<p>Couldn’t resist lurking anymore. I have a few suggestions for the OP:</p>
<p>Get your college degree online – since you prefer self study over school study, and you don’t need teachers to “explain you stuff” – then show some initiative and take your own advice, don’t be one of those:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Or perhaps we should start by limiting the number of US colleges that international students can apply to, and then work our way down from there. Ridiculous proposal? YES! So is the OP’s suggestion. Or should I say rant?</p>
<p>It wouldn’t be hard to implement. Seeing as many colleges use the Common App system, make that the only option, and set a limit within that. Or for score reporting. Or for high school transcripts. etc.</p>
<p>why set a limit? each school still enrolls the same amount of kids. end of argument. no spots taken, same end results, more selection. what you propose is exactly like an import quota. there is deadweight loss yo. (yay econ)</p>
<p>@ vrichmond: do you have the ability to view things objectively? The ongoing discussion has no relation whatsoever with MY applications. It is based on general observation.</p>
<p>Oh wait, you are a new member with this as your first post. You probably don’t know posting etiquettes. You are forgiven :)</p>
<p>I dont see any sense in the idea to limit college application. Such a step would really hurt those seeking a huge amount of financial aid, especially international students, since the chances of such students getting into any college is pretty slim.</p>
<p>“Anyway, why does fewer applications per student make any college less competitive to get into?”</p>
<p>That’s just it, colleges wouldn’t be less competitive to get into if there were an overall reduction in the number of applications, and I don’t think transparency would change the rankings, but the whole process could be made less stressful and more productive and efficient for all if it were more predictable. </p>
<p>Frankly, one of the best things if not the best thing for me about CC is the ability to gain insight and understanding of different schools’ character, quality and how different schools handle their admissions. I’m hoping that when my D is ready, she can devise what I would consider a reasonable admissions strategy based on her preferences and some reasonable probabilistic model based on information we can obtain from here.</p>
<p>Some of the stuff I read here is reassuring and some of the stuff like the growing use of the waitlist and not quite elite colleges rejecting over-qualified applicants is alarming and disturbing.</p>
<p>I find it hard to be objective when it comes to petty ranting:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You asked a question: “What do you think?” I answered it. I formed an opinion after comparing your opening post and question to information you had previously posted. As a result, I found your “proposal” ironic. I think you calling people “jerks who hog spaces” is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Sorry, but I call it like I see it.</p>
<p>Elastine, I fail to see how making sweeping generalizations, ie. calling other applicants “jerks who hog spaces” can be considered as “objective” or “a general observation” when you didn’t even take the effort to explain/justify/qualify it</p>
<p>You all are assuming that one of these kids applying to 20 colleges gets into 19 or 20. (See the example with X, Y and Z.) However, that’s not necessarily true. Most kids, even elite students, don’t get in everywhere they apply. My d applied to 8 schools - got into 4, waitlisted at 1, rejected at 2. Maybe that means she should have only applied to 4. But the question becomes which 4? If she had been limited to 5, she would have applied to the one that waitlisted her, the two that rejected her, and two others. One of the four that she got into didn’t give her any aid, so was too expensive. So, assuming similar results, and that she chose to apply to the one without aid, she would have had the choice of exactly 1 school to go to. Not the result that I believe anyone here would want - we all like having choices.</p>
<p>What about the kid who applies to 20 and gets into 2? Or gets sufficient aid only at 1? Which schools, looking forward, should she not have applied to?</p>
<p>In hindsight, we can all say, “Oh, I didn’t need to apply to so many.” But going in? Who knows?</p>
<p>Did I need to apply to that many schools? Who knows? Hindsight is always 20/20. At the time I was paranoid and wanted to really diversify my choices. I was willing to put the work into maintaining grades, doing the apps, writing the essays, going to interviews… applying to many schools isn’t easy. But it’s well worth it when you have many options to choose from.</p>
