<p>But that is the point, if this group of kids were limited in the apps, the total apps to each school would go down and competition would go down. As far as Chicago et al, they will get apps from kid who really want to go there, as it should be. The same kids that are applying to more than 10 schools are creating their own conundrum so in effect, a limit harms far fewer people and restrains the very people that need to be constrained. Again, if the cost factor is a real issue for an exceptionally low EFC family then they are already in the “loop” with free food in public schools, fee waivers for standardized testing, applications, etc. it wouldn’t be that difficult to give them an “out” on the total apps cap. Also if people are applying through NMS or Questbridge or some other scholarship geared toward helping low income or minority candidates where they might need to take a wide approach to find money that could be another “waiver.” It’s really not that difficult a problem to solve. And cur, fortunately we weren’t looking for “more money” than our EFC, we knew if we had everything above our EFC covered by Staffords or scholarships we were OK so I guess we’re poster children for what you are “supposed” to do for saving for college, now if only my 1993 Volvo will keep running until #3 graduates from college in 2017 LOL we’ll be fine.</p>
<p>For us, it would mean applying to less reaches and more safeties/matches. Merit aid is not a big factor for us (although, we would love to see son get a big offer - the less we pay, the more we have toward our retirement 
) But what is important to us is come April he has a fair number of schools to choose from.</p>
<p>I look at the reaches like winning the lottery. Chances are he won’t get in but if he does, then we would be excited for him. If we had to limit the number of applications, it wouldn’t make sense to ‘waste’ applications on schools where he would be less likely to get in unless he had one good solid safety that he loved (so far he doesn’t).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is very true. In our state, less than 10% of the students go OOS (and we don’t have a great educational system - it’s not like staying in-state in CA.) Money is probably the #1 factor for most kids in our state (a very poor state). So the only kids who leave are either pretty well off or are the top students who are likely to get a full-ride somewhere.</p>
<p>Even at my son’s private college prep school that is mostly made up of upper middle class and wealthy families, the majority of kids stay in state. At the end of the day, most kids don’t want to wander too far from home.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly the reason I’m not in favor of restricting the # of applications. It’s a huge gamble from year to year. We’ve had kids from our school get into Harvard and Yale but not Johns Hopkins and CM. A lot of it has to do with who you are competing against and in any given year, the makeup of the applicant pools changes.</p>
<p>To give you an example, a friend’s daughter had to apply to the same Medical School three times before she got in. The admissions officer told her that it all depends on who is applying in that year. The second year she applied she was #2 on the wait list and for the first time in history no one came off the wait list. Finally, she applied ED and got in the 3rd year (by which time everyone including the Dean of the Med School knew her name!).</p>
<p>My point is except for your safeties - there are no guarantees. I’ve had two very experienced GCs tell me that acceptances are very unpredictable and vary enormously form year to year. My son’s school recommends 6-8 as a starting point but will recommend more depending upon the # of reaches or less if student is 100% sure they want to go to their safety.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Agreed. I’ve seen comments on this board to that effect. My child would have gotten in if only another child hadn’t applied to so many colleges and took my kid’s spot.</p>
<p>Sorry, it doesn’t work that way. First, a student can only attend one school, no matter how many get acceptances they get. The schools know this and that is the reason they have such big wait lists. I was looking at one school the other day (can’t remember now which one) and they made 3,000 offers and had about 2,000 wait listed and 1,000 came off the wait list and 155 that came off the wait list attended. (I’m trying to remember the exact numbers but this was in the ballpark). I was very surprised when I saw these stats but what it tells me is that the schools know that a large number of acceptances won’t attend.</p>
<p>I know that the #1 ranked kid in my son’s school is applying to my son’s #1 reach. This kid wants to go to Yale but, hey, Yale is technically a reach for anyone. He will definitely get into my son’s reach and probably get a full-ride. Oh well, I hate that for my son because it will probably mean he is rejected or wait listed but we have been telling him for 4 years he needs to work harder (he’s one of those kids who can get As and Bs without cracking a book) in order to be competitive at the most selective schools. He chose not to do this and he will see that consequences of his actions. On one level, I hate that the #1 kid is applying to my son’s reach but will probably not go there but on another level I know this kid worked his butt off and deserves the acceptance - whether he chooses to go there or not.</p>
<p>Slithey – He said the kids did fine in admissions, but the program has not been in place long enough for the school to collect enough data to do a meaningful comparison. They’re only drawing the line at 10 apps, which is really not so draconian.</p>
