What I have trouble understanding is how applying to more betters one’s chances of an admit and great FA. Imo, the more aid dependent a family is, the more they need to make the right, informed choices. Not dilute the efforts by scattershotting. To me, the reality is that most kids don’t know enough about even their top choices.
The comment was made about poor kids with high stats, but it takes a lot more to get into the most generous colleges.
To me, what makes sense is what @cypresspat describes.
It’s not about poor vs richer. It’s about savvy. Eyes wide open.
I think the efforts of some families are demeaned by a lot of the terms employed here. You assume such parents are not making “informed choices.” You describe the efforts as “scattershotting.” You state these families “don’t know enough about even their top choices.” You say it’s about being “savvy” as if any way other than what you outline is not savvy.
Econ- I don’t think anyone is demeaning another family’s strategies. BUT- one cannot help but observe (both in real life as well as on CC) the sad phenomenon of a good kid, strong student, who ends up in April with no viable option (according to the kid). It makes me sad. No, it’s not a tragedy. Kid can take a gap year and get a job, try again. But that’s a whole lot more dough going to applications. Or kid grits her teeth and commutes to the local branch of the state college, lives at home, and is able to transfer by junior year to the flagship. Again, not a tragedy.
But in many cases (certainly on CC where kids post their stats and financial constraints) as well as in real life, some legwork up front would have avoided this. Not MORE applications, but different applications. If you are in the second quartile of students at your HS, applying to a school known for generous merit aid where ALL the top quartile kids at your HS apply to, and many of them end up-- unless you have something very special going on outside of academics, you MAY get in, but you ain’t getting the top award which is what you need to afford this school. This isn’t to demean someone’s choice- it’s reality.
Not more, different. This kid who lives in NY is a dime a dozen to a college in Massachusetts, but could be desirable in Minnesota or Texas or South Carolina. So the hunt for merit aid DOES require research- not just “do kids with my stats get admitted”. An admission without the right package is essentially a denial.
And for the kid looking for need based aid- again, more research. How is the flagship university in Maine affordable to a kid living in CT, but the flagship of Vermont might not be? Do some homework. What majors would a kid need to declare to make University of Rhode Island affordable? More research.
I know folks who DON’T know this, don’t do the research, assume that their cheapest option is going to be a public university and are shocked to learn that a neighboring state often has no interest in subsidizing their kid with instate tuition.
THAT’s on the website. It’s not hard to find out what the out of state rates are, and what the exceptions are.
I agree that it appears that if the number of apps exceeds what someone considers reasonable then the assumption is that the list hasn’t been well thought out, the apps can’t possibly be tailored to each school, and the families haven’t done their research. Just because there are families on CC who applied without an effective strategy (that’s why they’re here in April) it doesn’t mean that everyone else who sent a similar number of apps made the same mistake.
As a college admissions insider, you probably have much more insight and privileged information in how to select an application list where the applicant is likely to be seen as an admission match beyond basic stats. Higher need students are less likely to have counselors, teachers, and parents (or others in their social circles) who can help them in this area, so they start behind on this aspect.
Higher need students are more likely to start this process with a blindfold on in a dust storm, compared to the typical forum demographic of students from high SES families with well-versed college counselors and parents who often have information not available to higher need students.
Of course, as a practical matter, higher need students are less likely to search for good FA or merit opportunities, rather than setting their sights relatively low at the local non-flagship public university or community college, because that is the furthest they see others going to college and which those around them encourage them to aim for because it may be somewhat affordable.
Nope, not demeaning
Don’t confuse the freedom to apply with the need to match, in the first place. And that’s more than what you want in a college. Or stats.
It can’t be a surprise that kids do scattershot. I don’t mean the kid who happens to choose schools in different states. But we see it on CC all the time.
Applying to all the Ivies is just the easiest example. Or the Chance kids who are unilateral, when it’s not hard to learn top colleges want the right rounding. Or kids who ask about courses at a college (or triple majors, lol,) and seemingly haven’t looked at the catalogs or requirements for their major. It goes on.
Put another way, you could see an admit as a contest. Sure, go ahead and apply to as many competitions as you want. Cross your fingers. But don’t you want to understand the ground rules better? Assess your chances realistically? Then cull?
