<p>This year, many students applied to 10 or more universities. Whereas, several years ago, these same students would have only applied to no more than four. Has college admissions essentially become a lotto? When did perfect GPAs and great SAT scores stop mattering? There was a time when people KNEW who was going to go Ivy League/top 25 and those who would stick around and go the vocational route or, enroll at the local state u. </p>
<p>It seems as though we have become crabs in a bucket, pulling each other out of the pot, while we all slowly incinerate. If the U.S. adopted something similar to the British system--you can only apply to Oxford or Cambridge, not both and you can only apply to up to 5 universities--would students make more pragmatic decisions? Do you really want to apply to Harvard, or would you be happier at Dartmouth, but you simply apply to both because, well, there's that slight chance, you MAY be admitted to Harvard? And what about your local State U? Maybe the prospect of being rejected by all of your reach schools--which are, essentially, your entire list--will encourage you to apply to the local university if you had an imposed limit. </p>
<p>The admit rates are only going to get worse. And lower admit rates does not necessarily mean quality. It could simply mean who could afford better tutors, better college admissions coaches, etc.</p>
<p>Absolutely not. I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again. No matter how many schools you apply to you will end up attending ONE and ONLY ONE. Which means even if the same student ends up accepted at all the ivies for example, he/she will only enroll at one. Which means that more schools are going to use their waitlist because they want to keep their admission rates down, but it will hurt their yield. </p>
<p>No reason to limit the amount because even if a student doesn’t really want to go Harvard but applies there because he might get in, can we criticize him if after all he does in fact get in? No. Because the fact of the matter is all the students who get in to these schools deserve it. And anyone who blames not getting into these schools because of the amount of applications is ridiculous because while your stats may be deserving of a top20 school, there is something that the students who will be attending the school had that you didn’t.</p>
<p>Alright it sounds really confusing when I type it up but it makes sense in my head.</p>
Er, not really. Only 2.90% of all seniors did. To keep a proper perspective, about 90% of students end up attending their first or second choice (70% attend their first).</p>
<p>You’re referring primarily to elite schools, whose applicants typically apply to far greater numbers of schools than average.</p>
<p>There have been very lengthy and heated discussions about this before. Like these:</p>
That sounds good in theory, but nevertheless large numbers of applicants can still be harmful. The system favors wealthy applicants who can afford to apply to large numbers of schools - the cost of application fees, AP exams, and SAT/ACT scores (and sending them) is exorbitant. Sometimes it even costs to apply for financial aid (CSS PROFILE).</p>
<p>Applicants who are neither wealthy enough to afford a lot of applications nor extremely poor enough to qualify for fee waivers are in a much more awkward position than they were even five years ago.</p>
<p>Most CCers come from upper middle class families, according to surveys done in the past, so this is not always a consideration that comes to light.</p>
<p>Quote:
"Originally Posted by babytitain
This year, many students applied to 10 or more universities.
Er, not really. Only 2.90% of all seniors did. To keep a proper perspective, about 90% of students end up attending their first or second choice (70% attend their first).</p>
<p>You’re referring primarily to elite schools, whose applicants typically apply to far greater numbers of schools than average."</p>
<p>actually, if you read what I wrote correctly, I did not articulate any particular proportions. Though this figure is only 2.90%, this still represents MANY (thousands), when, a decade ago, I’m sure it was less than half of this–or, an increase of of 100% from then to today.</p>