<p>In another thread, there is the latest in a long series of discussions of how many applications it makes sense for a student to submit.
Here's a thought experiment: what if, nationwide, students were only permitted to apply to six schools? To make it simple, let's also imagine that all early applications are abolished.
What would happen? What strategies would students pursue? What colleges would benefit, and what colleges would be hurt by this rule? How would it affect campus diversity?</p>
<p>Some high schools do this. I know of a couple where the limit is eight.</p>
<p>Well, for my high-stat kid , by $ necessity she’d have been limited to 5 OOS schools of small to moderate size with good to great science facilities and research opps with guaranteed merit aid based on stats and 1 state school with auto-admittance for top 10% (as the 5 OOS would not be auto-admit) and auto-merit based on stats. Most other “fit” factors could not be in play in such a system. </p>
<p>Poor system to be sure …but great for the full-pays at the other than auto-merit schools.</p>
<p>Edit: We might could have slipped in 1 or 2 non-guaranteed merit matches as her “reaches” since we would have had that IS safety.</p>
<p>There would have been zero need-only’s.</p>
<p>There would be fewer “vanity” apps, for one thing. The Ivies would see a drastically reduced number of apps, and diversity at most campuses would suffer.</p>
<p>hmom5 - how can any high school prevent a student from applying to a college?
I can see them encouraging them to nail down a list of 5 or 6 but they can’t legally withhold transcripts - can they?</p>
<p>Anyway - Hunt, I am trying to get my head around this. How would this be enforced? Would colleges start recruiting academically? Would they invent a “pre-application” form?</p>
<p>I agree with Youdont’say. I think applications to ivies and other schools with low acceptance rates would go down dramatically. I think students wouldn’t want to waste one of their 6 applications on a school that they had about a 5% chance of being admitted to. Of course this is all hypothetical and I don’t think it’s something that would ever exist.</p>
<p>I think it’s a good idea. My daughter only applied to four or maybe 5 schools and was accepted at all of them. Her decision was pretty much between the top two. Our son applied to 8 or 9 schools and was accepted at most of them. It would have been an easier decision in April if he didn’t have so many to choose from.</p>
<p>I think Youdon’tsay is spot-on: diversity would suffer tremendously, not only racial-ethnic, but economic diversity. since those with the best need-based finaid packages are also the hardest to get into, and those with the best merit aid packages are just as competitive as admission to HYP. In any event, if the limit is six, and admission to a no-loan school like Dartmouth or Vandy, or 10% school like Harvard is akin to winning the lottery, fewer would waste the app.</p>
<p>It would be a full-payors dream, however, since the competition would be less.</p>
<p>If every student was able to visit every school in which the student was interested, it might not be a terrible system. But that is not possible for many students, for lots of reasons. I know that the two schools that seemed like the best fits from looking at the web sites and talking to alums ended up 7 and 8 out of 8 after campus visits.</p>
<p>It might also work if every school provided very detailed information regarding merit aid. Is a “limited number of scholarships” 10% of the class, or 2 scholarships? If the school uses a formula, put the formula on the web site. Lists like “schools known for good merit aid” are not all that helpful…The school that Son is attending offered Son more than twice as much merit aid as a school that is pretty high on the list of “schools known for good merit aid.”</p>
<p>If forced to choose, I’d rather see a residency-match style than an arbitrary choose-only-6-schools.</p>
<p>I can’t imagine colleges supporting this idea. Why else would they have the marketing efforts they do? Why else would the Common App have been invented?</p>
<p>If this hypothetical were to be driven by the high schools, I’d be quite annoyed. It is none of the high school’s business or concern whatsoever where my kids apply. They are the ATM’s for the transcripts as far as I am concerned, and their job is to release the transcripts to whoever I designate. Whether that’s me requesting my 4.0 kid’s transcript goes only to East Bumble State U, or whether that’s me requesting my 2.0 kid’s transcript goes to all the Ivies. They aren’t paying the college tuition, they don’t know our family’s circumstances, desires, needs and priorities, and it’s not their business or concern, except to ensure that the transcripts get where they need to go in a timely fashion and that no “rules” are being broken (e.g., I’m not applying ED to three different schools).</p>