You’re describing the solution to a different topic than the one presented in this thread. This thread asks “Should a limit be placed on the number of applications?” I think the answer is unquestionably “No limit should be placed.”
You’re explaining why kids who apply only to schools that exceed their stats get left without a good option when all those schools reject them.
Yes, families that apply to a lot of schools may include some reach destinations. But I don’t know any real life families with 3.5 GPA, 1220 SAT kids who are applying ONLY to twenty top-30 schools.
What I do see is that those families are applying to twenty schools, including a mixture of affordable in-state public options, a number of OOS public options with merit money, a few private options with merit and/or need-available money, and, yes, a few shoot-for-the-stars top-40 schools. But these parents are not applying only to the shoot-for-the-stars options. There is too much at stake to be that myopic.
For anybody to tell these parents they should trim their list by excluding the 5 shoot-for-the-stars options is ridiculous. It’s just as ridiculous to suggest replacing those schools with 5 more guaranteed cheap options. This is not about “changing” the schools applied to. If anything, maybe these families should apply to the twenty they already have, AND apply to the other 5 guaranteed cheap options.
But the point is, most families I know doing this already have safety schools on the list. Yes, safety in terms of stats and finances. As long as that is done, and no undue burden is placed on a high school’s staff, and the families themselves don’t mind the extra work, I can’t think of any valid reason to suggest families in this situation should not apply to as many schools as they choose.
To clarify, I agree a problem exists where kids are applying to a small number of schools and all are not a match for either stats, finances, or both. But again, that is not the topic at hand. The topic is whether or not to limit the number of applications. And the answer to that is, without a doubt, “No, there should not be a limit.”
I say those kids you use as an example should not eliminate their dream schools. They should do as you suggest and apply to more-reasonable match schools, but they should be able to also apply to their dream schools.
The solution to the topic you present is not to eliminate options. The solution is to ensure some good reasonable “match” options are on the list in the first place.
Again, don’t have a hard limit on the number of apps but make the application more detailed and involved so that the student who applies has to want to do the extra work and really wants to go to that college if accepted.
You can still apply to as many colleges as you want but it’s going to take more work understanding what the college wants and for you to complete the applications.
This will eliminate much of the shotgun approach to applying to 20+ colleges and the acceptance rates and yield will go up.
At UCLA you have 110k applicants paying $70 a pop which is $7,700,000 in application fees! Ridiculous. Probably half of them go into the reject pile automatically but the UC allows you to apply to all 9 UC campusus with a click of the button (same essays used) even though all of the colleges have something different to offer.
All I’m suggesting is make it harder to apply to individual colleges and have the applicant due their due diligence before submitting their app.
I doubt all 110K applicants are paying that fee. At least half (my guess) get fee waivers. Probably more than that number.
Looking at UCLA’s 2018-19 CDS, 5600 of the 9100 (or 12,400 if the total includes graduate degrees) graduates received a Pell grant or subsidized loan. It’s reasonable to assume that they received fee waivers when applying.
Add in athletes, and others the university targets for enrollment, and I’d bet another big chunk receive app fee waivers.
Without a limit, some people make it a game and waste everyone’s time. People with wealth and need based waivers overwhelm whole process.
All those who apply to dozens of colleges to flaunt acceptances and aid as a sign of extraordinary accomplishments are examples of why number of applications should have a limit.
I have no dog in this hunt. Kid- apply to 20 schools. Mom and Dad, write those checks. Add another 5 if you need merit. I’ll cross my fingers and hope it all works out for you.
BUT-- one cannot help but be struck by the sheer increase in workload put upon kids and guidance counselors compared to the pre-email, pre-internet, pre-common App days we all remember. And then we read about kids showing up at college with severe anxiety disorders, and HS kids who perseverate endlessly about “are my stats good enough for ABC college” and all the sad threads we’re seeing right about now where kids who are miserable “at my first choice college” are asking all of us about transfer options- and I just don’t see any evidence that the massive proliferation in the number of applications is yielding anything close to “better outcomes”.
Show me the evidence that kids who are applying to 18+ colleges end up happier, with a better education, less debt? Compared with the kids who apply to 10 and under?
