<p>Its absolutely ridiculous to see people nowadays applying to as much as 20 schools. With all the safety, mid match, and reach business factored in, many highly qualified applicants are rejected because of jerks that hog up places they don't even want to attend just because its safe/cool to do so. </p>
<p>I propose that the max no of colleges a student can apply to is limited to five(through a centralized Application body, note: not decision). Not only would that allow for lesser competition and less admission craze, it would also allow students to select five schools most suited to them. Additionally, it is likely to lesser work for the ad coms as well. This system is already successfully implemented in the UK, where a student can nominate up to five choices.</p>
<p>I just think its very unfair and irresponsible on the part of people who apply to 20+ colleges just because they can. What do you think?</p>
<p>How would a student applying to a certain college deprive another student of his/her place? Would the other student have gotten in if first student did not apply in the 1st place?</p>
<p>Why is it unfair to apply to 20+ colleges? After all those students who applied to 20+ places paid for it, right? They also did all the required essays/supplements, right?</p>
<p>No offense, but it sounds like you are ranting.
Please justify your arguments.</p>
<p>I’d assume that schools would keep in mind the chances of an applicant actually attending their school when they’re making admissions decisions, and thus will still admit more people…</p>
<p>And not everybody who applies to many schools are “jerks that hog up places they don’t even want to attend just because its safe/cool to do so.” I applied to 13 schools, but only because I really wanted to attend all of them/I needed schools other than reaches.</p>
<p>Schools are enrolling the same amount of kids either way, the end game will not change. The same people are getting into the same schools.</p>
<p>I don’t understand this belief that a ‘throw-away’ application (one for a school you will not attend) will ‘take someone else’s spot’. This is not true, schools enroll the same amount of people either way.</p>
<p>I deeply care about every one of the 12 schools that I applied to(and could easily add 5 schools that I would also love to attend and would be within reach academically, they were just edged out by small amounts in creating my list), including my top reach and bottom safety.</p>
<p>Could I have shortened my list to 5 schools? Potentially, however I would be pretty much forced to select only schools that I have visited, as I wouldn’t want to spend 1 of my 5 on an unknown, even if it seemed like a great unknown. So, it would decrease the distance that most people would be willing to apply from school, and then ‘geographic diversity’ would decrease and also be a boost for those who could travel all around visiting(read: upper incomes).</p>
<p>One of the results of the large increase in applications to individual schools this year will probably be a big increase in the use of waitlists. This is an inconvenience, to be sure, and some students will have to adjust their plans accordingly. That inconvenience is still better than giving up another big chunk of freedom, the freedom to decide how many, and which, colleges you want to apply to.</p>
<p>They do a lot of things differently in England, and in France, and in Russia, and in China, and so on. But no other country has as much social mobility, and geographical mobility, as the U.S. </p>
<p>Be careful what you wish for. I vote for keeping my freedoms, even if it gets messy.</p>
<p>However, I do suggest that students use some sense and careful pruning of their lists to limit the number of colleges they apply to–just because it can get to be a waste of their time and money to go overboard.</p>
<p>How would you factor in the student who needs not only academic but financial safeties? How about the kid whose family, on paper, doesn’t qualify for need-based aid but as a practical matter needs to garner a significant amount of merit aid? No one can count on that aid; one needs to cast a wide net. Your system could easily result in a student with five acceptances, none of which he/she can afford.</p>
<p>The UK system is so different than the US system, based so much more on statistics and on decisions made while in high school (like what you will study), that such a comparison is difficult to make.</p>
<p>That’s the basic issue. Every college is in the business of enrolling students–to not enroll students is to cease to exist. No matter how many applicants they submit, students can only enroll in one college each.</p>
<p>This is obviously a bad idea. Colleges expect some students not to enroll. If top students get into too many top schools, they can still only go to one. If this is the case colleges can use the waitlist, which they sometimes do. Can a moderator please unfeature this thread.</p>
<p>I so agree with this thread’s idea! Students can NOT apply to 20 schools and colleges need to devise a system to ensure that it happens. One of the best threads i’ve seen in a while being featured.</p>
<p>Are colleges making a profit from the number of apps they are receiving? Each app fee runs about $50 or more, if I remember correctly. I have often wondered with the surge in apps over the last few years just how much money are colleges making off of apps alone. If kids are indeed applying to 20+ schools, how much money are they forking over total for all of these apps? I know that some kids can obtain fee waivers but there is still postage for some apps, etc. It is just a curious thought and may be a moot point. Kids can apply to any number of colleges because after all, many will say that the cost is minimal.</p>
<p>I agree with Tomo88: by applying to many schools, and even by getting into many schools you are not taking anyone’s place. Schools send many more acceptance letters than they have places. The possibility that someone gets accepted in 15 schools is factored in.
And still I agree wit OP: the system should be changed. Simply because applying to 15+ schools is too time consuming (I mean top schools with several supplementary essays and interviews). Not doable for kids attending various summer programs and put 40+ hours into ECs every week. So it boils down to parents applying to universities: planning, secretarial help, tracking those 15+ apps after they were submitted (I still asume that essays are written by a child). Kids who do not have personal secretaries are at a major disadvantage. I see two ways:
100% electronic system where all school transcripts and recs are also sent electronically. With a limit at say 15 or even 20 apps, whichever . This way there is no real cap (20+ IS insane), but the kids who do not have secretaries are not disadvantaged.
Current system, but with a cap at say 12 schools.</p>
<p>As for freedom. You should be free to go to a school of your choice. Now it becomes a lottery, where you go to a school that accepted you within a certain range. Instead of applying to 2 Ivies you like, you have to apply to 6 an choose between the 2 that accept you. Where is the freedom?</p>
<p>Applying to 20+ schools hurts applicant if he does everything himself. Or it hurts others if the applicant uses a lot of help.
[Once again - there are schools where applications are VERY simple, but thy usually have relatively high acceptance rate and go by GPA and SAT scores - what is the point to apply to 20 such schools? - you can predict the outcome with very high probability].</p>
<p>D’s school limits the number of applications the kids can send out by refusing to provide transcripts, recs, etc. for more than 7. I think it is great - it forced D to think very carefully about what she wanted in a school, to assess her chances as realistically as possible, and each application was done thoughtfully.</p>