<p>I wouldn’t stand for the ACT / SAT people deciding how many places I can send my kids’ scores, so I don’t know why I’d stand for the high school deciding how many places I can send my kids’ transcripts. Seriously, they are an ATM to me. Not a decision-maker. Their opinion of where I should send transcripts is about as irrelevant as what the bank teller thinks I should do with the cash I withdraw.</p>
<p>I don’t think diversity would be reduced at all, I don’t see why this would even come into play. Colleges would have to do a more targeted approach to marketing because kids wouldn’t waste their apps applying to schools they know nothing about. Son2 just got a mailing from Texas A&M today of all places (we’re in the upper midwest and kids have zippo desire to go near Texas or anywhere they can’t ski.) USNWR would have to come up with a different criteria. Costs would need to be more transparent. Al good things that I would be for.</p>
<p>The biggest group to suffer would be the ones with the fewest options. Families desperate for fin-aid who now benefit by applying to many schools and then comparing packages would be left out. Instead of having 8 or 10 acceptances to compare, they’d be down to 6 (or 5?, 4?) options, hoping that they had picked the right mix of schools. Taking a chance on a reach who might come through with a good package would drop dramatically. The wealthy would be able to take more chances and be up against less competition. It seems like this idea hurts the people who can least afford it.</p>
<p>Is there any data on how many apps on average a college-bound kid submits?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Methinks, that’s the “plan” of some supporters of app limits. Limit the competition for Biff and Buffy. (As if ED wasn’t a big enough boon.) Keep the riff-raff back in the holler where they belong. I doubt if this plan would get much (if any) support from families wondering if the money will be there.</p>
<p>While we are at it, lets do away with fee waivers . That just ramps up the apps , too. ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>By not sending out more transcripts or school reports. Crazy, I know. But some of the most elite schools do this, I believe Andover is one.</p>
<p>I was thinking that this approach would wipe out schools like Chicago, Wash U, Tufts, etc., which which right now function as match schools for a lot of kids. I think that the honors colleges at state flagships would benefit greatly from this. It would probably also result in a large increase in the percentage of legacies attending selective schools, because they would most likely make that school one of the six.</p>
<p>The effects would be mostly felt by selective colleges and students who want to go to them.</p>
<p>Oh, I don’t think so Cur. It may make the colleges and unis more transparent with their finaid policies and it would cut down on the competition from other students. It might have the total opposite effect. 6 is alittle fearful even to me who thinks more than 10 is too many, but my kids could easily have done 6. S1 did 4 and S2 is applying to 7. All the schools came surprisingly close to our EFC in how they packaged aid. I think the ones that might be hurt the most are the kids who absolutely need a full ride as they would be limited to identifying a handful of schools where that chance was great. Middle class people can pretty much figure out what schools are going to cost based on their EFC and especially if schools use aid as aid and not tuition discounting and finally, for the weathy cost is not a factor or should not be a factor.</p>
<p>That would be just another government regulation / restriction of freedom. Would create whole tons of frustrations and all kind of “using connections” situations. Very unfair for the hardest working kids.</p>
<p>momof3boys, I’m glad your experience worked out that way for you. For my D and my niece (both middle-class) the range OOP (out-of-pocket) at need-only schools was $13K/year and $20K/year , respectively. It’s not uncommon.</p>
<p>I wish we could have considered limiting the apps to just “fit” instead of “finances” first, “fit” second. Of all the kids I have advised, and we are by now talking dozens, I have yet to counsel a kid whose parents were capable of full-pay at a selective private school. Loans, savings, WS…they would still need grant aid. Almost all of them had the stats. Just not the $. If those schools want to limit the number of those kids attending, institute a plan where the kid has to list the number of schools applied to. Colleges could do that and require a GC stamp on a certification. Voila. Bye-bye middle-class.</p>
<p>Bromfield:
[url=<a href=“http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/01/13/admissions]News:”>http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/01/13/admissions]News:</a> De-Hyping College Admissions (or Trying to, Anyway) - Inside Higher Ed<a href=“2006/2007%20data”>/url</a></p>