<p>At the current rate, I will not be surprised if some top colleges have an acceptance rate of 1% in the upcoming years (okay a bit exaggerated).
Everything is getting out of hand. Should we adopt the European type system where students are only allowed to apply to schools within their range (not everyone in Europe can apply to Sorbonne or Oxford)? Should we put a limit on the amount of applications a student can apply to (wasn't it like that in the past?)?
I am just so baffled by whats going on.
Whats the best way to structure the college admission process?</p>
<p>Top notch education should be free if you qualify for admissions.</p>
<p>Further, I think more colleges need interviews, and more essays. College-specific essays, not necessarily limited to one. Then you might have more people choosing worthwhile applications, rather than the “applying to all HYPSM and rest of Ivies, plus 6 more top 25 schools, 7 matches, and 2 safties” that seems to crop up on this website. That example isn’t an exaggeration, I saw something very similar to it (might have number of matches different) a while ago.</p>
<p>Naturally, large public universities don’t need interviews (it would be a nightmare), and they seem to be doing better than the private schools go as far as students stressing out over admissions.</p>
<p>There are “state schools,” I think it might be interesting to have some federal schools (besides the military academies), where “in state” refers to the definition of “state” as a country. Then people could get affordable public education without having to stay in their state. Naturally, the nature of these schools would probably make them receive tons of applications and they might become as competitive as top privates, so who knows if it’s a good idea.</p>
<p>It’s fine how it is. Acceptance rates aren’t going to drop much anymore for most schools because graduating class sizes across the country are at their largest right now. They are going to get smaller for at least the next 15 years or so now that the baby boomers’ kids are mostly in college.
If you can’t cut it in the current system, sucks I guess but there are a lot of good schools out there to choose from. I think the system is pretty fair.
There are also a lot of good schools in Canada and the UK that carry a lot of academic prestige but aren’t as competitive admissions wise. Look at UBC, Mcgill, and Toronto in Canada or University of St. Andrews or University of Edinburgh in Scotland. There are a lot of other options out there if you don’t want to deal with the American system.</p>
<p>I wish state schools would just publish what stats would be good enough to get in automatically and get rid of the stupid games.</p>
<p>We need to get rid of these euphemisms and for profit colleges. The ambiguity in the quality of a college is very misleading. Also colleges should qualify for federal subsidy if they fit in certain standards. Athletic recruits have no place, and either should be banned or explicated as “low quality colleges”, nothing wrong with sports, but it should not be a recruiting factor for Harvard, which I find rather disturbing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, the Sorbonne isn’t all that great. It’s not a single school, but a consortium of several universities in the Paris/Ile-de-France area under an umbrella term, and some are better than others (i.e. Paris II Pantheon-Assas is great for law). All public universities in France are open enrollment for anyone with a high school diploma; the grande ecoles are essentially their version of the Ivy League (and the only schools with a selection process, really). French universities have problems with over-enrollment and under-resourced classrooms, in addition to an incredibly high dropout rate that the government can’t combat. The government essentially dictates what can and cannot be taught at these schools (since it funds all French public universities); the grande ecoles are the only ones with any leeway, since they’re privately funded.</p>
<p>I sincerely hope our higher education system doesn’t come to this.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Interesting idea, but why?</p>
<p>^^^ Why should sports not be a factor in admissions? I’m not saying it should be the only factor (unless you are like crazy good and you are just going to college before the NFL or something but they aren’t going to Harvard or any schools like that) but if you have two similar candidates and one (the nonathlete) has slightly higher grades but the other did all of the same things as the nonathlete while practicing four hours a day for the past few years and being runner-up at state for whatever sport they do I see no reason why the athlete shouldn’t get in.</p>
<p>^its one thing to be an athlete, but athletic scholarships and athletic quotas? This notion that there are student athletes is ********</p>
<p>Agreed with ‘more essays’. It’s one of the more relevant parts of the application to skills needed in college (good writing skills, introspection, and the ability to convey depth) and hopefully trims down the number of people who apply to more than ten schools. I’m definitely not the first one to say this even on this thread, but part of the reason admissions rates are going down is because the number of colleges top students are applying to are increasing.
Obvious but important to note is that there are two admissions games: the general one where most students apply, cross their fingers, and get it over with, and the CC-ish one where people get all cutthroat for top schools. Anyways, if you’re part of the latter crowd you already pretty much have it set compared to most people.
I also agree with getting rid of colleges which have less credibility than community colleges (i.e., online for-profits)…they just waste time and money for those involved.
