<p>
[quote]
Limit the number of colleges you can apply to (like 10 being the max). Your are only allowed to apply to a maximum of 3 Ivies.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why? Is there any particular reason?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Ethnicity should be completely ignored.
[/quote]
Why? I think one of the best parts about college is the fact that you pretty much leave the area you're familiar with, and you're put into a surrounding environment full of diverse and different people than you're used to, which results in you learning a lot more about life, and about different cultures. Why should ethnicity be ignored? This might be a generalization and a stereotype, but for the sake of this argument, if ethnicity is completely ignored, then almost everyone that attends a top ivy league school would be of Asian decent. That wouldn't be fun if it it was class of similar people.</p>
<p>If anyone that gets offended at my post about stereotypes, please don't, it's only for the sake of argument <3</p>
<p>Also, I agree COMPLETELY with kingofqueens about the max number of Ivies. As it is now, top candidates just do an "Ivy sweep," get accepted into most or all of them, and then pick their favorite. . .not fair at all to the thousands of people who, for instance GENUINELY dream of going to Cornell or Dartmouth, but get denied because of a guy who's going to Harvard anyway.</p>
<p>jchen: The reason is because of the vast number of people applying to college nowadays. We need some limitations. Regarding ethnicity, it should not matter because being a certain race does not affect your academic performance. However, your family's income should be taken into account; yes there ARE even poor Asians in the US, but most colleges just see the word 'Asian' and become anal. </p>
<p>hookem: Exactly why I would do that. I also think limiting the UCs to about 3 per applicant would be a good idea as well. It's all about setting boundaries.</p>
<p>
[quote]
As it is now, top candidates just do an "Ivy sweep," get accepted into most or all of them, and then pick their favorite. . .not fair at all to the thousands of people who, for instance GENUINELY dream of going to Cornell or Dartmouth, but get denied because of a guy who's going to Harvard anyway.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Most top students who actually know what they are doing do not do this so called "ivy sweep" because for example, if a person wants to major in business, they should know that some Ivy's don't have undergrad business programs, and would apply to stronger ones, such as Wharton :)</p>
<p>Also, one student can only go to one college, so it doesn't matter how many you apply to; you'll only wind up going to one. Being accepted at all the Ivies has nothing to do with someone else not being able to go to an Ivy.</p>
<p>Remember that private colleges are allowed to choose anyone they want for any reason they want, as long as they're not discriminating against a "protected class" (e.g., minorities of race or religion, women, old people). So if a private college wants to accept only people who are left-handed, or only people with lots of ECs, or only people with perfect SATs, or only people with very high GPAs -- they can. Saying that they should just count GPA or just count SAT is silly; the colleges can do whatever they want and admit whoever they want.</p>
<p>I do like the suggestions about making all the application materials electronic, however.</p>
<p>VeryHappy: obviously you're completely ignorant about how college admissions works in even the simplest of terms. Let me break it down for you: adcoms at Ivy League schools can only ADMIT a certain amount of applicants. Now, not all of those admitted will choose to ACCEPT the offer, but it doesn't matter. If you get accepted to Dartmouth and Harvard, but choose to go to Harvard, YOU ARE STEALING A SPOT AT DARTMOUTH. Another extremely well-qualified applicant had to get a rejection letter from Dartmouth, simply because someone got moved into the admissions pile, but didn't want to go there anyway.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Now, not all of those admitted will choose to ACCEPT the offer, but it doesn't matter. If you get accepted to Dartmouth and Harvard, but choose to go to Harvard, YOU ARE STEALING A SPOT AT DARTMOUTH.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You make it sound like if there are 3000 spots in a potential class, that the adcoms will send out 3000 acceptance letters, and then go from the waitlist if people decline and offer. This is not true. The adcoms generally know the percentage of people that actually accept the positions, and compensate for that.</p>
<p>Also, since the applicant pools at Ivy League colleges are self selecting, almost everyone is qualified to attend the school (stats wise), so you could potentially argue that the 3000 students that end up attending that school stole another 3000 equally qualified students that wanted to attend the school as well.</p>
