<p>
</p>
<p>The Common App people have all of that data for CA schools, many of which are highly selective…</p>
<p>and, NO, the UCs do not (have time) to corroborate applicant files during review season.</p>
<p>Apply to as many schools as you want - enjoy your freedom!</p>
<p>Come to The Australian National University! :P</p>
<p>Another issue you might consider is that the quality of the extra applicants (assuming those applying to 20+ are generally HYP-standard) increases the competitiveness of the pool at say, the UCs or Johns Hopkins. While these colleges aren’t easy to get into initially, it makes it even more unlikely for those who might have received an offer if those HYP-standard students hadn’t applied to those. This is assuming the college doesn’t do a good job of seeing who won’t accept as opposed to who they want.</p>
<p>People below that stratosphere then have to apply to more colleges, and the trickle down eventually makes it impossible for anyone to predict what the admissions chances will be at the lowest-tier colleges granted, that would be aaages away. So, we get diminished acceptance rates, increased applicant pools and competition.</p>
<p>You might want to limit the application numbers, but you would need to do it by student-spaces ratio. In Australia, we have various slot limits for applications e.g. QLD students get 6 choices (we really only have 6 unis in the state) whilst NSW and ACT students get 9. Apparently in Victoria a third of the applicants did not land a place at university. So you might have to say…some are just not going to anywhere other than a community college.</p>
<p>Again here, to limit the applications appropriately, you will need a clear defining factor that says ‘achieve this, this and this, and you will be considered’ e.g. to get entry into courses in Australia, all you need is a high enough academic ‘score’ or result a.k.a, OP, ENTER, UAI, ITI. Considering the US holistic admissions process, I don’t think transparency will ever be achieved. You can’t say…do this and that EC, win this and that Award you’ll be nitpicking at things that’ll limit the variety of the person, let alone the applicant pool. Especially if you base it on academic achievement you have so many high school students graduating in the US that it just doesn’t make any sense to base it on academics. Imagine the number of 4.0 GPAs, 2200-2400 SAT Reasoning and Subject Test results, and AP 5’s that you would get. </p>
<p>In fact, that’s an issue with the Australian medical degree entry requirements. You sit a test, get a score, and that score is placed alongside your academic result. Then you’re admitted or rejected. One of my teachers labelled one of the medicine applicants as having “no soul”. He was a bit of a prick to the teachers. That’s also why we have such a huge doctor/GP shortage you need an OP1/UAI of 99.00+ to get in, and those guys are more often than not anti-social or limited empathetically. So you get heaps of surgeons and anaesthetists, but little GPs who are supposed to be kind, understanding and patient. </p>
<p>So you’re in a pickle. Either apply to many colleges, and limit the chances of another by increasing the applicant pool number and selectivity, or have specific entry requirements and be limited in your diversity. </p>
<p>As a side note, consider the financial incentives too. Heck, I don’t know why Harvard is so surprised at the increase in the applicant pool. Yale would be less surprised, as their new financial program was announced once all the applications were in. As someone mentioned somewhere in this board, you decrease the price, you increase the demand. After all, we don’t all earn $200k+ do we? So more people with the academic and EC credentials think “hey, I can afford this place!” And you get a synonymous rise in applicant numbers.</p>
<p>There’s also the URM, Affirmative Action, Legacy, athlete etc. programs and issues that muddle the waters even more. Perhaps there might even be selective birthing now. A hispanic graduate of H marries a hispanic woman, trains the child to become a top-ranked tennis player or whatever sport, brings in tutors and the all to boost the child’s academic performance until he or she becomes one of those super-star 4.0’s USAMO, Intel winners etc. Plays a musical at a high level, president of clubs, founder of some etc. Heck, imagine that scenario. </p>
<p>Legacy, URM, athlete, top academics, great EC’s…</p>
<p>Because of the opacity of admissions, you’re even making people choose what sort of child they’re going to have. Okay…so that’s pretty far-fetched but that’s something to keep in mind. It could very well happen. Absolutely no offense intended if I offended anyone.</p>
<p>We should also keep this year in perspective. Lots of people are saying it’s because of baby-boomer children and more people going to college. We want more children, those children want more children…exponential growth, anyone who’s done basic algebra (I don’t know which class(es) you guys cover the x^ay equation).</p>
<p>That’s my tidbit.</p>
<p>that’s the beauty of capitalism, someone can apply to 100 schools if they want. what you are proposing is hostile to the spirit of the free market</p>
<p>I agree, but life is not fair. People on waitlist will get in if we dont enroll.</p>
<p>Thanks Poh125, that was a fascinating glimpse into the Australian system-- something we don’t usually hear about here in the states.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We’re not saying that people don’t have the “right” to do it. We realize that people do, in fact, have the right, and we are proposing possible solutions to the problem. Also, your selfish statement about applying to LSU assumes that the people whom you may have stolen a slot from DIDN’T work hard. You don’t know that to be true. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>While you’re correct for some of the cases, consider the following hypothetical scenario:</p>
<p>Students X, Y, and Z apply to Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. Student Z has no intention of going to Yale or Princeton, but applied because of the admissions frenzy. Students X and Y would be happy going anywhere. When the letters come in, X and Y are waitlisted from all three, and Z is accepted to all 3. Z chooses Harvard. It turns out that X and Y were close runners up to Z. </p>
<p>Again, this is an extreme scenario, but it’s possible. The point is this: The admissions frenzy and the opacity creates a system in which people apply to more schools even when they aren’t sure they’d attend those schools. This didn’t used to happen.</p>
<p>I think there should be some sort of limit imposed, especially with the statistically large class of 2012. But then again, it would be hard to do nationwide right away because the way the United States works..I’m sure many states wouldn’t go with the plan and school districts would complain…</p>
<p>I only applied to 6, and there’s only one school on my list that I honesty would not attend, and it’s my safety. >_> Though if I were to redo the apps process, I think I would’ve swapped out one of my matches and my safety for two more interesting schools.</p>
<p>I think that colleges really need to try harder to demonstrate what makes their school so unique, because I think half the problem is people don’t care where they go to college because all colleges essentially seem the same. This is why I like Brown, and to a lesser extent, Tufts. Brown’s Open Curriculum will mean that my classes are full of people who want to learn what is being taught and they want to have lively discussions about it. Tufts offers the research opportunities of an attached med school with the relatively small size of an LAC. The information that really separates colleges from one another–like the Open Curriculum–isn’t really explained that well on sites like College Board, and thus people don’t think that it’s very important.</p>
<p>yeah, this is a touchy subject, but i think that those people who take on the task of applying to a crazy number of schools are entitled to do so. they worked hard for four years- why not?</p>
<p>I agree with the OP. However, like wpolo8 said, we are entitled to apply as many schools as possible. But the thing is, if the number of applications we can send is limited to say… 6, then that means that competition becomes less stiffer and we would save more money that would otherwise go into the 10~20 apps people nowadays send.
