<p>The problem with the California and Virginia systems have nothing to do with the number of applicants. Maybe they can implement their own system, but other than that, the application system in our country is fine. And regardless of how many schools the students in California apply to, in the end, all the schools are going to be taking in more or less the same number of people each year.</p>
<p>I would not reveal the names of schools or admissions officers who revealed that they give short shrift to essay reading - not the point really, because I’m sure they are not the rare exception, just the jaded and/or honest. My point is that the parent/student fantasy that all applications are given the kind of careful attention described in The Gatekeepers is just that, fantasy.</p>
<p>The current system is at a tipping point, IMHO, where the free market approach has been exploited for the colleges benefit (11% admit rate, we must be really great!) and to the detriment of student mental health. Does anyone really think it’s a good idea for a kid to submit 20 applications just trying to beat the odds? If you’re taking rigorous AP courses, heavily involved in EC’s, and taking a moment or two to enjoy senior year, where is the time to write 20 college essays?</p>
<p>I don’t want to limit the number of schools that kids can apply to - that is up to them, but I would like to see more responsibility on the part of college marketing departments. If your admit rate is approaching single digits, do you really need to send out an entire forest of printed materials and a barrage of emails - giving the impression that “everybody has a shot”? Really? Wouldn’t the best and brightest and most qualified still be applying? I think they would, and in a more purposeful way with fewer than 20 applications each. I want to go back to the good old days (8 years ago?) when a kid with 15 applications seemed extreme rather than typical.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I was really only responding to the idea that the system “works” as it is, right now. Affordability is generally an issue when people begin refering to other national systems. But, I think the drawbacks to the way this is done in the UK are significant, and in other countries, like Germany, where kids are tracked vocational or college at like 12 years old, even worse.</p>
<p>I wish there were affordable options for everyone in the country, since I consider this to be the actual biggest barrier we now face, which did not used to be the problem.</p>
<p>Classic econ 101. Guns v. Butter.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No. I don’t think some of you on CC - which is heavily skewed to well-to-do Northeastern enclaves and well-to-do California enclaves – seem to understand that there are many, many parts in the country where elite universities simply aren’t on the radar screen. They aren’t talked about, they aren’t thought about, people don’t know parents who have gone there, or they are perceived as super-expensive and not-for-every-day-folks like me.</p>
<p>This isn’t the Ivy League of the 1940’s and 1950’s whereby the headmasters of the elite boarding schools told the adcoms who they most recommended. Elite colleges want a lot more diversity than what would be provided if only the kids who were “in the know” at the beginning of 9th grade applied. From where I sit, this sounds an awful lot like – well, if someone didn’t grow up in Short Hills or Greenwich where “everyone knows” what the elite schools are, let them eat cake. There is almost a willful blindness to reality elsewhere and a lack of caring / concern that yes, the bright kid from Iowa or North Dakota shouldn’t be shut out of elite schools because he doesn’t know what they are.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The only people who are “hurt” are those who thought that they were entitled to Ivy League or similar elite admission, and are so upset that the riffraff are now being invited to apply, too. “Our high school sends 30 kids to Ivies a year, and now I won’t be #31.” Really? It’s more important to admit 31 kids to the Ivies and miss out on the hidden gem from Mississippi?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The colleges think otherwise, and I agree with them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then don’t apply to those 20 colleges. And with the Common App, one has to look hard to find 20 colleges that will be a good fit that also require 20 different essays.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Quote 1: I don’t know about anyone else. I don’t think it’s a good idea. I think kids should apply to schools they really want to attend for reasons other than prestige, and I think their lists should be thoughtfully composed based on many factors, including the family’s bank account. But so what? Who cares what I think? IMO, the way to change the dynamic is for more people to step back and realize that there are more worthwhile and certainly more fun ways to spend time than putting together 20 college applications. That said, there is no lasting harm to anyone who does this and has his or her hopes dashed. No one’s mental health needs to suffer even though it sometimes does. </p>
<p>Quote 2: We got into this on another thread. Or maybe this one. They all run together. Seriously, I don’t understand in this day and age why any college sends out so many brochures. Maybe some schools with single-digit acceptance rates have decided that part of their brand identity is not just to be but to be known as super-deluxe-selective. Who knows? Applying to colleges is not as dangerous as smoking; do we really need to worry (I mean, really worry) about kids’ exposure to college propaganda? They are not sheep, are they? How is mailing lots of brochures irresponsible? Because it raises kids’ hopes? As noted above, the disappointment will wane pretty quickly for most kids. If it doesn’t, there are bigger causes for concern.</p>
<p>Don’t restrict the number of applications.
