, greater educational opportunity at the high school level, etc.; 3) more media and more attention to colleges and their role in education and American society, eg, research discoveries; 4) explosion of technology which has made students and all of us much more productive (I say that as I spend hour after hour on CC!) and able to process a lot more information about educational opportunities; 5) more international applicants as has been commented on; and 6) the Common App which has made it remarkably easy to apply to 10 or more colleges. </p>
<p>So, we've dramatically grown the applicant pool and kept the growth of enrollments at the premier schools at nearly the same levels. The inescapable result is that more students are having to opt for schools further down their preferred list. Furthermore, I believe that many of these new applicants are very talented and that the quality of the applicant pool has never been higher (although most can't write worth beans). There are FAR more than 32,000 academically qualified students in America (and even more so when you include the internationals) who could successfully attend and graduate from these schools. So, what happens is that a student, who a decade ago might have ended up at HYPSM, is going to Wash U or Emory or Notre Dame and a student who might have gone to those schools is more frequently ending up at places like Tufts or Lehigh or Boston College and so on. It is classic trickle down. </p>
<p>Some people might initially get disappointed that they didn’t get into a Princeton or a Brown and they end up at a Vanderbilt or a Georgetown. But this is short-term pain and long-term gain. Those students are increasingly likely to find tons of other great students there also and they go on to have a fabulous four years. Over time people come to realize that those schools in the next tier or two or three (depending on how you define the tiers) are every bit as good as those that have made up the historical Educational Establishment. And this effect continues on throughout the system.</p>
<p>My conclusion is that this broadening of top student matriculation is good for them, good for the college system (it will increase competition) and good for the economy. The biggest winner of all will be the American consumer when he/she wakes up to all of the excellent college opportunities that exist out there.”</p>
<p>1-Schools need to get the decisions out asap. There is just not enought time to visit and consider finance when you don't get a decision until April, especially for families that need to consider loans. Failies need to know they can do some visits and make decision over spring break, so we need the decisions in mid March.
2-Schools shouldn't demand financial information for students they are rejecting. It's a waste of time and paper.
3-The Ivy's need to do away with the rediculous and indulgent process of the same notification date and time (5pm on the 29th). It's too much pressure and sick and pompous. Whos idea was that ?
4-Expecting or requiring kids to be mother Theresa at he age of 16 is insane. Admissions decisions need to be age appropriate and real.
5- There is sooo much pressure on the high achievers in high school, that the teachers can't really focus on teaching. The entire edcation system is focused on college applications...at the expense of meaningful teaching some times.
6-I'm thinking maybe there should be baseline requirements for colleges and then just make the process a lottery. That's all it is anyway...a toss of the dice.</p>
<p>"My conclusion is that this broadening of top student matriculation is good for them, good for the college system (it will increase competition) and good for the economy. The biggest winner of all will be the American consumer when arehe/she wakes up to all of the excellent college opportunities that exist out there.”</p>
<p>Well, the broadening of matriculation has to happen whether students apply to 6 or 16 schools-- that's based on the number of applicants, which isn't going to change, nor should it. More students attending college is a good thing. Students applying to fewer schools will at least take an edge off the insanity. The competition is no longer valid-- it is capricious. </p>
<p>It is insane... and there has to be a way to improve it. Not that many years ago students didn't apply to such an aburd number of schools, and as I recall all the schools mentioned were still competitive. The insanity has trickled below the top tier schools , as well, it's not just Ivy level anymore. The admissions offices are overwhelmed. (Note to adcomms: reduce the advertising! We will all thank you!)</p>
<p>Hopefully, in time, future students will recognize the futility of applying to so many and the pendulum will swing the other way.</p>
<p>Advisor Mom- to charge a fee after five schools hurts low income students without providing a powerful deterrent to wealthier students. I think students applying to more colleges is the most overrated aspect of the craziness of the admissions process. Since students caan only pick one school, if students apply to more schools it means they will turn down more acceptances, which in turn lowers yield rates, which in turn requires colleges to accept more students. If you think about it, students applying to more colleges isn't really a major problem. The only argument that can be made is that wealthier students are more able to apply to more colleges, so poorer students are hurt because they can only afford a few app fees. However, with the advent of free online applications the process is significantly cheaper. Only half my schools required any application fee at all.</p>
