I realize it may not be possible to limit the number of applications a student submits, however, there are many knowledgeable people on this site and I would like to know what you think about this idea.
Many students are applying to 20+ universities. How are universities handling the ever-growing number of applications? (Waitlisting?) Universities could also start using strict SAT/ACT minimum scores to limit applications.
Considering how many qualified applicants are being waitlisted and rejected from multiple schools, I’d say there’s a reason for students to apply to 20+ universities. Like you said, it appears that the method for handling the increase is waitlisting. To handle the growing class sizes, some universities are changing dorms into triples. Also, not sure if using strict SAT/ACT minimum scores would complement a holistic review process, but you’re right this is an issue.
If you don’t have a hook, it makes sense to cast more wide of a net. It comes down to the supplemental essays, how many is manageable? My two roughly did 19 + UC + Gtown and MIT which don’t accept CA. It’s up to the individual how much they want to spend, how much time they want to put into it and how badly do they want choices. For our family, it was worth it, though visiting all the schools to “demonsrate interest” was challenging.
Some parents have told me that they look at applications like a lottery ticket. You may win admission + a generous scholarship so you might as well apply to 20+ schools to increase your chances.
From a high school’s point of view, it may be reasonable to say that each student gets one priority counselor recommendation and two priority teacher recommendations (note: the same recommendation sent to multiple colleges counts as one), with all others at lower priority than other students’ priority recommendations. That way, one student cannot hog the counselor’s or teachers’ time writing recommendations and cause other students’ recommendations to be delayed.
The problem is not the applicants. It’s the universities. While the amount of college applicants have reached record numbers, the universities have remained stagnant with the number of slots available. Doing this makes he university look more “selective” by only accepting the “best” students. In reality, the school is getting a payoff in research grants for doing literally nothing. Regional universities have been happy to take those rejects and expand their programs. This has turned previous no-name schools into major schools. Examples would be UT-Dallas, UT-Arlington, UTSA and, Texas State. UTSA doubled in size over 15 years, just with the UT rejects alone.
Yes, I think the number should be limited. I also think more schools should have single choice early action so kids can apply to schools and show big interest, without financial commitment.
I agree, limiting the amount the college applications would probably increase the acceptance rate too.
Families who need financial aid have to cast a wide net. Limiting the number of colleges students can apply to helps upper income families who can afford to take financial risks at the expense of lower income families who can’t dig up extra money if aid isn’t as good as they’d hoped.
Why would colleges use test scores as a cut off to limit apps? Isn’t the number of apps they get tied to their selectivity?
“The problem is not the applicants. It’s the universities.”
I agree with this. The universities are aggressively marketing to high school kids. “You deserve to apply to our school” is the sort of thing that we saw a lot of when my daughters were in high school. Schools are trying to game the ranking system. This, plus the failure to increase class sizes to match the increase in numbers of students, leads to lower acceptance rates and unpredictable admissions.
The kids are the victims. I don’t blame them for applying to multiple schools when the schools have made this necessary.
I wouldn’t call it a “failure” to increase class sizes, because colleges want a lower acceptance rate (so more like planned out intentionally). But I do agree, kids are the victims here.
“I wouldn’t call it a “failure” to increase class sizes, because colleges want a lower acceptance rate”
True.
When we visited BU several years ago, they said that they have recently reduced their number of accepted students. I walked away wondering “why?”. A month or two later I saw one ranking that had UMass Amherst ranked only a few spots below BU. Suddenly I got it: If UMass Amherst were to be ranked higher than BU, then why would any family from Massachusetts pay $65,000 per year (more now) to go to BU when they could attend UMass for less than 1/2 the price? They had to limit their acceptances in order to increase their apparent selectivity.
Of course, unpredictable admissions also encourages more students to apply (because they might get in), which also increases their apparent selectivity. It is sort of odd that if you accept some students with a 3.4 GPA you become more highly selective, but if you have a strict cutoff of 3.7 and accept no one under this level then you become less selective (because students below the cutoff don’t apply). However, that appears to be part of how our university system works.
I still don’t like it.
@austinmshauri To be fair, many of the students applying to a high number of schools aren’t fishing for FA. They are fishing for prestigious acceptances.
In the end, I’m not sure it matters a lot. If a stellar student gets into a lot of schools, they still only take one slot in the fall. Colleges still enroll about the same number, partly by using their waitlist as needed. Also, kids who apply to tons of school often don’t do a great job on all the applications, and this may decrease their odds of acceptances. And then they have to submit FA info to 20+ colleges — that is a punishment in itself.
It seems many students and parents use acceptances as a type of academic award. The challenge is trying to see if they get in, never with any intention of actually attending.
Absolutely, fewer applications in the admissions pool means less chance of being rejected and access to aid is increased. This problem to me seems particularly acute at the elite end of the spectrum and is exacerbated by the following problems.
- Trophy hunting
- Safeties are ‘beneath’ the high stat applicant
- Applying to many unaffordable colleges hoping aid comes through at 1, any 1.
- Increased international applicants while the number of places stays constant.
- Yield management by the colleges and the increase in ED admits
Limiting applications will never happen because this is America, and secondly there is too much money involved. The other solution is doing away with the common app.
Yes. Then people will consider fit as opposed to merely prestige.
This kid got an early decision to Stanford yet still applied to 20. Why? Not chasing aid, Stanford gave him that. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/01/us/college-acceptance-micheal-brown.html
I guess someone has to win the jackpot, well done him!
Yeah, but why 20 after getting an early admit with enough aid. Seems odd to me.
I think its now time to re-set the playing field for everyone. Why is it some students can get into all 20 of their top elite colleges from ivys to LACS where each are so different (a fit for all???), whereas some other equally accomplished and brilliant kids can’t get into any?
Supreme court has to take race out of college apps, and legacy needs to be erased as what makes anyone worthy. Let all kids be evaluated on their merit alone. Period. This admissions game of brutality and unfairness has to end for everyone’s sake.