<p>
</p>
<p>Interesting, indeed. Are individuals better off when universities don’t have to compete with each other?</p>
<p>Would individuals be better off if employers did not have to compete for job-seekers?</p>
<p>“19 schools seems to be a bit much from my standpoint.”</p>
<p>Sigh. Yes, that’s certainly true for many students/parents. 19 would be “a bit much.” Definitely.</p>
<p>But, for the various reasons stated above, for some students (disparate test/gpa stats which make admission less predictable, need for merit money, etc.) a large number of schools can be quite useful. </p>
<p>Moreover, as I explained previously, part of the reason that we ended up w/19 was that son had a few ‘super reaches’ (on the financial/academic front). I’ve spent a good bit of time coaching him/guiding him on college prep stuff (most learned on CC!). I did not want to control him on this, important step so didn’t object (only a few words of caution/realism) when he added a few more to the (already extensive) list. For a few, $50 app fees, it gave him a feeling of autonomy, and a real-life ‘consequences for action’ when his ‘I don’t need to do homework’ gpa didn’t quite cut it at certain places. A far, far better lesson than more (unending!) mom-college-advice! </p>
<p>I certainly can understand how many people would “feel” that 19 is too many or they “just can’t see why it’s necessary.” Certainly valid, subjective reactions to another’s course of action.</p>
<p>Where that becomes problematic is when people start advocating that the cap which they “feel” is right should be implemented (via high schools, colleges, etc.). I understand that some private high schools have already done this (and, perhaps someone paying $25k a year or whatever might feel the need to justify the efficacy of their GC dept policy, or, alternatively, might be fine w/it because of the intense level of GC/student involvement and indepth guidance). </p>
<p>But – a high number of apps has worked for some students – it might not be necessary for many others.</p>
<p>I think that is certainly something most people could agree on. :-)</p>
<p>I’m all about choice. If a kid wants to do 20 apps, fine. If a kid wants to do 2, also fine. I would never pick either of those options, but who am I to begrudge someone else’s choice?</p>
<p>IBClass posted:
</p>
<p>There was some other data that was posted yesterday (can’t find it at the moment) that said something like the overall average # of applications was about 3. In contrast, Roger’s cc poll shows, of those who responded, that over 50% were planning to apply to 10 or more schools this year. <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-admissions/773483-cc-poll-how-many-colleges-do-you-plan-apply.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-admissions/773483-cc-poll-how-many-colleges-do-you-plan-apply.html</a> No surprise to anyone that cc is a self selected group.</p>
<p>
nope</p>
<p>
yup</p>
<p>Our school charges $2 for every transcript they send, even the first one.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In other words, limiting the number of applications students can submit is a solution in search of a problem.</p>
<p>Back to the comment on application limits in the UK: The reason the application limits work in the UK is that admissions there are based almost entirely on academic strength (with some consideration of the quality of schooling available to the student). </p>
<p>So there are essentially no questions, “Are these EC’s good enough?” Students do not need to worry about their essays resonating (or not) with admissions committee members. I’m pretty sure that IMO gold medalists are not turned down at Oxford or Cambridge. </p>
<p>Of course there are UK students at the margins of admission, for whom the decisions can be unpredictable; and there are some specialty subjects (Egyptology?) in which the number of admitted applicants is quite small, so that year-to-year variations in the applicant pool can affect the outcomes. But overall, admissions in the UK are much more predictable than they are here–no one there would advise a really strong scholar that “Oxford and Cambridge are a reach for everyone.”</p>
<p>QMP completed 8 applications and then ran out of steam/time. I applaud anyone who can complete 15+. No one was trophy hunting around here–and I never thought that of the applicants to 15+ schools, when I read about them on CC. </p>
<p>Most applicants we know had mixed and unpredictable outcomes. I don’t believe that we know anyone who was accepted everywhere he/she applied, with the exception of some of the ED applicants (1 app/1 acceptance) --and also one nephew, who applied to just one school (a regional branch of his state university) and was accepted.</p>
<p>Hmm. Well, perhaps if students here were limited to 6 applications, highly selective schools would go to more statistically based admissions, so students would have a better idea if they would be likely to be admitted.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hunt, that is a very good point. If universities think there is a problem here (no evidence they do), the solution is one of the following:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Establish objective criteria and eliminate subjective review.</p></li>
<li><p>Be completely honest and open about how the objective/subjective evaluations currently in use are applied to various types of applicants.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Neither of those will be (or even should be) adopted, since going that direction does not serve the purposes of either the universities or the general public.</p>
