<p>
</p>
<p>Gee, you really think that could be?</p>
<p>OP, I have a news flash for you: These schools love the “game.” More kids throwing themselves at a school = lower admit rate = higher ranking. It’s been that way for quite a while.</p>
<p>The admit rate counts for 1.5%, so it’s hardly the magic bullet of climbing rankings.</p>
<p>“Interesting, because on CC at least, Bowdoin, BMawr, Colby, Mt Holyoke, Smith, Trinity, Tufts, Vassar, Wellesley and Wesleyan aren’t quite seen as “Ivy substitutes.” Maybe the colleges know more about their competitive sets than the CC crowd does.”</p>
<p>That is a for sure. I get the giggles every time I read a post which lists these schools as safeties for their kids.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In the annual dogfight for the top spot, among closely-matched schools, every little bit helps.</p>
<p>I think the number of kids who apply to more than 10 schools (or even more than 5) is quite small. I think the number who apply to all the Ivies, or who apply to eight or more super-selective schools is even smaller. I think the number of students who get accepted to more than one or two super-selective schools is even smaller than that. In other words, this is one of those trend stories that doesn’t really describe a significant trend to anybody in the real world.</p>
<p>I do think that the USNWR are used as WELL as the shorthand of acceptance rate alone.
Prestige comes from getting in somewhere heard to get into- it is human nature. I also think that some look at the score ranges to determine quickly how prestigious a college is… (Obviously, these are all invalid in and of themselves as sole systems, and prestige should not be the determining factor in selection, either.)</p>
<p>The CA is a huge factor in the jump in apps-it is so easy to apply to multiple schools now, even with the additional essays, which can often be re-worked for several schools.</p>
<p>Then, the bubble or rat race or vicious cycle begins: once something is perceived as a lottery where, because there are SO MANY apps, luck becomes a significant factor once a candidate is viewed as able to do the work, the frail human mind thinks that applying to ever more schools will increase the odds of acceptance. This is only slightly valid.
But the number of apps per student does tend to go up in a situation like this.
And, yes, the colleges do not really mind LOL…
But at this time of year, the admissions officers and readers may regret all this as they dig through the deeper and deeper pile of applications… which they admit are not “necessary” for them to build a great class, as even the Ivies admit that they could build multiple, equally good and interesting classes each year.</p>
<p>As to whether the college AdComms talk to each other about a candidate, I suppose there could be some indirect/coded communicating via GC’s…what his/her favorite college is/how likely to attend if accepted, what sort of feedback GC is getting from the other Ivy about him/her, and which kids the GC is emphasizing to that college… Who knows?
The GCs’ interest is in maximizing the number of yeses to the best and favorite schools of that HS’s senior class, thus cooperating and being open with the ADComms is in their best interest, IMO. The GC’s also love to get feedback about candidates (“we have so many viola players this year”), and depending what they hear, they may tailor their comments.</p>
<p>I do not see this as a cabal or conspiracy or making deals, per se. None of it would eliminate uncertainty for ANY of the parties. And it may not happen at all, or very rarely. I have no knowledge of anything like this, just speculating.
But some degree of “hinting” or “guidance” around in the GC contacts would make it unnecessary for the colleges AdComms to communicate directly with each other about candidates…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Could they share applicant lists and/or discuss admissions with each other without violating the Justice Department’s consent decree? It seems like that order was related to financial aid packages, not admissions. I have no idea. The yields at the most selective colleges just seem extremely high.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It would appear that at least the opinion about “more than 10” is correct:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[College</a> Applications - How Many Schools Should I Apply To?](<a href=“College Board - SAT, AP, College Search and Admission Tools”>How to Finalize Your College List – BigFuture | College Board)</p>
<p>re post 48
NO, NO, NO. they are forbidden from discussing students at all! The yields are extremely hi because of the 'wow" factor - WOW, you got into …? And many of those WOW Universities now make it very affordable to attend. So If an applicant is lucky enough to be accepted, there are multiple reasons- educationally, financially and status wise- to attend.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Every bit might help, but the increase in applications and lower admission rates must pay the lowest dividends. Schools that admit close or above 50 percent of applicants have not seemed to suffer too much. On the other hand, losing one decimal in the Peer Assessment can cost dearly. Accordingly, schools are much better off courting their “peers” and the people “in the know” than trying to attract a few hundred more applicants. </p>
<p>The same story with alumni donations … getting more alumni to send smaller donations really works well in a category that counts for 5 percent. Want even more cynical? Reporting lower SAT scores results in lower expected graduation rates and a small bonus. Don’t believe it? Check the history of Harvey Mudd versus Middlebury and the non-coed schools. All in all, being among the most selective schools in terms of admission rates does not work all that well. </p>
<p>And if all fails, there is always the outright manipulation of data and whimsical peer assessments that are discovered easily … when checked. The real problem is that there is no verification made by USNews.</p>
<p>One of my kids applied to two Ivies, plus Chicago, Pitt, NYU, and two LACs. The other applied to three Ivies, Stanford, Chicago, and Michigan. For the record, their parents would have liked to see them apply to a few more Ivies, but they refused because they preferred their safeties to those colleges. Among my kids’ friends of whose applications I was aware (n>50), no one actually applied to all of the Ivies, and three applied to 7 out of 8 (sorry, Dartmouth) plus Stanford and (in two cases only) MIT. Of their friends who were accepted at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, or Stanford only one had applied to all four of those colleges, and about half applied only to one or two of them.</p>