<p>"If your child is applying to ten or more schools, he cant possibly have a deep-rooted interest in all of them, and this will be clear to admission officers. "</p>
<p>There are kids who are applying to specific program, not so much to specific college. some of these programs are very selective. These kids usually do not care so much what college they end up going as long as they get in at least one of these programs. So, you are correct, they do not care about specific college, most of them will not get into any program, but they will get into most / all colleges that have them.</p>
<p>
Fortunately? I would have gladly paid my Fafsa EFC, too. Heck, I offered to pay our Fafsa EFC to 2 widely-considered “most generous” schools. No va. They didn’t come off a nickel from their demands.</p>
<p>But I’m glad y’all did so well. Many don’t.</p>
<p>Limiting the applications will only benefit the wealthy students. Financial aid will come down as fewer middle and low income students will apply to selective colleges. The US educational system will fall even further behind other countries as academic merit will less and less be a factor in admission. Today, over 80% of students admitted to HYPSM were longshot applicants. The others were legacies or athletes. Remove the ability for a qualified applicant to take a risk on a high reach school and the student body is dramatically transformed. </p>
<p>This impact of keeping the applications unrestricted is negligible on the overall volume as it affects a tiny percentage of the applicant pool, essentially the high stat students and a relatively small number of colleges, the more selective ones. Unless the most selective colleges become tuition free, students in general will suffer from the restriction. Rather than the highly competitive market and diversified student body we have now, the college education system will return to the regional markets of 30 years ago with mostly full pay students. </p>
<p>There is plenty of evidence that choice increases bargaining power despite cries of colleges to the contrary. Average tuition has increased at such a pace that only generous aid has kept college affordable for many families. </p>
<p>Financial aid has become the ultimate arms race among selective colleges and increasingly among the less selective ones that seek to snag some high stat students with merit aid and rise in the rankings. Even among need only schools the packages vary considerably, including among similarity situated applicants. Without the ability to compare offers, students and their families will pay more.</p>
<p>MissyPie - your post mirrors my argument against limits.</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>DS is likely applying to 10+ schools solely due to the vagueness of merit-aid award information. Only two are admissions reaches, and still likely at that, not because he’s some uber-genius but because we’ve pored over the admission data and drilled down to these 10. Only two have published automatic award aid, the rest he looks good for but until he gets an admission and a merit offer it’s a crap shoot, could be full ride, could be nothing at all - </p>
<p>It’s a personal choice - our guidance dept. as well as Collegeboard is a pass-through to enable this, it is not their place to limit apps.</p>
<p>For those who will be paying 100% out of pocket but are not in the “we won’t feel it” category or feel “it makes no sense to spend 200K on undergrad,” the merit aid process is inane. Despite the hard work of filing out that many apps, it makes total financial sense for us to spend 50+ per app and then compare offers to see what the real deal is. Same for visits, there’s so much info online I can’t see traveling all over the country to fall in love with a school only to find there is no merit money. You know it’s all hugs and bunnies when they’re sending the love letters, let’s see what it comes down to when push comes to shove.</p>
<p>Sure, limit apps but require schools to be transparent with what the student will receive. Some (U Alabama, Baylor, U Ohio, Nebraska etc.) already have online calculators with their merit aid awards. If all the schools did this it would clarify so much and the need for multiple apps would be greatly diminished.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What is the basis for this assertion?</p>
<p>Just curious–other than a BFA/Conservatory program–what are the other programs that have an admissions policy that’s different from that of the university in general? I’m assuming these are pretty specialized programs like physical therapy or something similar. Do kids who want to major in one of these programs have to meet a set of admissions criteria that are different from the general admissions criteria for the college? In this situation, I’m assuming kids would have to apply to a larger number of programs, especially if the program is very competitive. In general, I don’t believe high schools should limit applications. Really, how much more time is required to send out transcripts and recommendations. The applicant is the one who’s putting in the most time and if he/she is willing to do so and pay the fees, then why prohibit him/her from doing so?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You lie, Jack! Nearly all colleges engage in preferential packaging, even some (all?) Ivies. The evidence is clearly posted on cc for all to see.</p>
<p>Jack made me laugh with this: “schools frown upon those who apply to many schools to see which will offer the best financial package and then use that to bargain with other schools.” I’m sure they do. 