But let’s make a few other (admittedly, slightly utopian) changes.</p>
<p>First, revise the standardized testing system. Make it a more challenging set of tests so that fewer students get the highest scores. </p>
<p>Second, at the top schools use real interviews with an academic focus, administered by faculty or graduate students (along the lines of the Oxbridge interviews: [40</a> Oxbridge interview questions](<a href=“http://molivam42.■■■■■■■■■■■■■/2008/12/14/40-oxbridge-interview-questions/]40”>40 Oxbridge interview questions | Molivam42's Weblog)). Or else give a bigger role to more challenging, thought-provoking essay questions.</p>
<p>Third, deemphasize the EC malarkey in college admissions. Completely eliminate preferences for legacies, development admits, and “story” kids. </p>
<p>Fourth, promulgate a national secondary school core curriculum with real meat to it. Eliminate regional and sectarian influence on the textbook industry. Make greater use of primary source materials starting no later than middle school. Finance public education from state revenues, not local property taxes. </p>
<p>Fifth, decrease the defense budget and use the savings to build a few more high-quality universities and colleges. But levy a national service requirement on all college graduates.</p>
<p>Sixth, nationalize the financing of all tertiary education. Make it free, or nearly so, for all students. Barring that, eliminate merit scholarships and expand financial aid programs (institutional and federal) to cover 100% of need for all students at more schools, up to a rather generous income level. </p>
<p>Steps like these could produce a fairer system without reducing freedom of choice. They would expand access to the best programs for the best students regardless of income. They would increase the number of well-educated students entering the work force and civic life. We’d still have highly selective schools but the required qualifications would be more transparent (without completely eliminating elements of subjective judgement in admissions).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s only problematic when those kids are being raised by parents who believe that the only worthwhile educations can be obtained at one of a dozen or so universities. Sadly, such pathetic parents clearly abound on CC, and you can see the sadness in their children. But, that really isn’t the elite schools’ problem - they shouldn’t have to reign in their marketing to kids who will otherwise be underserved and underreached. Nor is the elite school’s problem that kids see a brochure from Harvard and somehow magically think it’s somehow different from the dozens of other brochures every household receives in direct mail.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If this were twitter and we could hashtag, this would fall under #richwhitekidproblems. This is just not that big of a deal for people who can actually look outside upper middle class suburbia. The big “college issues” in this country have very little to do with the plight of the poor Short Hills kid who thought the brochure from Princeton meant he was a shoo-in, and now all the neighbors look down on him because he “only” got into Tufts.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>…are the abysmal high school drop out rates in the inner cities. Not saying that such students should go to college, just finish high school, and until then, who cares if the top xx colleges use interviews for admissions? Society would be much better off if the dropouts are further educated than if HYP becomes more “fair” to the denizens on cc. :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>qft</p>
<p>Add in the fact that we really need to have affordable paths to a higher education for the truly under-represented (those beneath the poverty line) and you have me sold.</p>
<p>this is a manufactured solution to a problem that doesn’t exist…</p>
<p>how is the manufactured solution better for anyone? Colleges want as many applicants as possible, so it is not better for them. Students want to apply anywhere they want, so it is not better for them either.</p>
<p>Or it would just hurt middle-class families that don’t qualify for fee waivers.</p>
<p>Concerning the admissions process in the UK…So Great Britain allows students to apply to a maximum of five schools, and they require students to declare their field of study, right? I’m not familiar with the other components of their system. For instance, do they just look at GPA and test scores? Are ECs, volunteer hours, etc. given weight? Do they consider geographical residence or legacy status? Do URMs or athletes get a big boost in the process? I’d be interested in knowing more. What have been drawbacks to their system?</p>
<p>Athletics in the UK is totally different. There aren’t “big-time” scholarship sports at universities there as exist in the US. Professional sports run their own farm team systems.</p>
<p>I think the U.S. schools are enjoying all the $$$ brought in by application fees…</p>
<p>The UK system is based pretty much entirely on academic record - basically the grades achieved in sets of external exams we sit at 16 (GCSE), 17 (AS level) 18 (A level). Applicants applying during their final school year will be given offers conditional on them achieving certain grades in their final exams. Consideration of legacy status is non-existent, ditto sporting ability.
