I disagree with the authorâs concluding remark that ED admissions should be eliminated (in order to reduce applicant anxiety).
Yield is important to highly selective schools especially in this area of the common application.
As to what admissions officers are to glean from multiple essays, it is applicant interest & getting to know the applicant on a more holistic basis.
P.S. One inconsistency that I sense is that the ED process can reduce student anxiety for applicants by receiving an early decision, thereby permitting an applicant to focus on other schools or on other matters if accepted ED.
I have mixed feelings about ED. It definitely alleviated a lot of anxiety in our house; my daughter would be a complete mess right now if she still didnât know where she was going to college. Sheâd also be a mess trying to decide where to go if she only had a few weeks and multiple acceptances. Our whole house would be miserable. Choosing a clear favorite last summer when it was all still kind of theoretical and knowing she was all set on December 8 was awesome. But my D had the stats to get into the school she EDâd to - itâs a selective school but was in theory a match for her. She wasnât doing what Selingo criticizes by EDâing to a school that was a high reach for her hoping ED would give her the otherwise unlikely tip. I mean her ED could have gone either way and Iâm grateful it went the way we wanted, but she was a good match for the school and might have gotten in RD had she waited. The other thing - and this is of course the bigger thing - is she had the stats and desire for a school that met need (and is need blind). We werenât necessarily looking for merit - our EFC is a huge chunk of our annual income but seemed about right. I have no doubt that she ciuid have gotten a better âdealâ than she got had she applied widely and compared offers, but unlike many on CC we arenât particularly looking for ROI or the best deal. We were looking for a school we could afford and where my child will get a good education, her horizons expanded and (hopefully) be happy. The NPC showed we could afford it (we have significant need) albeit barely, she was positive she wanted to go there and I said fine on ED. Note there were schools that I would not allow her to ED to that were not affordable on the NPC - I did have a hard cut-off number - but fortunately those schools didnât rise to the top. Had we gotten to RD she could have applied wherever and seen what happened with aid but we were all thankful we didnât get there! I think those most disadvantaged by ED are those without the knowledge to know that it can be very advantageous or who donât understand about need-based aid. So much is stacked against kids without knowledgeable parents or good guidance counselors and this is one more thing. I wish there was better assistance for these kids. For those who are chasing merit, on the other hand, and want to be able to compare offers, they are usually applying a couple levels below where they would apply otherwise anyway, so the ED advantage doesnât particularly apply anyway.
I was just talking with some friends about this article. We donât find Selingo very insightful. Lol. His analysis just isnât very nuanced.
Everyone wants to reduce the uncertainty in this process to make it less stressful. Schools donât want to over- or under-enroll their class, students need to get into a school, but they want to get into the best one they can. The schools are combating this by grabbing as many committed kids as possible thru ED, and the kids are countering by flinging fistfuls of apps at the top schools.
The two problems are linked, and the best way out is to attack the uncertainty directly. That means embracing the ED apps and reducing the number of Common Apps allowed.
Simply put, ED is a single chance to indicate a top choice. Let the schools indicate they want to fill their classes this way, itâll reduce kids spamming them with RD apps. It will encourage the ones that really want to go there to spend their one ED app where it makes more difference. Thereâs some gamesmanship here for the students, in that you have to balance your desires with your realistic chances and you only get one bullet in this game, but you still get the rest of your apps so it isnât fatal to be wrong. And if you canât get in ED thereâs a substantial chance youâre not making it in RD either, so you may as well find out early.
By Christmas a lot of kids will be in or out on their top choice, a lot of seats will be filled, and if a change is made to encourage those who accept to withdraw their other apps, a lot of unnecessary traffic can be withdrawn from the system.
The second source of uncertainty is due to applicants awaiting just a couple more acceptances before choosing one. Even when they have a pile of Yeses in hand they usually have another pile outstanding. If the Common App limited them to ten or even eight schools it would remove a lot of the over-reaches and dreamshots that clog the top schools. There are a lot of highly qualified students out there, and there are a lot of fine schools, but too many kids are settling for name brands rather than learning about schools and choosing ones that are appropriate to them. Force some of those decisions in March rather than making the schools guess who has given this some thought. The schools can know they arenât your 16th favorite, and the student isnât distracted by some lottery ticket hope that just wonât come through. (If you want to get serious about it, classify the schools and limit a student to a certain number of apps in the selective group based on stats. Sorry, your numbers say you only get four chances in the big water, so choose wisely.)
Fewer apps out there mean kids are more likely to take an acceptance, and schools need not waitlist as many apps to mitigate the potential wildness in the yield. But the author was right about schools needing to be clearer about what they want and who has a chance. I guess a lot has to start there, but Iâm not confident they are ready to take the risk.
Jeff Selingo is very respected and insightful, with a great deal of knowledge about college admissions. However, I donât think the colleges are causing all of the problems.
IMO, the easiest remedy is for high school guidance counselors to limit how many apps a student can submit. The NEA, the NASSP or other groups could work out guidelines. There could be exceptions for students seeking the best financial aid, etcâŠ
Colleges could also put a cap on how many applications they will accept, given that they know how many high school students are out there. (Yes, I understand some others wonât agree with this.) So the kids who are motivated to submit a good application in a timely manner can do so, and the kid who is throwing his hat in the ring at the last minute, who probably has no chance anyway, might have the app rejected due to the cap. This could mean the diamond in the rough might miss out, but the diamond in the rough might miss out anyway, whatever constraint there is, application deadline or otherwise.
