If a kid were willing to take the risk of the restrictive app, they would be able to guarantee admission to a highly selective private U/LAC. Every cycle we see high achievers get shut out. Some of them talk about it on this site. This would give them a way to ensure getting into the level of school they think they deserve, and which their measurable stats suggest are appropriate.
(since we don’t know how many kids would choose the SCRAP program, or if – and how many – suitable schools would take part… feasibility is uncertain. If 20,000 kids chose it, well, even if 50 schools took part, they might not allot enough spots to the program to cover every participant.)
this sounds like the admissions process now anyways lol
kids who apply to those top schools already have that gpa, the scores, they already have a list of schools they prefer. and tbh it is already like a lottery for the kids at that academic range imo because you see them getting accepted one place and rejected another, sometimes unexpectedly
Right, but this would be a guarantee. They don’t have that now. For that guarantee, and to get schools to go along with it, it would (likely have to be…) be restrictive/EDish.
Why is this consideration worthy of a change? Is this a problem, and if so, one we think we need to solve? Likely at the deprioritization of more important issues (IMO)?
The main problem that I see with your idea is that it does not account for financial need. Not of the students, not of the families supporting the students, not of the institutions themselves. Yes, these institutions have enormous endowments, but that does not mean that they don’t rely on tuition, fees, room, and board to pay any of their current year expenses. They have to be able to budget and plan around that budget.
You would have to add an EFC number to this guaranteed admissions program that would be very high to make the guarantee work.
Personally, I don’t trust guarantees, but that’s just me. They can have unforeseen consequences- think of the cheating on standardized tests that is so common in China. Using a smart application strategy is far better and leaves more say in the students’ and families’ hands, and I think that’s a good thing.
Right – no idea how much time would be required to put this in place.
Though, if schools had another restrictive/ED mechanism offering guaranteed (or near-guaranteed) yield, they may find it worthwhile.
They could still review the apps holistically, and perhaps AOs would discuss applicants with one another to confirm the best fit.
Like,
Cornell AO: “Hey, we got this app from Kid A. They listed us first, but we think you would be a better fit.”
Brown AO: “I agree. Our open curriculum is perfect for their desire to explore. We’ll take them.”
(obviously there could be more complicated discussions, but you get the gist)
they’re guaranteed to get into state schools if they have those stats. these schools are elite for a reason so they will always want to be very selective. why give these colleges more power over students- especially when admissions are already unfair- and make them vie for a chance admission, instead of relying on and funding lesser known universities? of course everyone wants to go to the best, but if you want a guarantee, there are options for that.
when students want a guarantee at elite schools, it reflect a pattern of elitism when choosing colleges and looking down on other very good options imo. if the main issue with colleges are that they’re so selective and they’re not fair for students, then a possible solution should be promoting state/federal funded schools and expanding their programs, instead of yet again vying for the same elite schools. of course this would require a huge shift in mindsets of students, but it would be addressing the core issue of “elite colleges are denying very qualified students admissions, like it’s a lottery”, and changing it to “my state school is excellent and other qualified students like me would be attending, so i want to go there”.
Right, and one thing we typically do on here is to preach the value of fit and cost to kids – but some will have none of it – they feel like a “failure” if they don’t get into an Ivy+ or little Ivy+.
SCRAP would give those kids a guarantee of getting into one. In exchange for that, it would be restrictive. So they would have to think long and hard whether they wanted the guarantee (but maybe not into their favorite school), or to do things traditionally – make a (hopefully responsible/balanced) list of schools and apply to each of them, with zero guarantees outside of auto admission schools.
but if the general mindset of some students IS to get into an elite school or they feel like a failure, then the lottery systems would not change that. instead it might make the issue worse- they would be aiming to get into the lottery instead of only just getting into x,y, and z colleges. neither helps promote long term goals for students, and would be a disaster if some STEM students got accepted at an elite school without strong STEM programs for example
so it really does depend on giving qualified students that might be rejected from an ivy, despite their accomplishments, more options. atleast in my opinion, there should be an expansion of state schools and more pathways for students to access “elite” opportunity. this way, they wouldn’t see Ivies as the best thing ever and would understand they have so many good options : )
But no kid is entitled to a spot at an “elite” college simply because they have a certain gpa & test score. I think that thinking is what leaves some kids deeply unsatisfied when they are forced to “settle” for a school outside the T20 (or T50). Why not derive satisfaction from learning and excelling in HS instead of feeling it is a waste (as I’ve read in places) if it doesn’t result in the desired college admission.
I know the whole idea is just your imagination, but honestly I really don’t like the “locked in” part. I don’t like the push towards people applying ED at schools, either. (And at many schools there is a huge push to try to force applicants into this. Ugh.) Kids can change so much over the course of senior year. And they learn so much more about all the schools over the course of this process, too.
My kid applied to a whole bunch of schools, most of which accepted him. Over time he scratched a bunch of these off his personal list. But in the end as he learned more about all of the schools and learned more about himself, 3 schools which had all been scratched off the list at some point bubbled to the top of the list. Now his final pick is going to be a school that had been originally scratched off the list for weeks. His intended major changed a few times during this process, too.
It would have been even more complicated if FA was in the mix. For the most part he only applied to schools that we could straight up afford.
Hey! I was a poor kid, and went to an elite college on 100% FA (as did my sister). Very few of my HS classmates went to college. Not sure what messages you are referring to, above, so it would be helpful to refer specifically to the arguments you disagree with.
as a student myself right now, i notice that a lot of my peers do everything for colleges and admissions, and rarely pick up enjoyable activities that would make them happy. they opt to do activities that “look good for college”, and therefore lose out on
satisfaction from learning and excelling in HS
because the reasoning for excelling in high school is solely for admissions purposes to students now. and I can’t blame them