ECs really matter only for the professional degrees eg medicine, dentistry, teaching, social work, health care etc, where some relevant experience is essential. Otherwise it’s a nice, but unimportant, paragraph at the end of your personal statement showing you have some interests preferably relevant to the course you’ve chosen.
We are allowed to offer lower grades to applicants from poorly performing schools and areas with historically low levels of university participation (and children leaving the care system). Most of the top universities have special programmes to try to encourage students in this category to apply and run summer schools etc to try and help them. But on the whole it’s pretty much 100% based on academic achievement.
It’s a very straightforward system compared to the US but it really comes down to a different idea of what a university education is about. I think both systems have advantages and disadvantages and will suit some better than others.</p>
<p>Basically as said - very academically focussed, but the academics are all public exams. There is no such thing as a GPA or class rank, teachers simply track your progress and predict what your grades are going to be. The predicted grades are important for admissions, as the final exam will not be taken until well after application. The university will base your offer to study on your predicted grades, and your place will be confirmed if and after you actually achieve the grades in your offer. It’s not a holistic approach to admissions, but then our system is made to produce professionals who know a lot of depth in one or two subjects, not grads who are well rounded in lots of subjects but lacking the depth.</p>
<p>I think the only serious drawback to our system is predicting grades and basing your uni offer on them, but not knowing whether you will achieve them. Therefore if you have a high grade offer your place is hanging in the balance until the day you know your results! There was a proposal to change this, but I didn’t like the proposed new system any better, and thought it wouldn’t help matters. But I don’t know if it will actually happen</p>
<p>Athletics admissions don’t happen, but you might get a sports bursary once there. So your sport won’t help you get admitted in the first place, but it might get you extra money later. Legacy admissions are not done, and in fact I suspect it is illegal. URM again doesn’t really happen, although sometimes lower offers are given to those with difficult backgrounds/schools. Things like Medicine have special access courses to help such people get in. Volunteering is only required for subjects like Medicine wher it is essential and counted. Otherwise, it’s an EC and not really important at all</p>
<p>I think our system does on the whole actually works very well. I do not think we have any less freedom than US students picking their uni choices. Frankly I do not know anyone who would want to apply to any more unis than they have. In fact we have the advantages of
- Tuition fees which are pretty much the same at all universities and are paid back only after you graduate, and are earning above a minimum income limit. Therefore we have far less financial worries than many US students will face as we are not financially restricted from any uni by tuition fees. Living costs are different -whether you can afford to live in London must be considered, but otherwise it’s fine
- No GPA and class rank and no real consideration to how many students are coming from one school - means we avoid the horrible situation whereby you and your friend both want to apply to the same very prestigious uni and it’s her first choice, but if you both apply you might prevent her from getting a place. Lots of my year have offers from the same unis, highly ranked ones, as the ‘best’ unis can offer places to 7 people in the same year with no problem.
- Inexpensive (£22 to submit the full five applications at the beginning of the year) and the process is set out for you and very clear and straightforward </p>
<p>I can easily see how our system would not work in the US though, but it works well for us on the whole. I’d rather go through the UK process than the US one, it suits me better, despite the lingering worry about whether I will actually achieve the grades I need to take up my offer.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wow, clearly in the states we don’t know anything…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s not true. I don’t think colleges weigh in what school a student is from at all. </p>
<p>I don’t think I’d do very well in a system that counts only grades. However, I heard it’s relatively easy to get into Oxbridge as an international student. On the other hand, my friend told me that Oxbridge is still very elitist and discriminates against working class people. That’s something to think about.</p>