<p>Front page on M-Daily. Looks like it'll be in effect for the 2010 cycle.</p>
<p>'U'</a>; may switch to Common Application | The Michigan Daily</p>
<p>Smart move for them. They already get about 30,000 apps per year, about the same as Harvard, but the common app will likely bump that number higher.</p>
<p>I wonder if it really is better to get more applications, particularly for a school like Michigan.</p>
<p>Having done the college app thing w/ 4 kids, they’d often fire off an application to a school they had moderate interest in (or to please one of their parents) if the school was a common app school without a difficult supplement (ie, a supplement that didn’t require an essay or had a very common essay topic that lent itself to all ready prepared recyled essay.)</p>
<p>Schools that had their own applications only made the list if there was genuine interest. </p>
<p>I read somewhere that Williams College apps went down 20% last year after adding an essay requirement to their common app supplement. Some rivals have crowed about that, but to me it makes sense to try to test an applicants interest and not just get the admissions department flooded with applications.</p>
<p>I’d think Michigan, which is already an extremely popular and very well known school would be particularly prone to this.</p>
<p>Great move. The UMich folks running the show know how to expand their attractiveness and market.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sure, besides the pure numbers, UMich could get a lot of extra looks come April when some kids find out that they only have their private safeties as options, and those safeties were way down on their list.</p>
<p>I’m happy for U Michigan that they’re doing this as maybe it will improve their selectivity.<br>
But I’d actually side with ncram about the advisability of all colleges offering this path of application. Frankly, I’d love to see all colleges make it a little tougher to apply. For example, I think every school should require a “Why ABC University?” essay. First, it would separate out a look of folks who just muck up the process with their 10-20 college applications, including many to schools that they don’t really care that much about. </p>
<p>Second, I think it really helps the applicant to have to put in writing why he or she wants to attend a college. This is a big decision, often with lifelong ramifications and certainly significant financial ramifications. I wish more thought went into the college search and personal discovery process as I think we all (colleges, students, families) would be better served by this. The Common Application is nice and convenient, but the systemic consequences of this application is that it creates an awful lot of fog as well.</p>
<p>Hawkette:</p>
<p>In the ideal world, you might be correct. But most folks don’t have the money to visit. Thus, writing a “Why College X?” essay is based 99% on their website info, which, IMO, would be a big SNOOZE to the adcoms.</p>
<p>blue,
I don’t know. Maybe you’re right, but I wonder about this huge theme of making college applications so easy to complete. There is little doubt that this creates a systemic problem and even less doubt that kids end up applying to many more schools than is necessary. I can understand the waiving of fees and such actions as a way to get lower income applicants to make the effort, but the use of the Common App is doing a lot more than that. </p>
<p>This “universalism” is probably part of the culture today, but I think it could squelch the individualism that should be a defining aspect of the college admissions process. Take it too far with things like the Common App and you end up with a purely numbers-driven admissions process because no Adcomm will have the time to truly dig into an app full of essays, recs, ECs, etc. because they’ve got thousands more to get thru this week. Is that what we want and is anyone better served by that approach? I don’t think so.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How can you be so sure? I don’t think it’s all that clear. Does WF do a better job at building a class with its interviews than it used to? Does Tufts do a better job with its new “optional” essays vs. Dartmouth and some of the other Ivies which accept the Common App in full? Did Vandy’s process take a hit when they dropped the 'Why Vandy?" essay? (btw: one of Vandy’s reasons for dropping the essay was that they “tended to all sound alike” thus, adding little extra value to the decision.) Since 25% of H’s matriculants scores 790+, and 50% scores ~750+, how can you say that admissions is not “numbers-driven”?</p>
<p>But in Michigan’s case, as many other publics, it’s almost all about the numbers, and IMO that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Add in the ubiquitous short answer essay about overcoming adversity, and voila, done. But many kids attend Michigan State and love it, so options abound.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s why I have been a big fan of Early applications, (which many on cc disdain). For example, getting into one Safety early eliminates the two other Safety apps. Or, getting into Reach school early could eliminate both match and safety apps.</p>
<p>Good questions and, like I said, I don’t know for sure about any of this. But I wonder. </p>
<p>As for those colleges that you think might be numbers-driven because their matriculating class is so heavy with high scoring students, I think it would be very easy for many of these colleges to ratchet those test scores even higher if they went solely on that. As I see it, the highly selective privates could easily increase their SAT 25/75 ranges by 30, 50 or more points if they wanted to. Fortunately for them, they have a wonderful applicant pool. But I think these colleges have concluded that matriculating 50%, 60%, 70%+ of their students with these statistical academic backgrounds is not an automatic choice and would be unlikely to result in a very diverse (by experiences) incoming class. </p>
<p>For example, U Penn actually publishes admissions statistics for different levels of SAT achievement (I was really surprised and impressed the first time that I saw these). Sure, the highest scorers get in at the highest rate, but something like 75% of the highest scorers (750+) don’t get in, while many lower scorers do (not that low-still usually 700+). Obviously U Penn values the standardized test scores, but also considers them in concert with all of the other traditional datapoints and in consideration of the incoming class that they are trying to build. </p>
<p>We all know that part of the reason that many schools use the Common Application is drive applications up so that a patina of desirability/selectivity can be built or enhanced. That’s all well and good and you know that I’m a fan of higher selectivity, but I wonder if the benefits of making college apps so easy to complete always outweigh the negatives. If the result is a greater dependence on the numbers to determine acceptances, then I think this would be a disappointing outcome. </p>
<p>BTW, I’m with you on the Early options. I think the impact of Harvard and Princeton eliminating this was huge and I think that the U Virginia decision to follow along was insane. Hopefully, they will relent in the near future and find a middle ground to accomodate those students who are willing and able to decide earlier in the process.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Don’t count me in that pool…</p>
<p>I am also not that cynical.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>:confused:</p>
<p>Man, for a second y’all got my hopes up.</p>
<p>I thought they might be doing this like…now :)</p>
<p>No one knows what’s going to be on the Michigan supplement to the common app. Some supplements take 5 minutes to do, others require supplemental essays. So it is possible that Michigan’s common app will still require enough extra thought to deter the “oh why not, it’s not like I have to do something extra” crowd from applying.</p>
<p>Although if I ran admissions at a selective college, I’d like some way in the application process to figure out who’s really interested. I know WashU takes a lot of grief for this, but it has always made sense to me.</p>
<p>
Agreed. Michigan currently accepts 1 out of every 2 applicants, which makes it difficult for students unfamiliar with its academic strength to take it seriously as a competitor for more selective universities.</p>
<p>this is the right move because michigan’s not in a highly desirable state, michigan has never changed policies to just drive up the application numbers, if you get 10k more applicants who don’t get accepted, that makes no sense for the university because u spend a lot of money processing these applications that yield no benefit. There are thousands of colleges out there, sometimes you don’t apply to some schools for the silly reason that it’s too time consuming, and michigan’s location makes many applicants question whether they should apply or not. However, once they are admitted, they are able to visit and make better informed decisions. So in this way, Michigan’s getting a larger pool of applicants, where many outstanding candidates have time to decide whether michigan’s for them, and gives the school a chance to compete with some of the smaller privates.</p>