<p>I don’t see how you would get the colleges themselves to agree to limiting the apps as the universities’ USNW rankings are in part based on “selectivity” which depends in large measure on jacking up the number of applicants so that the relatively small number of admits make the school look “selective”. Much of the current hysteria results from concerted efforts on the part of the colleges to market themselves to large numbers of teens and get large numbers of teens to fall in love with said school and apply. This is just more fallout from the ratings game these institutions are involved in. jmho.</p>
<p>Although I agree that applying to 20 colleges and/or universities is too many, I also think that limiting applications to just 5 or 6 schools is too restrictive. Perhaps colleges and universities should set minimum standards for applying, such as minimum class rank and minimum standardized test scores. I believe that this is currently done for certain universities in England, Scotland and, possibly, Canada.</p>
<p>Our school has a restriction of 10 schools that it sends its transcript to in north America. Its great. I applied to eight colleges in the US and two in Canada and i have all sorts of financial safeties, reaches and matches. It helped me make better decisions and allowed counselors and teachers to write better, more focused recommendations.</p>
<p>I only applied to one school (ED…if I didn’t get in, I would have had plenty of time to apply somewhere else) and was fine. Five schools seems reasonable (2 reach schools, 2 match schools, and one safety), but 20 just seems so…unnecessary.</p>
<p>This is obviously a rant. I applied to 10 schools, all of which I liked at the time. I obviously narrowed down that list as acceptances started coming in, and notified colleges I no longer wished to attend immediately. Without as many choices as I gave myself, my college application process would have been much more nerve-wracking.</p>
<p>Here’s the basic “problem”:
-People want choice.
-People apply to more schools than average. They pay $$$+ for app fees.
-Schools receive more applications, so they must be more selective to get the same class size as before.
-Admissions rates start to go down. Kids get less choice of schools
-People want choice.
-People apply to more schools…(etc.)</p>
<p>The problem is that some believe it disadvantages the non-wealthy, who cannot afford the now $70 and more app fees at many schools. You don’t get a booklet of waivers.</p>
<p>The new trend that I’ve been noticing is an increasing number of schools with short essays that are required or “optional”, meaning “its-optional-but-if-you-don’t-do-it-you’re-much less-likely-to-get-in”. The essay requirements of some schools made me decide to not apply to them. They were great schools, but I had to prioritize and put more effort into my top list.</p>
<p>I applied to a few more schools then most, but 20+ is absolutely insane.</p>
<p>I’m one of the crazies who applied to 20 schools last year. While I certainly didn’t love many of my safeties, they were completely necessary for financial reasons- many of my safeties provided me with full rides. I was always a borderline candidate for the Ivies and top-tier schools so I applied to those out of curiosity; had I been accepted to any of them, I would’ve qualified for extremely generous aid packages.</p>
<p>Did I perhaps go overboard? Sure. In retrospect, I would not have wasted my time with many of those schools, but knowing what I did then, I wouldn’t have done it any other way.</p>
<p>I think that instead of a national cap on the amount of schools one can apply to, the elite schools need to form coalitions that organize the admissions process better. In the UK, one can apply to either Cambridge or Oxford-- but not both.</p>
<p>It may look something like this: You apply to the NESCAC or the Ivy League “admissions coalitions” and they are all processed through a single body. One may choose up to, let’s say, 5 ivies and 8 NESCAC schools in ranked order of preference. Then, they sort it out themselves and do business as usual. </p>
<p>This way, some unethical jerks can apply to 20 schools, but many of those schools would necessarily be less selective anyway. What the OP seems to be concerned about is top students being shoved out of top schools because of other top students getting in and then choosing to go to a lesser school.</p>
<p>Schools have yield rates and have trend lines for past years. They know in general how many kids will choose to come to their school. Having the system the way it is isn’t hurting.</p>
<p>Also, if a kid has a strong application that would get him in, he’ll get in. For example, if a stronger kid applies offhand to the same school, the first kid would be waitlisted (assuming he originally had the last spot). But then, when the second kid chooses another school, the waitlisted kid will get his spot back.</p>
<p>If the second kid chooses that school, then the waitlisted kid didn’t have a strong enough application.</p>