Of course you’ll argue that the 10 and under crowd are the affluent families who don’t need merit and don’t need big aid packages and don’t need to see if an outside scholarship will replace their work study. But I’m willing to bet you’d be wrong, and that the kids with the highest need are the ones who apply to three schools- the flagship (with fingers crossed they can afford it if it’s not in commuting distance), a directional state college within commuting range, and the local CC with the hope that they can afford to dorm for the last two years. My bet is that the massive proliferation in applications is precisely a phenomenon of the higher income families, despite the “chase” for merit aid.
So sure, don’t limit apps. Go for it. But at some point you reach a point of diminishing returns, and I’ve yet to see evidence that 25 applications with the MASSIVE costs in time, anxiety, and cash are yielding a better result.
“Without a limit, some people make it a game and waste everyone’s time.”
Yup.
You aren’t convincing me, EconPop. And the whole idea of highly competitive colleges being “dream schools” seems silly to me. You do not get an admit for dreaming. That’s playing the darts game. Worse, it’s assuming it IS a darts game.
Otoh, I’m a vocal proponent for knowing exactly what one is doing. Not resting on “maybe, I hope, oh pleeze.” You have to realize the different perspectives on this thread come from different experiences with the app process.
On an individual level, if kids do have challenges writing the best apps they can, for obvious matches, why would anyone want them applying to more and more? What makes extra dream reaches feasible?
Some kids do “scattershot”, particularly when easy to do so ,such as when a common app supports easily applying to a large number of schools (HCBU common app is particularly bad in this respect, which encourages students to apply to all 56 colleges for a single $35 fee). But is that a good reasons to set a maximum limit of only x schools? That kid who “scattershots” may or may not get a benefit to applying to fewer schools, but the max limit is likely to harm other kids who have better reasons for applying to a large number. I’m more concerned about the latter than the former. The best number of applications has too much dependence on the individual student and situation to apply any kid of hard limit at anything other than the individual level. Parents setting a limit of n applications for their kid is reasonable. A 3rd party setting a limit of n applications for all kids in a large group, without considering individual situations, is not.
My goal isn’t to convince you. I accept that you and I will have to agree to disagree on this topic.
I’m only trying to present “the other side of the story.” (with respects to Paul Harvey.) It would be a shame if someone who needed to apply to many schools, who would benefit from applying to many schools, came across this thread and decided the consensus opinion was no one should ever do that. It’s important that all sides get a place at the town hall.
@Data10 Opinion, just my own opinion. Not saying the CA or Coalition folks should set an arbitrary limit.
That kid who needs merit (and it was originally noted here as: where the qualifications for merit and amounts are vague,) is indeed an exception. They may need to range into multi categories of colleges. But it should be done, imo, from a perspective of awareness. Not assuming just applying is what enters you into a lottery. Maybe you’ll get 50k, maybe 10k. Maybe nothing.
Reading some of your prior posts, you have a kid with a 3.3 GPA and 1200 SAT and yet said that he will apply to his dream colleges, Penn and Princeton “with his chances virtually nil”.
To me this is exactly the reason that threads like these exist and the reason why I personally think that colleges should make it a lot more demanding to apply.
My son did not apply to Princeton. He applied to Penn only after receiving many (most, apparently generic) requests from school to apply, a fee waiver, and a phone call. Neither he or I think he has a good chance to be admitted. Then again, with an admission rate of 8% no one has a “good chance” to be admitted to Penn. (does that mean no one should apply?) But yes, of course it would be great to be offered admission.
Joking aside, Penn repeatedly asked my son to apply. We complied with that request. It cost us nothing except a little time to write one specific essay and rework a couple of others. That was not a burden on my son or the family.
Joking again: It seems we may need a thread titled “Do you think there should be a limit to the number of applications one school can seek?”
That’s just basic math. If you appy to five schools that you have a 20% chance of getting into each, that’s a 67% chance you’ll get into at least one. If you apply to 10 schools with a 20% chance of each, you up that to 89%. And the more acceptances you get, the more aid packages you have to compare.
I agree with the overall point that students and parents should be doing more research to find schools that they are more likely to get into and more likely to get a good aid package and not just scattershotting. But applying to 20 well-chosen schools will increase the chances of getting a good package than applying to 10 well-chosen schools will.