And I absolutely don’t believe that negotiating is not effective (maybe not ALWAYS) or that the schools offer as much as they possibly can up front. Circumstances change, and I’m willing to bet so do schools’ offers.</p>
<p>My son goes to an average High School. Most of the kids go to college in-state, and many start off at the local CC. I know of very few juniors that are visiting colleges like my son is and it’s doubtful to me that more then 25% will be applying to more then four colleges. Just 6 years ago when my daughter graduated from High School, on-line applications were not the norm, nor were free applications. Both of those things have contributed, IMHO, to the uptick in applications.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The other thing is that it is self-serving to the private school GC. :D</p>
<p>Obviously, the GC can’t tell the Harvard rep that his/her top 50 kids all walk on water. By limiting the apps from the school, the private is making the choice to boost their OWN numbers, IMO. Our competitive public doesn’t limit apps, and I have no doubt that 20+ apply to H every year, while only the Val/Sal gets in. The point is that H has to make the choice, not the GC.</p>
<p>Does anyone know if kids who apply to large numbers of schools are primarily hunting for good FA, or primarily hoping for acceptances at selective schools?</p>
<p>It doesn’t really matter, does it? It’s a free country!
Anyway, the number of people who are TRULY trophy-hunting to see how many Ivies they can get accepted to is so minute in the scheme of things.</p>
<p>^ Agree. CC community is small ;).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would guess it’s pretty evenly split with a small contingent doing both. And to reflect a post way above, I doubt seriously the US will fall behind the rest of the world in education if we limit college applications.</p>
<p>austinmtmom wrote:
</p>
<p>Bromfield wrote:
</p>
<p>Students who apply directly into specialized degree programs that are highly competitive INDEED have to meet a set of admissions criteria that are different from the general admissions criteria for the college!!! The average person in the public, as well as here on CC, has NO idea of how highly competitive some of these programs are. For example, I recall when my D applied for the BFA in Musical Theater program at Penn State, and anyone who knew her (she was a good student academically) would say, “of course you can get into Penn State!” but had no idea that even though PSU accepts 51% to the university, its Musical Theater program only accepts 5% of those who apply/audition. And PSU isn’t even one of the top MT programs in the country. Take Carnegie Mellon which has one of the top BFA in MT programs in the country. CMU as a university accepts 39%. It’s BFA in MT program accepts 2 1/2%. It is even worse for girls. In my D’s year, they took three girls for MT. They had 1200 audition for both MT and Acting (and also more girls than boys auditioned but they accepted more boys than girls). Every single BFA in MT school on my D’s list (and this is true of almost every BFA in MT program that exists), had acceptance rates anywhere from 2-9%. Very scary odds. Also, very subjective when an audition is a huge factor to get in. Further, they may have one or two slots for your “type”, and so it is not simply a talent contest to get in. The odds are tougher than the Ivy League. My D had 8 schools on her list but many who I know or advise, have more. For someone seeking a BFA in Musical Theater (just one example of a very selective specialized degree program admissions), having just six schools would be VERY VERY chancy. It was chancy enough for my kid with 8 and is still very chancy for my advisees who have 10-12. </p>
<p>Generally speaking, I think it is rare that any student for any program or circumstances, should need more than 12 schools on their list. The total number will vary from student to student depending on many factors. For some, six schools may work but for certain situations, such as highly selective BFA admissions, six is typically too few.</p>
<p>
At least at our HS, if the acceptance rate to 4 yr colleges (100%), lots of merit $$ and acceptance to top schools didnt remain strong, these gc’s would quickly be out of a job</p>
<ol>
<li><p>A lot of the so-called problem would be solved if, say, the top 20 privates decided you could only apply to three of them, and only one of HYPS. Maybe only one of Amherst and Williams. Some limited application elsewhere – Berkeley or UCLA? They do this at Oxbridge. I suspect applications to HYPS would plummet.</p></li>
<li><p>Here’s something I don’t understand. Maybe someone can explain it. Everyone says, time and again, that increasing applications per kid is reducing admissions rates. Sounds right, at first blush. But if you hold the number of kids constant, and ignore wait lists, you CAN’T be reducing average admissions rates. If kids are filing more and more applications, then the colleges’ yields must be going down, driving admissions rates back up.</p></li>
</ol>