<p>"It is insane... and there has to be a way to improve it."</p>
<p>Almost all of the insanity is self induced and limited to a very small number of students who apply to a very small number of prestige schools which are very selective.</p>
<p>If you look at the most selective LACs or most selective universities, it is apparent that only a dozen or so of each is very selective with acceptance rates of about 20% or less. Most of the insanity involves the students who are smart and have worked hard. There are tens of thousands of vals/sals, kids with 4.0 gpas and near perfect SATs. There just is not room for all of these kids at a handful of Ivy or equivalent schools.</p>
<p>Once you look past the handful of high prestige, well known schools, sanity starts to return. Top 50 ranked schools often have acceptance rates of more than 30%. For schools ranked 50-100, acceptance rates are often over 40, 50% or higher. Beyond that there are a remaining 3000 schools with very high acceptance rates.</p>
<p>Advisormom, every time I hear someone like you complain about the application process, I think if only they knew.... Consider yourself lucky that you do not have a kid interested in something like visual arts, musical theater or music performance. I can speak from experience on the application process which includes music performance. Often two separate applications are needed for each school: one for academics and one for music. Music acceptance requires selecting audition pieces, learning them well and then the all important 15 minutes of audition. Kids rarely can rank themselves on music ability. There is no SAT for music performance and even if there was it all hinges on how well a kid does during that 15 minute interval of life. The logistics of auditioning can be tough. Most of the auditions fall within a span of about 6 weeks and times are set by the schools. Acceptance rates for top music conservatories, like Juilliard, are lower than the rate for Harvard. It is essential to apply and audition at numerous schools. Even worse, conservatories will accept applications and hold auditions when they do not have even a single opening for a specific instrument. They do that in case the next Yo Yo Ma shows up and they want to make an exception. If only you knew..</p>
<p>Thanks, edad, I do have a student interested in musical performance and I do have a clue. </p>
<p>The insanity has spread below the top tier-- it affects the next tier as top tier kids apply to those out of abject fear for safeties. Those schools then admit them and reject others who are qualified... yes they accept a lot but it's hard for them to discern who will actually come.</p>
<p>I know that over 50% of schools accept over 50%, but what I'm talking about is the fact that our kids our hurting themselves and throwing off the statistics by apply to 10, 15, 20 schools. </p>
<p>The colleges think this is a problem. I've heard the presidents of Dickinson and American both speak on this. </p>
<p>All, please read the posts. I already acknowledged the extra fee idea won't work, please stop bashing me on it. </p>
<p>And for all, my kid did not apply to what CCers refer to as top tier. She's a half tier down, and she has 2150 SATs, Full IB, and 6 APs with scores of 4. Regionally competitve year round athlete. It's kids like her that are not getting in to the schools some here have listed as second rate-- not just the top 20. She is into 5, waitlisted at 2, so this is not a my kid was rejected rant. Still waiting on 1, which may be a reject. And yes, I think she may have applied to too many!</p>
<p>edad beat me to it! The application process for arts and performance is incredibly grueling, but I wonder if it doesn't also offer some interesting ideas for the general application process? For example, kids really have to think hard about how many auditions they're prepared to do (both talent and logistics-wise). And the school gets an assessment of a student's talent, potential, based on direct observation/experience (even though it's hard to have it boil down to a mere 15 minute chance to show your best stuff).</p>
<p>Thinking about the common application, I actually wonder if ELIMINATING it might ease the problem? And do away with the supplement, instead have each college's application reflect the school's priorities. Heck, take it even further -- each school's application and application process could be specific to that school. The time and effort required to research all of that might result in kids actually pausing to figure out what they're doing, learn more about the schools in advance, and being more careful about their selection of apps. In that case, for a highly motivated student willing to do the extra work who wants to apply to 10+ I say more power to you! But I bet sanity and pragmatism might help focus the selection process for many others.</p>
<p>The best systems are simple to understand and enforce, with benefits to both sides. </p>
