<p>I know that these days, the top colleges have to turn down many applicants that are well qualified, just because there are a restrictive number of seats in the freshman class. The top percentage of students in America are probably all applying to the top schools--and the top schools will probably all choose to admit the top percent of this pool, leaving the cream of the crop with a number of options, and those just below them without as many. Or so, I presume for this theory...</p>
<p>What do you think of the top schools coming together for admissions, ensuring that the top applicant pool all receive a spot in at least one of the top schools. Because each student, ultimately, can only choose one seat--it would ensure a higher yield rate, if each student was given a more restrictive number of options. Of course, students would have to apply to groups of schools, they would not have as many financial aid packages to consider, and it might be less exciting only getting accepted to one school, rather than to all of those you applied.</p>
<p>But still, what do you think? Could this, in any form, work?</p>
<p>Well people don't want to go to any top school. Most people have a specific top school they've got their heart set on. It would seem difficult to match each student with the school of their choice... And how would you define top student?</p>
<p>equality??? i mean the idea sounds good on paper, but colleges wouldn't go for this, they are each their own independent institution. i mean in most cases those top students deserve to have that many options, and you have to consider the fact that people are applying to a certain school due to there majors. in essence it would dillute the top university's. </p>
<p>i agree want2bIvy, its a tough world out there, im prolly in the position where i would not be in the top cream of the crop. it tears me up and other students on this site, but thats just how college education was designed.</p>
<p>It already happens. Colleges over enroll to make sure they get a good yield. So the "extra seats" your plan might create are really already accounted for. Consider my fictitious world with three colleges</p>
<p>College X has a freshman class of 6,000. It is the most popular college and 100% of admitted students enroll.</p>
<p>College Y has a freshman class of 4,000. It is the 2nd most popular college and 50% of admitted students enroll.</p>
<p>College Z has a freshman class of 10,000. It is the 3rd most popular college and 25% of admitted students enroll.</p>
<p>College X admits 1<em>6,000= 6,000 students
College Y admits 2</em>4,000= 8,000 students
College Z admits 4*10,000= 40,000 students</p>
<p>In this highly simplified (due to my crippling lack of math skills, I can only think in quarters...) 34,000 extra seats were created due to some people not enrolling in either college X, Y and Z.</p>
<p>A good real life example is a school like Tufts who admits about three times as many candidates than they have slots in their freshman class because some students will invariably be accepted at HYPSM ect.</p>
<p>PS- A better idea would be to just limit the # of schools one student can apply to a la UCAS Brit. style.</p>
<p>I guess there's always been some sort of myth about this for the Ivies. I've always doubted its truth, (at least in current times), but you never know.</p>
<p>
[quote]
A better idea would be to just limit the # of schools one student can apply to a la UCAS Brit. style.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree. This would force kids to find the schools they are actually interested in. Obviously this would require that schools be a bit more flexible with financial aid, but still, it would cut down on so many unnecessary applications.</p>
<p>Well, if there was room for all the top candidates in all the top colleges all the top candidates would already be getting into a top college, and you hear stories about this all the time. "Second tier" colleges are turning away candidates who 10 years ago would have gotten in at the Ivies.</p>
<p>Once upon a time, the schools in the Ivy League used to compare their financial aid packages; schools that had given smaller scholarships than their peers ostensibly raised their scholarship offers so that students with multiple acceptances from the Ivy League could chose which school to attend without financial pressure. The Justice Department threatened to bring an anti-trust actiion, and the schools discontinued the practice.</p>
<p>All valid points...I guess it does sound a tad communist lol.
I think that limiting the number of schools is a better idea, but then some students may apply to only high reach schools, and be left dissapointed (and with no where to go)...</p>
<p>I think limiting the amount of schools one can apply to is both fascist and stupid.</p>
<p>Some people have special circumstances that make it neccesary/good for them to apply to a multitude of schools, and besides, whats bad with having choices? This isn't a communist society where we only have one or two choices, this is a free society where people choose what they want. </p>
<p>If Collegeboard, a completely liberal and free institution as of now, began limiting the number of colleges one could apply to, then that is the beginning of academic tyranny. Currently collegeboard allows its customers (because in truth, students are simply customers and consumers of academic materials) to do freely what they want - take the SATs when and where you want, how many times, as many APs, SAT IIs (up to a limit of course - 3 per day, otherwise it gets crazy), and such. </p>
<p>I support the freedom for people to apply to as many colleges as they want - its their choice.</p>
<p>Only few students get admitted to more than one out of HYP, for example, so having those three universities meet and discuss how to divide up applicants is not going to change a lot.</p>
<p>Other than that... why should Harvard care what students Yale or Cornell get as long as Harvard ultimately enrolls the students it wants?</p>
<p>Those of you with doctors in the family may be familiar with the "match." This is when med school graduates apply to residency programs--they list their preferences, but they only get into one. It is probably more stress-inducing than the college application system.</p>
<p>Main reason why this would not happen - fear of what the Department of Justice would think about colleges colluding among themselves to divide up students.</p>
<p>Interesting to see these various perspectives...thanks all for your responses! I guess the "theory" won't be put into effect anytime soon...American freedom pervades even college admissions, which, I suppose is comforting...</p>
<p>I like the idea. College apps unfortunately are sometimes a lesson of lying for some students, who learn to tell 5 different colleges that they are their "first choice" schools. It would be better if students could list their prefernces openly. After all, it is true that top Ivies recieve 5 times more apps from fully qualifying candiates than they can accept. But many fully qualifying candidates apply to 5 top Ivies. There are only so many kids with 2300+ SAT, three 750+ SAT IIs, 3.9+ GPA and great ECs.
Could it work? Don't know, but the idea vaguely reminds "matching" process for Med. graduates (as far as I know). I heard that graduates usually get one of their top choices.</p>