<p>And even if that did happen, it does not address the subject of choosing among various levels of financial/merit aid.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So let’s play that out. It goes to more statistically based admissions. What elite university wants to be first in line to announce that now they are going to look mostly at SAT/GPA/numbers, and put all the “squishy stuff” (EC) at a very small portion of what they look at? Does that fit with the mission of any elite university? What elite university wants to come out with some self-scoring formula where a student could input their numbers and say “I have a x% chance of getting in; if my SAT’s were 20 points higher, it would be y%”? None I can think of. That doesn’t give them the leverage to admit the developmental admits, the legacies, the athletes, or the people who are just “interesting” in ways that aren’t reflected in stats.</p>
<p>^^^ That would be so great if it were doable and true, Hunt!</p>
<p>Maybe. I would guess that they will still practice holistic applications, but they will have more time to spend on the apps and the applicants themselves would be more discerning, if you are limited in applications there will be less Lob Shots at reachy schools and those lob colleges can have fewer more highly qualified admissions reps.</p>
<p>I suppose they could also make availability of aid more transparent and predictable as well.</p>
<p>But I agree that this would be contrary to what these selective schools are currently trying to accomplish with their admissions practices. (Some time ago, I had another thought-experiment thread on the idea of a “stats-only” selective school, and what kind of student body it would get.)</p>
<p>Re post 153: if the highly selective schools want to get rid of the lob shots, it would be easy enough to announce a “floor” on test scores, rank and gpa and establish a requirement for more subject tests with announced minimum scores.</p>
<p>They don’t do these things because they don’t want to reduce the lob shots.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If the apps to a given Elite U halved overnight, don’t you think they’d also let go or reassign some of the admissions officers? I don’t think they’d now have a leisurely process.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If they wanted to, they could do so already – just announce “don’t bother applying here unless you have … X GPA, X SAT / ACT, X scores on the subject tests.” Obviously they don’t want to.</p>
<p>Hunt, I think it’s the other way around. If students were limited to 6 applications, the only really predictable effect would be to reduce the application counts at Ivy League schools and Stanford, and maybe a few others. I would think they would respond by paying MORE attention to each application, not adopting simplifying conventions. They don’t believe – and never have believed – in statistically based admissions.</p>
<p>Re trophy hunting: I have definitely seen it in real life. The most egregious example being a friend of one of my kids, who was accepted SCEA at Harvard, the only college he really wanted to attend, and where he was confident of getting enough aid to make it affordable, especially given a high volume of outside scholarships. Nevertheless, he applied to Yale, Princeton, Penn, Columbia, Brown, MIT,and Stanford. The ostensible reason was to compare financial aid offers. When the dust cleared, he had been admitted to all except Princeton, and Penn had made a somewhat better financial aid offer than Harvard. He tried to negotiate a bump up in Harvard’s offer, and was told that they would consider matching Yale if it was higher (it wasn’t), but otherwise he was welcome to go to Penn if the $3,000/year was that important. He went to Harvard.</p>
<p>I’m not so certain curmudgeon et fille don’t fall into the trophy-hunting category as well. His daughter was clearly a fabulous candidate for anything – just like the boy discussed above, by the way. She applied to a zillion colleges, mostly chosen based on the availability of merit scholarships. She got into all of those, and was offered the top merit scholarship at most, and chose the one she liked best. She also applied to five ultra-selective need-only colleges, was accepted at 4 or 5 (I don’t remember), and – as her father had predicted – was not offered enough need-based aid at most of them to make them viable. One school did offer enough, but on reflection, she didn’t want to go there, at least not for the extra money it would cost over the place she planned to attend. A 6-college limitation would be unworkable for a student like that, but (apart from curmudgeon’s education in scholarship and financial aid dynamics) it sure doesn’t look like her life would be any worse if she had applied to 8-10 colleges rather than 17. “But we couldn’t know that going in,” says curmudgeon, and I believe him, but not really.</p>
<p><a href=“Some%20time%20ago,%20I%20had%20another%20thought-experiment%20thread%20on%20the%20idea%20of%20a%20%22stats-only%22%20selective%20school,%20and%20what%20kind%20of%20student%20body%20it%20would%20get.”>quote</a>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What was the verdict?</p>
<p>What if a college did this with respect to the “lob shots”–</p>
<p>“If your GPA or test scores are below the floor numbers listed above, please indicate in the following space the particular unusual achievement on circumstance that you believe justifices the Committee’s consideration of your application:”</p>
<p>Would this cut down on the lob shots? I see a lot of complications, of course–would you give different floors for URMs, or athletes, or legacies?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I firmly believe that what goes around comes around, though. The obnoxiousness of being a true trophy hunter as described will come around to bite someone in the butt.</p>