<p>Honestly, I'm not trying to say that I'm better than anyone else, or trying to sound elitist, but if you were rejected from an ivy league school like that, it was for a reason, rather than "oh i'm going to QQ, it was because someone stole my spot </3"</p>
<p>Actually, hookem, all colleges admit more students than they want in their class. They expect a certain amount of students to not attend, do the "ivy sweep," or whatever, and they compensate for that by offering more spots. The people who decline their offer do not take a spot; they become a statistic.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Obviously the method's not perfect, though.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So what if you don't think it's perfect? At the end of the day, there is nothing you can do other than complain about it on a college forum, because I don't think it's going to change anytime soon. And who are you to say that someone is stealing the spot of another person? The only person that can make the decision that person A would be a better fit than person B is the adcom, and their decision is pretty much final.</p>
<p>Well one thing I'd try to do is evaluate achievements in their context. An example (here we go) would be that someone who qualifies for ISEF but has two biology PhD's for parents is not as impressive as a person who does so with no science "heritage" whatsoever.</p>
<p>If you get accepted to Dartmouth and Harvard, but choose to go to Harvard, YOU ARE STEALING A SPOT AT DARTMOUTH.</p>
<p>Not really. The spot will still have to be filled, and it will be filled with the next-most-qualified candidate from the waitlist (if it ever comes down to the waitlist). So, if you directly STOLE a spot from someone, that person will end up on the waitlist and get your spot anyway once you end up accepting admission at a different school.</p>
<p>"Next-most-qualified candidate?" I think you mean "next-most-desirable candidate." (Unless you consider desirability some sort of qualification--most people do not.)</p>
<p>piccolojunior:</p>
<p>I agree with you on the ISEF thing. It seems as though most of the kids who win or get far in the competition only do so because they had the connections to get a cool volunteering/paying lab research position.</p>
<p>'"Next-most-qualified candidate?" I think you mean "next-most-desirable candidate." '</p>
<p>Next-most-qualified candidate in the school's eyes, which also makes him/her the next-most-desirable canditate. Sorry for being unclear, though it does not alter my point.</p>
<p>Are women a protected minority? My understanding (and this may be totally flawed) is that because of social trends and higher percentages of high school girls heading to college vs. percentages of boys -- that you are in better shape now if you're a guy. ??</p>
<p>I think students should be limited to applying to 3 colleges. It's a win-win for everyone. Fewer essays to write for students and fewer application fees, too. Higher yield for colleges (students applying there really want to go there). Higher percentages of acceptances for the students.</p>
<p>Plug in any U.S. college or university and then go to "admissions" and you'll see a break down for the admission rate for males and females at that college. It really varies so much that it's impossible to say that males have an advantage over females, except perhaps at the colleges that used to be all-female. (Vassar's admission rate is 40 percent for males and 26 percent for females.) But typically, the admission rate differences at very selective colleges are pretty close. Princeton is 9.7 percent for both males and females. Chicago 38 percent for both. For Notre Dame: 25 percent for males, 24 percent for females. At Vandy: 34 percent for males, 37 percent for females. </p>
<p>It's hard to predict and not a given that males always get the admission rate advantage over females, so check on the colleges on your list.</p>
<p>They have truth in lending laws, why not truth in admissions laws? What to me would be perfect, because the admissions process is all about having too many applicants for too few seats, would be a FULL DISCLOSURE on the REALITY of what they do and why. </p>
<p>Not just publishing the stats of admitted students by average, but the TRUTH of who they let in: how many athletes, how many minorities, how many legacy, how many who applied for financial aid and how many who DIDNT apply for financial aid and the TRUTH about whether that affected the decision process, how many musicians, artists, engineers, etc. And if the scores of admitted males are lower than the scores of admitted females which happens at a LOT of schools. A gender bias.</p>
<p>So people can decide ahead of time if they want to waste their time and effort and emotions on this process or must move along.</p>
<p>And to somehow STOP the ridiculous game that colleges play of sending out brochures to INCREASE the applicant pool when they have NO intention of admitting kids below a certain SAT score......front loading the pool to make themselves look more selective.</p>
<p>We know who the culprits are. Its disingenuous and dishonest. If they arent going to take kids below 1500 SAT's then just say so. Or 1400, whatever the cutoff REALLY is.</p>