<p>the process were subject to the "open hearing" rule that governs many state and local agencies?</p>
<p>A lottery system would replace the current system. The results wouldn't be that different.</p>
<p>But all this only applies to about 50 of the thousands of colleges out there.</p>
<p>Or one could go to the computer match system used for medical residencies. Interestingly, that system was used, I think, before there was a mathematical proof that the system would always produce optimal matches, but it has been in place a long time.</p>
<p>What would the admissions process become if all of the admissions materials had to be retained for examination by the students after the decision period, and colleges were required to make detailed information available to applicants after the fact regarding why they were admitted or not? In other words to open the admissions process for "discovery" and more, so that universities were liable for legal suits if any applicant thought they had been treated unfairly.</p>
<p>I'm not proposing this, as I think it would also lead to a random lottery system to avoid liability, but it is amusing to contemplate.</p>
<p>What would the admissions process look like if all early programs were abolished and everyone had to apply regular decision, plus students could not exceed a certain number of applications?</p>
<p>LM ~ that would be a big improvement for students...and waitlists would be smaller, I suspect.</p>
<p>"A lottery system would replace the current system. The results wouldn't be that different."</p>
<p>Does the bitterness really take that long to disappear, JHSU? </p>
<p>"LM ~ that would be a big improvement for students...and waitlists would be smaller, I suspect."</p>
<p>RD, students who did apply via an early decision program will have to disagree with that statement. There are schools listed in the top 15 that have been accepting *almost everyone * who bothered applying ED -at a rate 15 times higher than RD at Harvard! </p>
<p>So, it may be debatable if the elimination of ED would be an improvement for all parties involved -it sure won't be for many applicants to venerable institutions in Mass! The issue of waitlists would, however, change for the worse. Were they to lose their biggest tool for yield control, the colleges would reduce direct admissions and increase the waitlists and push the admission process well into the summer.</p>
<p>Already happening, Xiggi, even before eliminating ED. The size of some of the waitlists is crazy.</p>
<p>What would the admissions process look like if colleges gave more precise guidelines as to whom they will accept? Mid-range SAT scores just isn't cutting it.</p>
<p>I have to agree that some schools maintain some suspense via lenghty waiting lists. However, the size of the list is not as important as its relation to admitted students and historical movements. As an example, it would not mean much if Harvard decided to add 5,000 students to its waitlist -except for doling out an even greater number of polite rejections. </p>
<p>Eliminating the early decisions would force the schools to reduce the number of direct admissions and April 1 decisions. Rather than having a pre-Christmas and April 1st decisions, parents would face an April 1st decision and undefined post Easter to summer decisions. In the current system, most students are able to assume complete control of the process after April 1. Postponing the inevitable is not exactly a great proposal for parents and students.</p>
<p>Xiggi, I am noticing an upsurge on Wait List Binding Decisions which is the practice of writing your favorite school where you are wait listed and swearing you will come there with GC backing up your statement. It would be ironic to replace ED binding with Post RD binding and neither are beneficial to financial aid kids as many schools are scarce on funds by the time it comes to the WL kids. I am not as concerned with the Harvard Waitllist as I am with the Swarthmore, Wash U and other schools that are clearly using the waitlist to control yield. CMU now has a priority waitlist that comes close to a binding (but they have refrained from that last step) commitment.</p>
<p>The key has got to be the # of apps. Look at all the kids with 6-10 acceptances. Look at all the lists with completely disparate schools on them (like NYU & Hamilton.) People are just scattershooting all "prestigious" schools. </p>
<p>If there was an absolute maximum to the # of places, say, that the SATs could be sent, or the # of recs the GC could send, there would be more focus to the lists and the schools woud all get better yield too.</p>