Moreover, if we look at this from a statistician’s point of view, the less apps, the less competition. The less competition, the easier it is to get into your choices. Take this for example: Do you really think that this year’s applicant POPULATION grew by X% over last year? Yes, since 2008-2009 are baby echo boomers, but this can’t explain alone how applications rise double digits in most top tiers.</p>
<p>However, for the time being, we are entitled to submit as many apps as we want, since that’s the statistically best thing to do, until the government actually issues an educational policy limiting number of apps</p>
<p>
I never said they didn’t work hard themselves.
And I highly doubt I stole a slot from someone anyway.
LSU has a nearly 75% acceptance rate. They most likely know I’m not going to attend; they get thousands of applicants every year from louisiana who they know aren’t going to attend, yet they admit them anyway. My guess? It increases the average scores of the accepted students. Because of this, I highly doubt my particular acceptance barred another student from being accepted. Also note: they also admit on a rolling basis and are VERY stats driven; they certainly aren’t a school that looks at the applicant holistically.
If I did “steal” a slot- oh well. The minimum cut off for acceptance into LSU is very clear- if another student couldn’t make it, it’s not my fault.</p>
<p>I certainly did not apply to 20 colleges, but I did apply to 6 and I don’t feel that’s too many. Setting a limit to 5 colleges maximum would be ridiculous though. Students often want to have a 2-3 reach schools 2-3 match school and 2-3 safety schools. A limit of 10 might be plausible. I think more than 10 is really just adding stress not only to the students but also to the Admission Counselors.</p>
<p>I would like a limit, but only for a selfish reason. I only intended to apply to 5 colleges anyway. My parents then imposed 4 more colleges on me, but that’s a different point.</p>
<p>Do I feel it is necessary for a limit though? I don’t think so. You see some people applying to 20-plus colleges maybe, but I believe that is going to peak at some point, and then come back down. People will probably impose restrictions on themselves, especially if colleges get up to the 30s range. That makes things just absurd and then puts it in perspective.</p>
<p>that is f-ing ridiculous to put a limit. so unAmerican. people can do what they want. if they want to put forth thhe effort to apply to 20 schools, the government or college industry shouldn’t be able to control applicants and stop them. your idea is way too radical. it would be better to put in place incentives to apply to fewer schools, such as asking (mandatory question) on all apps the total number of schools applied to, or raising application fees. Furthermore, this will never happen. Colleges are delighted to have more applicants, especially the reach schools (Ivies, top 10). even if you were to put a limit, 5 is blatantly too low. 10 would be more reasonable. then again, placing a limit is inherently unreasonable and socialistic (to put it in more extreme terms)</p>
<p>Quit crying. You do realize that by limiting where people can apply you:
- You give greater chances of rejection for people who are ambitious.
- Will likely see a reduction of people getting into schools. Less applicants does not necessarily mean more acceptance and will likely be less. You must realize that acceptances are in part made because of their expected yield. If If people were limited to 5 colleges in the US, and say Yale got their applications split in half, the chances of the students getting accepted to yale and attending would be very likely, as yale could very easily be number 1 on their list. </p>
<p>In essence, although you think cutting down the number of apps possible would be good, it would likely just prevent more people from attending top schools because the schools will likely accept only the best, and the best applicants will be more picky in their selections of the best.</p>
<p>I hope im making sense</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Z can’t attend all three. And, that means that Yale & Princeton fills that spot with someone else, perhaps off their wait list, perhaps not. But assuming Z is equal to X & Y is just illogical; otherwise Z would also be accepted. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>btw; I have no dog in this hunt - neither of my kids liked HYP enough to apply.</p>
<p>If someone wants to take the time and spend the money to apply to 10+ schools, by all means.</p>
<p>I applied to six.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think six is higher than the average number of applications per student in the United States. Anyway, why does fewer applications per student make any college less competitive to get into?</p>
<p>People on this thread keep ignoring the fact that this not only has to do with people getting into elite schools in general, but WHICH of those they get into and whether it was one of their top choices. </p>
<p>Yes, schools have to fill in the spots anyway. And yes, waitlists can even things out a bit. But the more applicants there are, the more likely that someone gets overlooked because his or her stats are similar to those of another applicant who could care less about the school. That latter applicant may end up attending anyway, but would never have done so were it not for the admissions frenzy. </p>
<p>Perhaps there is no foreseeable solution to this problem. That, I can concede. But to claim that it isn’t a problem at all just seems wrong. I know at least one person who had elite stats and got rejected or waitlisted from everywhere she applied.</p>