<p>Why would it NOT be easier to get into a good school if there were restrictions? For example, there is a coalition between Harvard, Princeton and Yale, where students can apply to only one university. The total no of applications at every university goes down, and more qualified applicants get in. Result, lesser admissions frenzy.</p>
<p>I take this idea from the UK, where you can apply to one of Oxford and Cambridge. They have 10000 applications each now, but once the restriction was removed, they would have 20000 each. Result, a greater number of qualified candidates rejected from both.</p>
Ah, but therein lies the crux of the issue. You have to deal with the dissatisfied potential rejects.</p>
<p>Consider HYP applicants. H had 27000 applicants; P had 20000 (Yale’s are not yet available). Allow each student to apply to one of the three. That roughly yields an applicant pool of 8-10,000 for each school. As BWIGTWIX pointed out, their yields would increase because they really only compete with each other. In other words, each would admit between 1200 and 1500 students. Assuming these conditions, the admit rate could increase to ~14%. </p>
<p>HOWEVER. You still have 86% of HYP applicants getting rejected. In the eyes of CCers, this is not good. They want maximum chances! Many of them assume random admissions (wrongly, but that’s another topic) and calculate increased chances if they apply to all three (94% ^ 3 = 17% chance of admission at at least one).</p>
<p>To sum it up, the admit rates for HYP could potentially be as high as that calculated with three random admissions. In spite of this, the system would never be accepted because applicants believe their chances are greater when applying in large numbers at all three.</p>
<p>I strongly disagree. Our country has been founded, established, and strengthened through the basic concept of competition. Why not start teaching students these basic fundamentals in their earlier stages, informing them that if they can’t successfully compete with their peers then they’ll simply be left behind. That’s reality, that’s business life is all about competition nothing should ever be limited. Let’s stop holding their hands and telling them what they can and cannot do, let them become adults and start making important decisions of their own. You talk about “Freedom” what “Freedom”? The Freedom in our country is diminishing by the day, and now you want to start telling students how many schools they can apply to? Rules, Rules, Rules, Guidelines, Limitations…wheres the freedom in that? I say let them apply to 50 schools if they want, statistics have shown that most students don’t even attend the college or university that they had originally wanted to go to anyway.</p>
<p>It’s very interesting how this thread brought out two new posters. How many other lurkers are there, I wonder?</p>
<p>Calm yourself, Sleeper. Many high schools are already limiting the number of applications. The country has not yet crumbled.</p>
<p>
Er…what statistics? A 2001 study found that 70% of all students were enrolled in their first choice school. Another 22% were enrolled in their second choice.</p>
<ul>
<li><p>I do not think transparency is the fundmental issue at this time at all; predictability is. If someone does some digging the elite schools are pretty transparent (common data set, etc) … even with total transparency of info the predicatability of an outcome would still stink at the elite schools. Assume for one applicant the kid can figure out their odds are getting into Princeton are somwhere between 5-15% … would they feel a lot better if they knew the odds were exactly 10%? I doubt it. How about the odds are exactly 10% of getting into Princeton versus the odds being between 40-60% … which feels better? It’s the unpredictability that is the killer. </p></li>
<li><p>A couple more reasons transparency is counter productive to elite schools admissions goals (I believe). If they published an admissions rubic a bunch of kids and families would immediately start shaping the kid’s life to fit the cubic … which would be a horrible outcome. The schools want kids who passionately pursue their interests not try to meet published guidelines. With a published list schools would be more likely to have to explain any exceptions. In other strings there will be discussions about how elite schools should accept more kids from crappy schools, from poor families, who overcame learning challenging, etc. Are you going to have an 100 dimension rubic or does your full disclosure rubic discourage acceptance of special cases?</p></li>
<li><p>On other thought on the predicatablility of admission. Having kids apply to 20 elite schools does have some negative effact on the probability of other kids getting accepted (for example, two almost identical kids and they accept the kid for whom this is the 20th application instead of the kid for whom this school is the first choice). This must happen some on the edge of the decisions. But the occurance of these situations is DWARFED in big time way by the shear supply and demand situation that is driving the lowe probability of acceptance at elite schools. The number of slots at these schools has grown a minimal amount over the last 20 years while the number of students eligible to apply has sky rocketed … even with an application limit (something like 10 would be more logical) the outcome at the top tier schools would be incredibly unpredictable. </p></li>