<p>I've been thinking about a college application system that would restrict applications to cycles or waves. The first wave would be similar to today's EA, with a due date in say, early November. The second would end in December or early January, similar to EDII, but without the restrictions. There would be a third cycle due around February 1 and even a fourth wave for the latest decisions, replacing some of the waitlists. </p>
<p>Within each wave, students would be limited to 3 applications, with no minimum. There would be no requirements regarding fees, rankings, safeties, etc. Limiting applications would be the hardest agreement to coordinate among schools, but could probably be done within a structure like the common app. Obviously, acceptance decisions would have to be released on a strict timetable.</p>
<p>In my opinion, this would propel students to make solid early decisions, and reward them with an acceptance or two early in the process. They would not be as limited as they are by ED. Students who didn't like their options from wave 1 or 2 could continue to apply throughout the winter, lessening the burden of applications.</p>
<p>Colleges would struggle through the early years of implementation, but it can't be worse than having 30,000 applications dropped on their doorsteps. Also, admission committees would have their work a little more evenly distributed through the application season, reducing the number of employees needed at crunch time. Just as ED informs them of the type of student that will attend, the continuing waves offer a chance to refine the student body even more. </p>
<p>Some problems that I envision are that the top students (athletes, brainiacs, gifted artists, etc.) would be snatched up early. However, this is no different than what happens now with ED. Also, schools would have to keep at least some spots open through waves 3 and 4, and not be allowed to defer past a certain date.</p>
<p>Comments?</p>
<p>Personally, my high school experience was non-stressful and enjoyable. I believe that the whole "formula" to get into college is a bunch of crap. Admission councilors want normal kids to come to their universities... not people who do things they hate just to gain admission. My college admission process was slightly stressful ONLY because i procrastinated the whole time... I think we are all getting tricked. Relax and enjoy life, thats the way to get into college my friends.</p>
<p>midwesterner, That's an excellent idea. Limiting the number of spots available within these waves is given right ?</p>
<p>Yes, I think there would have to be some limits on numbers admitted, based on traditional yield. Certainly this would be very hard for colleges to predict in the first years (what if everyone applies to Harvard in the first wave?) That's why there would be some deferring allowed, but not so much as to cause the high degree of uncertainty we see in our kids now. Perhaps colleges could defer a student for one round at most.</p>
<p>Admitting something like around 30 percent of the class for the first three waves, and 10 percent in the final wave might be a solid target, but I would leave a lot of this to the schools to decide.</p>
<p>No, because there is also a personal statement. You could include the recommendations as well.</p>
<p>AdvisorMom has the best idea I have heard so far.</p>
<p>These are great ideas...but is it actually possible to change the system?</p>
<p>I mean, CC has a huge impact on the college admission process, but can it change the system of admissions?</p>
<p>No matter what, you'll still have parents fighting for their kid to go to HYPS instead of other great schools probably at the same level. My parents believe no change will occur, but they didn't see the insanity this year. I'm applying next year, and I know there won't be much difference. It would have to be very subtle and gradual.</p>
<p>The reason why people apply to a lot of schools is because they're afraid they won't get in anywhere or "just for the heck of it." A limit would help.</p>
<p>i kinda applies to UMiami "for the heck of it." i always kinda wanted to go there but didnt think that much of it because of the cost($32K a year tuition) but i applied anyways. i got in w/ a 1/2 tuition scholaship which allowed me to really consider it. and now i might be going there. </p>
<p>nothing wrong with applying to 1-2 schools "for the heck of it." i only applied to 4 total to reduce my personal insanity. i dont really see the point in applying to 10+ schools. for me, its too much stress and work.</p>
<p>How about requiring on the application the names of the other schools an applicant is applying to. If there is the standard mix of 1-2 top schools, 2-4 matches and 1-3 safeties, nothing would happen. But people who only apply to the Top 20 schools would likely be hurt. This creates an incentive structure of actually focusing on the schools rather than their rank.</p>
<p>Note also that admissions officers won't worry if someone is applying to a school similar to them (think Harvard/Princeton). They'll get that. What they won't understand is if someone applies to all eight schools of the Ivy League. I think this simple requirement would completely change the nature of the "game."</p>