Or, better still, parents could stop their kids from applying to so many colleges by limiting the money they are prepared to spend on apps 
AFAIK thereâs no evidence that average apps per applicant have significantly increased (at least based on common app platform). Not sure we ever get a complete look at all apps across all platforms for all applicants.
Limiting apps on the common app platform doesnât seem necessary, and could hurt those hunting for merit who often need to send out more apps than average. Lots of families hunting merit, because so many canât afford their EFC.
If common app limited apps, students could use another platform (e.g., coalition which is changing next year with a new partnership with SCOIR), and/or just apply via a schoolâs own app.
One factor thatâs responsible for increasing number of apps is some HSs mandating each and every student apply to at least one 4 year school. This practice seems on the rise and is misguided, especially for students who have no intention of attending college, or no way to afford it.
Now those are good changes. Selingoâs suggestions wonât happen. Schools wonât do away with ED. They arenât going to accept pieces of apps at a time. You should write an article for The Atlantic. 
I also think it would help to have some consistency among schools regarding when apps are due and decisions come out.
Students must apply to the UC schools and U of Wash in November, but donât hear anything until March. That creates an incentive to hedge bets with a bunch of EA apps to schools that accept them and/or another round of RD apps submitted in January.
Maybe it would be easier if students could apply to, say, a max of 5 schools in October EA, and then be prohibited from applying to schools RD if accepted to two or more. RD apps would be reserved for students who skipped the EA round or got into 0-1 schools and could be capped at, say, 10 apps.
I think it would alleviate stress if all apps for all schools were due on the same dates and final decisions also came out by the same date (but could be rolling until then).
Just spit-balling â there are probably problems with that approach I donât see.
Ok youâre right!
@Lindagaf , we canât limit apps for all students. Some students really do need to apply widely for their merit search.
See? Itâs complicated. Iâm sure colleges donât like the way this is going either. Admissions offices have got to be overwhelmed.
I do think that high school counselors should be completely honest with their students, as should private counselors. So many will guide their students to a list of schools that is reasonable but then donât flat out say that the list is final. I know so many kids who had a list, starting sending apps, and then panicked and added half a dozen more schools in Dec. Or they blanket apply to all Ivies even when their advisors tell them that this is not wise and will not result in more acceptances. Many times itâs the parents who need to be reigned in.
LOL, not trying to be ârightâ, just trying to consider all the various (and sometime competing) perspectives and goals.
I agree GCs should be a source for support/list building, etc., but way too many kids donât have access to adequate college counselingâŠdefinitely part of the problem. And couldnât agree more about needing to rein in parents!!
I think submitting information piecemeal would be a logistical nightmare for schools - and it wouldnât be great for students either, as the more dates/deadlines you have to keep track of, the more difficult it is to stay on top of things. I wouldnât mind seeing the common app capped at 10, though. Students could always use the coalition app or schoolsâ specific apps if they want to apply to more schools than that.
Data from 3/15/22 common app update. First year applicants significantly up over last several years, generally we want this, right? (with the exception of the HSs requiring all students to apply to a 4 year college, even if they have no intention of attending one). Average app per student has increased at a rate much less than number of applicants.
Hey, I might do that! Wonder if The Atlantic is reading� 
I agree too, thatâs why I said there could be exceptions for students who need to apply widely for financial reasons. But itâs most likely that the majority of kids submitting 20+ apps are not doing so for financial reasons.
There have been some interesting suggestions in the article and on this thread.
One possible change is that Common/Coalition apps could limit the number of apps submitted a month. So, if they limited it to 3 applications/month then it would force students to prioritize which applications they want to go out first and if they get an early offer that they like, they may end the whole process. Universities will also have the admissions workstream spread out over more months rather than an avalanche of applications all coming in at the same time. And students who need to apply to more schools for merit would have that opportunity if they start early.
It would also be very nice if colleges agreed to some common deadlines/practices. Either all applications get a decision within 60-90 days (ideally less) or perhaps a 2-semester application process happens. Maybe thereâs a 10/1 EA deadline and all schools are required to accept/deny/waitlist an applicant (no deferrals) by 12/1, and students who are accepted have until 1/15 to make their decision. Then the RD round might have a deadline of January 15, schools make their decision by 3/31 and then students have until 2/1 to make their decision. The benefit to the universities of the early round is that they know how their class is coming together and what things they still need by the middle of January. Applicants will have decisions made and closure (not deferrals) by the middle of the school year. And anyone who wasnât happy with the first semester options can then apply to a new set of schools for the second semester.
And yes, I realize that all of the options canât necessarily happen together.
Yet the higher education in the US is regarded by many as the best in the world.
While fine tuning the application system is an interesting topic, it is not necessary.
Considering that probably 95+% of families would need financial aid and/or scholarships to afford an expensive private college, that type of exception would encompass potentially most students applying to private colleges.
But would such students who would not otherwise apply to a four year college just drop an application to the local commuter university, rather than adding to the number of applications to the âtop __â universities and LACs?
I doubt many of those would go to top universities, but I never said they did. This practice by some HSs partially explains the growth in first year applications per the common app data above.
Potentially. Except we all understand that MOST students submitting applications to every college in USNWR Top 30 are probably not looking for financial aid.
Selingo mentions top colleges in his article. Admissions to non top colleges arenât broken, are they? Most colleges admit most students, if what Iâve read is correct.
He says: âThe overwhelming majority of colleges admit most students who apply. Seventy-five percent of schools that use the Common App accept more than half of their applicants.â
How is that broken? Should Selingo have clarified that admissions to the most selective colleges is broken?