</ul>
<p>Today there are just way too many outstanding candidates for too few slots and applying an application limit would limit student’s freedom, increase the odds they do not get into at least one elite school, while having a negligible effct on reducting the unpredicatability of admission.</p>
<p>There are different situations confronting different students. A lot of posters who support limitations on applications assume that different students are readily comparable, so that the “better” one will be chosen over the “lesser” applicant in a predictable fashion, and the kids should know roughly where they stand. But that’s not true. While most students are fairly “symmetrical” with regard to their academics - GPA/rank fitting roughly into the same percentile of accepted students at a target college as their test scores, some are not. Some students have high test scores, but not so good grades. And vice-versa. How do you compare them? With EC’s it’s even more diverse. Is student government equal to varsity sport? Band membership the same as “Save the world club founder”? Who knows?</p>
<p>As a result, it’s hard enough for the college adcoms to sort them out, let alone the poor students who are applying. As long as the adcoms are willing to do the work, why not let them? The process may be fairly predictable for a “symmetrical” applicant, but an “asymmetrical” kid might apply to 10 schools and be rejected from all - or accepted at all. Under those circumstances it makes sense to cast a wide net.</p>
<p>As to the idea that applicants who apply to “too many” schools are “taking the spots” of other applicants - that is so obviously wrong that anyone who hasn’t figured out why it makes no sense by now won’t get it from my explanation, either, so I’ll leave it alone.</p>
<p>not to sure about your logic, but your example does inadvertently show why limiting apps makes little sense, at least to me.</p>
<p>If Oxford and Cambridge now receive 10k applicants each with no cross applications, and accept x%, then then the rejected students are 20,000-2x. If those same students can apply to both Oxford and Cambridge in the same year, the rejected students are still 20,000-2x.<br>
Thus, it is impossible that:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, the point being, there are only 20,000 students to begin with. While the number of rejection letters would double under this scenario, the number of rejected students would stay the same.</p>
<p>It seems like there’s a general bias in this thread. I see a lot of “I think it’s ridiculous to apply to 20+ schools because my kid got in after only applying to 4 or 5.” If you can get into your first choice school with fewer apps, then more power to you. Others like me are more paranoid and would rather ensure a spot at a good school by investing the extra money. I mean you can spend upwards of $1000 applying to a bunch of schools, but if you can manage to land a good school with good aid, that $1000 is easily covered. Some top schools offered me great packages, and others weren’t so great. Had I limited the number of schools I applied to, my financial options would have been more constrained. The cost of an application is really quite minimal. It’s an extremely smart investment, in my opinion. I came from a public school and I knew that my competition for top schools would be pretty tough, so I didn’t want to risk wondering “If I had only applied there or there… I wonder if I would have gotten in?”</p>
<p>It’s always easy to let hindsight bias skew our views of these things. If people knew where they’d get accepted, you wouldn’t have a need for safety schools!</p>
<p>I felt like I spent YEARS working hard. In high school, I spent so much effort into my grades, EC’s, skills, scores, and so forth. It was more work for me because parental support was minimal. So when college application time rolled around, I saw no reason why I shouldn’t ensure that I didn’t let those years of hard work go to waste. I knew a good school would give great aid, so I applied to mainly reach schools, a few matches, and one safety. </p>
<p>The other issue though is that applying to a crazy number of schools is HARD. You think 5 is hard? Writing essay after essay or sending financial information to all those schools or going to all those interviews… just getting everything organized and making sure your essays are top-notch and that everything’s filled out correctly is hellish. There’s a LOT of work. Thank goodness the Common App removes a lot of this pain.</p>