<p>Since we're speculating, an interesting variation on SBmom's proposal would be one used by many medical residency programs, wherein the new medical school grads candidly list their top five choices, in order, and then the programs try and match up with them on the basis of who will realistically want to accept them, as well. It seems to work pretty well. So, if you're a lesser-known program, you don't waste your time accepting the Harvard MS grad that has U of Penn as his top choice for a residency. At the same time, you might find a similarly qualified person who has picked your lesser-known program for any of a variety of good reasons, and you know they're not just using you as a safety. It takes so much of the guess-work out--on both sides--when you just lay your cards on the table!</p>
<p>The solution to the multiple app problems would be to raise the fee. I believe it has fallen in real terms over the years ( in the late 60s, I am certain we must have paid more than 6.50 or 7.50 to apply, although I am ready to be corrected by someone with a better memory). </p>
<p>Of course, in the interest of other objectives, places like Princeton are removing non-financial bariers to multiple applications by adopting the common app, and making the essays less demanding. It was telling last year, I thought, when UM began asking for a few essays and applications dropped substantially. Its clear that the cheaper and easier it is to apply, the more multiple applications there will be.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I am not as concerned with the Harvard Waitllist as I am with the Swarthmore, Wash U and other schools that are clearly using the waitlist to control yield.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't know what colleges are supposed to do in an environment where students are applying to so many colleges, often with very little real consideration of where they would enroll until after acceptances come out.</p>
<p>Swarthmore is a perfect example. They have been mailing acceptance letters on April 1 to virtually the same number of students for the last five years. But, the number of kids enrolled off the waitlist has varied from year to year by as much at 30, with a totally random pattern -- 20 one year, 50 the next, back to 21 the following year.</p>
<p>Now, a swing of 30 kids doesn't sound like much, but when your freshman class is 367, that is a huge percentage. If they enrolled 367 without going the waitlist as a cushion and then the following year spiked to 397, they are absolutely dead -- no place to put that many. </p>
<p>The risk of over-enrollment has been especially acute for the last several years. Study-abroad dropped precipitously after 9/11 and many of these colleges are already dealing with housing crunches as a result with their housing space based on historical study-abroad numbers.</p>
<p>The problem is the scattershot nature of the applications. I mean, I look at some of the lists and just scratch my head. How could the same kid apply to Columbia and Dartmouth? Or Swarthmore and Washington & Lee? Look at the number of college lists we see here that clearly have no more thought put into them than writing down the first 9 names on the USNEWS ranking. Seriously, how brain-dead is it applying to Havard, Yale, Princeton, Dartmouth, Columbia, Brown, and UPenn as your list? But, unfortunately, that's the climate these days. </p>
<p>A whole lot more self-selection on the front end would improve the system for everybody and good place for that to start would be for the colleges to be more honest about who does and does not have a prayer of admission. A good place to start would be publishing median SAT scores broken down by categories of applicants (racial/ethnic, athlete/non-athlete, legacy/non-legacy, male/female) so students could really see where the bar is set.</p>
<p>dadx,</p>
<p>This would only hurt middle or lower income kids. $100+ app fees would not make the wealthy families-- who are already shelling out thousands for prep, etc-- even blink.</p>
<p>Little Mother: Here's a similar thread you may find interesting about the same issue.</p>
<p>SB</p>
<p>If you're truly wealthy, very little makes you blink from an economic perspective. Even well off parents, though, have some sense of proportion on how much sense it makes to crank out applications at $100 per. Or maybe they could simply charge the application fees the way they set the tuitions, on ability to pay. I wouldn't like it, but it would shine the light on what the schools do anyway.</p>
<p>I'd be happy to do it with non-dollar hurdles, but there seems to be a move afoot, in the spirit of "accessibility", to make it ever more easy to drop another application off. Perhaps the common app could limit itself to only six schools. That would be a start. Then you'd have to actually do separate work on the others if you chose to apply there. ( I don't particularly like this idea, but I do think the common app makes it far too easy to apply to multiple places.)</p>
<p>Reasonabledad -- actually at MIT you can request to look at your admissions folder during your first term to see what admissions thought of your app. Don't know if you could look at it if you are not admitted. Interesting idea -- although for some of the schools the paperwork would be a nightmare to process sending copies to all those denied entrance.</p>