<p>I think the application pool for the most selective research universities comprises 50,000 kids or more. And that doesn’t count the statistically-identical kids who decide to stick with their home state flagship, or pursue merit scholarships elsewhere, or want to go to a LAC. For example, six students graduating in the top 10 of my son’s high school class went to Harvard, Yale, MIT, Brown, or Penn (2). However, three of the other students in the top 10, including ##1 and 2, applied to none of those colleges, and to no other Ivy. Two of them applied to one public university apiece, and the third applied only to LACs, most of them single-sex. </p>
<p>For the group of top-10 students, all with realistic prospects of acceptance at a top college, the average per-person number of applications to any Ivy, Stanford, or MIT was 2, and no college got more than 5 applications from the group.</p>
<p>^^</p>
<p>JHS, when it comes to the most selective schools, you have to factor the impact of the restricted early admissions. At some schools, fifty percent of the enrolled students did NOT have to send in another application. </p>
<p>Anecdotal evidence can be misleading. For instance, in one example I know, the valedictorian of one school sent in exactly two applications but the next two students sent in close to thirty between them. The number 4 to 8 only sent it ONE (well each,) namely the automatic admission to their state flagship. Those eight students could have made their decision at Christmas. The serial applicants enrolled at their EA school. </p>
<p>Fwiw, I believe that the number of serial applicants and trophy hunters is much smaller than commonly represented. I also believe that a lower pool of serial applicants is highly dependent on a very strong state public university system. Students in Michigan, Texas, California, Wisconsin, and a few others might have fewer incentives to agonize over a dozen applications.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thank you menloparkmom. The way it is discussed around here I kinda figured that must be the case, but I wasn’t sure.</p>
<p>I understand the wow factor, I just don’t see how one highly selective school can be so skilled at avoiding accepting students who are being accepted at one of the other highly selective schools. They are all looking for top students, yet they manage to each admit a largely independent subset of those top students. I guess the answer has been eluded to earlier in this thread. Many students do not apply to more than one or two (very) highly selective schools, for various reasons.</p>
<p>Two factors improve the yield:
Early notification applications with restrictions, including programs like Questbridge and athletic recruiting, early scholarship apps
Not as much cross-applying as suspected</p>
<p>Anna’s Dad,</p>
<p>“10 to 15 percent of students apply to more than eight colleges”</p>
<p>That statistic includes the many kids applying to two or three local schools, which is still the norm in much of America. The post that started this is talking about the 50K or so kids going for the top schools. Among them, I bet the percentage applying to more than eight schools is much higher. </p>
<p>From the Naviance system at my son’s NOVA H.S., I know the average applications per student there is seven, with the top students applying to as many as 15-20 (full disclosure–my son applied to nine, which was still too many as there are already two he no longer has an interest in attending and from which we are encouraging him to withdraw his applications). Also, just look at a sample of the chance me and help with college selection posts on this site, and you will see multiple kids asking what additional colleges they should apply to after already having applied to 15 or more. </p>
<p>Some limit on applications (say 10) would give students the opportunity to shop for scholarships and have plenty of safety, match and reach applications, while at the same time giving colleges some comfort that an application most likely signaled real interest in the school. Hopefully, this would limit the ED deferral game that appeared to have been played by many Ivies and other selective schools this year (additional disclosure–my son did not apply ED to any schools, but has applied EA to UVA, which is non binding) and allow earlier yea or nay decisions to most applicants who are now being deferred via ED or RD.</p>
<p>Some high schools limit apps in various ways.</p>
<p>My niece went to a competitive admission magnet public HS in NYC- they were allowed to send only 8 apps to private colleges, and a mx of two to public unis, if I recall correctly.</p>
<p>I read and hear rumors that one top BS limits number of Ivy apps and total apps, and requires those accepted to early school (s) to drop all RD apps.</p>
<p>xiggi, exactly. You and I are saying the same thing – there are some serial applicants out there, but it’s not a universal practice at all. And lots of kids in the most elite bracket submit one application apiece. The overlap in applicant pools among the Ivies is a lot less than is commonly assumed. </p>
<p>You would think that everyone who applied to Yale would also apply to Harvard, and vice versa – the two colleges are really more similar to one another than they are to any other college – but the non-systematic anecdotal evidence I have is that a lot less than half of the students applying to either apply to the other. And it’s not just the effect of EA – they accept so few students EA, that it hardly matters whether those students apply elsewhere or not (some do, some don’t).</p>
<p>Also, there is no chance, none, zero, that the colleges share information on applicants and decisions. If for no other reason than no one has the time. Back in the bad old days, they had created a single centralized office for evaluating need. Even then, the admissions people didn’t actually take the time to discuss individual applicants with their counterparts elsewhere, and I believe that they had no way of finding out where else a candidate had applied unless he had somehow told them.</p>
<p>[Princeton</a> accused of Ivy League hacking - CNN](<a href=“http://articles.cnn.com/2002-07-25/us/yale.princeton_1_princeton-officials-yale-web-yale-students?_s=PM:US]Princeton”>http://articles.cnn.com/2002-07-25/us/yale.princeton_1_princeton-officials-yale-web-yale-students?_s=PM:US)</p>
<p>[Princeton</a> vs. Yale: Blame the victim. - Slate Magazine](<a href=“http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/chatterbox/2002/08/hack_me.html]Princeton”>Princeton vs. Yale: Blame the victim.)</p>
<p>I would also note that the top schools have high enough yields that not too many kids are getting admitted to more than one of them.</p>