<p>perhaps we should throw in some realism here, i.e., facts. According to “Inside Higher Ed”, only 2% of students apply to more than 12 colleges.</p>
<p>Another option might be to limit the use of the common application in some fashion that would require the nation’s most selective colleges and universities to only accept their college specific app.</p>
<p>bluebayou: Those 2% of students are applying to the top 1% of schools that are at issue. Again, nobody cares if somebody is applying to 20+ diploma mills. The problem lies in applying to too many elites.</p>
<p>Scotland’s University of St. Andrews “requires” American high school applicants to have a 3.3 or higher GPA, a 1300/1600 SAT or ACT of 29 or above.</p>
<p>IMHO, the whole problem stems from the unpredictability of the admissions process. When Harvard brags about how many valedictorians it rejects, when Chicago tries to increase its applicant pool by doing away with the uncommon application, when public schools like Michigan move to “holistic” admissions and start rejecting highly qualified applicants, and when Tufts and WUSTL reject or waitlist overqualified applicants who don’t show “enough lovin”, it just increases the unpredictability and the stress that dilutes the definition of a safety. Those schools should be safe for some, but they are not. For people needing merit based financial aid, it’s even more unpredictable. Furthermore, the ever increasing size of the total number of applications filed must wreck havoc on enrollment management rules of thumb. This situation does not appear to be good for either the students or the schools. Yet all this appears to be driven by ratings on US News.</p>
<p>It seems as though the growth in the total number of applications far exceeds the growth in the size of the applicant pool. There is positive feedback causing instability between the lowering of the admissions rates and the number of applications a student needs to file in order to achieve a reasonable probability that they will end up at an appropriate school where they can study with their intellectual peers. </p>
<p>The Canadian system has a lot of merits in that it’s numbers based and has a certain amount of predictability. Unfortunately, they are all big impersonal public schools that are not ideal for everybody. The UK also has some degree of predictability, but liberal arts is a North American invention and university life in Europe is far more focused on major. There are other schools in the US that seem like they have maintained a certain degree of predictability, but every time I see a predictable school moving away from predictability I just cringe.</p>
<p>Only by increasing predictibility will this madness diminish. Perhaps the solution is to have USNews come up with a ratings formula that penalizes schools for their unpredictability.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Same with mine. 7 is more reasonable. You can have a dream school, 2 reaches, perhaps 3 matches, and a safety if the limit is 7, but 5 is too few.</p>
<p>The problem is that some believe it disadvantages the non-wealthy, who cannot afford the now $70 and more app fees at many schools. You don’t get a booklet of waivers.</p>
<p>Oh really? I applied to 16 schools, I only paid one application fee and that was because I asked for a waver a few days too late.</p>
<p>
Not necessarily. Take Harvard as an example. Harvard has always had a yield hovering around 79%. In other words, to fill its entering class, Harvard needs to admit approximately 2150 students each year. More applicants just means more get rejected…hence the increasingly low admit rates.</p>
<p>
I’ve suggested that in the past. It wasn’t very popular. </p>
<p>Considering CC applicants, I’m not surprised.</p>
<p>
Is “unpredictability of admissions” a euphemism for “elite school feeding frenzy”?</p>
<p>@collegehopeful78</p>
<p>I don’t know, since I didn’t meet the qualifications for waivers. There isn’t some sort of limit on the number you can get?</p>
<p>Coopjust: A waiver is often an informal letter written by one’s high school guidance counselor confirming that, in fact, the applicant comes from a low-income household. </p>
<p>There doesn’t seem to be an “official waiver form” or anything like that.</p>
<p>I agree that 20 schools is too much but who are we to determine how many a person can apply to. Just because you apply does not mean you are accepted. What is the average amount of applications that students apply to? I doubt that it’s 20. Many SAT prep programs suggest that you apply to 10 or more schools. They say that the more schools you apply to the better your chance of getting admitted. I went to a free seminar and that’s what we were told. I’m not saying these prep programs are correct but if that’s what they are telling people- guess what happens. In our group, I think the average amount of applications is about 8-9. There are many other issues in the college process other than how many schools students are applying to. If they want to fill out the applications, get the recommendations, do all the necessary work and pay the app fee or not - so be it.</p>