On my opinion regarding athletes…colleges are trying to build a class, specifically one that’s not only diverse but full of likely-to-succeed students, who will in turn serve as famous/donating/otherwise beneficial alumni. Academic success is only one part of this.</p>
<p>^^ Student athletes bring millions and millions of dollars to the school at a very small cost. In my opinion they should be paid but at the very least they deserve scholarships.</p>
<p>@almost there, athletes do bring in millions of dollars at state schools (and Stanford plus some other privates I don’t know about) but at Harvard or Yale? </p>
<p>They don’t do anything besides give a reason for alumni and currents students the occasional reason to cheer. </p>
<p>In my opinion, the Ivies should move down to DIII and put less of an emphasis on sports as a route to admissions. I like athletes but I don’t like athletic recruitment at the Ivies.</p>
<p>Most Ivy League sports are DIII. </p>
<p>They don’t offer actual athletic scholarships…
it’s just a strong hook.</p>
<p>Well honestly I think it is perfectly fine with the way it is. But I say lower down there needs to be a MAJOR reform! There needs to be more focus on basic education. Which means for funding to the schools, higher pay for teachers, ect.</p>
<p>If the government didn’t offer money (fasfa) then college prices would decrease A LOT. This is one problem. Back in the 1800’s, college cost in the DOUBLE DIGITS. Inflation didn’t rise THAT much.</p>
<p>Also, I don’t know how it works in europe, but it is relatively free (I think) if you are a citizen. At least that how it worked for my father. He went to med school for free in Italy; so instead of paying debt for half of your life to big money-hungry banks, you are free financially, in a way.</p>
<p>Also, when people say"America has the best schools", I think they are most likely talking about the Ivy’s. There are a lot of international schools that rank just as well as those schools; you could even say that our Ivy’s are just names and are over-hyped (at least for undergrad education). There is NO reason to spend 50k a year for undergrad education.</p>
<p>Just to name a few internationally recognized universities that match/exceed Ivy’s more or less:</p>
<p>Oxford, University of Cambridge, University College London, Mcgill University, University of Tokyo, University of Hongkong, Kyoto University, and a lot more. </p>
<p>[World’s</a> Best Universities: Top 400 - US News and World Report](<a href=“http://www.usnews.com/education/worlds-best-universities/articles/2010/09/21/worlds-best-universities-top-400-]World’s”>http://www.usnews.com/education/worlds-best-universities/articles/2010/09/21/worlds-best-universities-top-400-)</p>
<p>And I know everyone listens to US news like sheep because they are right about everything always, so from their unlimited logic and knowledge, half of the top 10 colleges are international with the first couple international also (I agree with this).</p>
<p>You have to look at the bigger picture, and not just “yeah we should add more pointless essay’s”, or “more pointless sport requirements”.
Questions like “what do you do on a typical afternoon” is ridiculous “cough, YALE, cough”. We are 17, what do you expect us to do every afternoon, cure cancer?</p>
<p>yay for America, the biggest pyramid scheme ever.</p>
<p>I think that schools like HYP that have absurd endowments should eliminate tuition. I think that the emphasis on things like sports are fine if and only if the same is applied to top-notch musicians, dancers, visual artists and actors.</p>
<p>I also think that the academic interview that Oxbridge does is an AMAZING idea but unfortunately it would not be possible in the US system.</p>
<p>^^Yes, such a useful survey…Purdue is ranked higher than Dartmouth!</p>
<p>TheYankInLondon is right about interviews. With the high proportion of people saying ‘like’/‘you know’ every millisecond, Harvard’s entering class would be as big as that of Deep Springs.</p>
<p>Holy ****, I absolutely hate it when people say “like/you know” in EVERY SINGLE SENTENCE. At my school, there are plenty of kids who do this, and they have good grades and apply to ivy leagues. Most will probably not get an interview, which is lucky for them. Deep down, they are mindless idiots who are good at working hard and nothing more. There’s a big hole in our educational system!</p>
<p>Someone should make a thread about how STUPID “like/you” sounds in between every other word.
Only Americans…</p>
<p>Settle the **** down and take a chill pill you complaining little booger. </p>
<p>^ Just because, they’re not born with intelligence doesn’t mean that they’re idiots. Work ethic > Natural apt.</p>
<p><em>Out of thread before someone goes apesh/t .</em></p>
<p>Haha the academic interview is more than that… Because you apply in your course (read as major) for admission you have to essentially have an interview with a professor in that subject in which they GRILL YOU. Honestly if there was a test to see if you belong at a top notch school it would be having a Field’s Medalist rip you apart with a barrage of interesting questions, challenging your mind far beyond what it is used to and seeing how you grasp the new ideas and work under pressure. Inside it was hell but afterwords, it was probably the best experience ever…</p>
<p>^ Wrong. Work beats talent until talent works…</p>