Given the lack of transparency of non-automatic merit scholarships, it may not be reasonable to limit applications.
However, it may be reasonable for the high school to tell students that the first unique counselor report and the first two unique teacher recommendations are prioritized over others, so that a student who needs many unique recommendations will not crowd out other students who need them. “Unique” means that the counselor or teacher needs to write a new one; a single recommendation sent to multiple schools counts as one, and colleges that do not require any do not count at all for this purpose.
How do schools look at demonstrated interest nowadays, knowing students will apply to so many other schools?
It used to include whether a student made a visit… but it’s prohibitively expensive - time and money - to do that with more and more schools. It would seem really self-defeating as well to expect students to show demonstrated interest through a visit when the schools are at the same time reaching out to more applicants, because this interest indicator gives a huge advantage to those who can afford the travel.
The super competitive schools probably don’t care about demonstrated interest but I am sure many schools that monitor their acceptance and yield rates do still care. How is this factor assessed and still meaningful?
Not really self-defeating if the college wants to tip its admit pool toward those from higher income/wealth families to reduce its financial aid spending without having to be explicitly need-aware for individual applicants.
And, it’s not just essays that potentially are not truly able to be read with ‘careful consideration.’ Telling kids to be well-rounded while they head up clubs, volunteer, etc. only to ‘weed’ them out based on a grade point is sad. Especially since not all types of people score well on standard tests like ACT/SATs, especially arts-related students who may not be as keen as math/science but are extremely creative thinkers. Additionally, some kids get expensive tutors and take tons of test prep classes while others can’t afford to do that. It seems that the UCs have become relegated to what used to be Ivy League acceptance practices. Frustrating to read posts by so many disappointed in-state kids who have dreamed of going to their state University schools and have high GPAs. Maybe we just need more schools for the growing population if we have so many excellent students.
The UC system did add another campus recently in Merced. But many students do not want to go there (or Riverside).
As it is, California has a very large population, but the two most desired campuses (UCB and UCLA) are not larger than typical state flagship campuses in other states with much smaller populations. The entire UC system added together is more similar in proportional sizing to typical state flagship campuses in other states, but because people tend to view colleges in a hierarchy of desirability, attending UCR or UCM is often viewed as less desirable than attending a flagship (even though many other states’ flagships are less selective than UCR or UCM).
Probably now because it is a self-reinforcing cycle where less desirable means that it needs to be less selective to fill its seats, but being less selective makes it less desirable because students want to validate themselves by going to a more selective college.
Perhaps the cycle got started because Riverside was perceived as a less desirable location than most of the other places that UC campuses are located in.
In addition, UC Riverside is known as a commuter school (70%) and freshman are not required to live on campus which some students do not find as the ideal college experience.
I believe the 70% figure is total undergraduate but nevertheless there is a significant group of the student body that still live at home with their parents and have a long commute to the school.
On the plus side of Riverside being a less desirable location is that there is cheaper housing within comfortable walking distance to the UCR campus. Lots of kids who dorm their freshman year move off campus their sophomore year and beyond. They are technically commuters but it may take them only 15-20 minutes to walk door to door.
34% of all undergraduates do not live in the dorms at UCR (i.e. 66% live somewhere other than campus).
The frosh percentage in the dorms is probably a better proxy for resident versus commuter students, since many non-frosh resident students do live off-campus, and common data set numbers do not distinguish between resident students living off-campus and commuters living where they lived before attending the college.