<p>^^^In post #38, a member reported knowing someone who applied to 9000 schools, but I personally find that not too credible. Who knows.</p>
<p>Assuming #38 was just kidding around â perhaps they find the entire premise of thread absurd. Does a 17-18 year old really weigh all the individual pros and cons of 29 (or more) colleges? Obviously, if anonymous93 (the 29 app student) applied and was accepted into that many highly-selective schools, then this student is truly exceptional, well aware of their ability to get into any institution of their choice. Was this student really on the fence over 29 schools, or was this just hubris? Sorry for my skepticism, but applying to this many schools was less about indecision, (or financial aid, fear of rejection, etc) and more about bragging rights.</p>
<p>Seriously, WHO applies to 29 schools for undergrad? Even most medical school applicants donât apply to that many colleges. 29 applications will equal at least $3000 (if you include application fees, score reports, transcripts, gas money for traveling to interviews which are often downtown of whatever city youâre in). I agree that people can be confused about where they want to goâŠI was too. But its literally impossible to be THAT undecided. I applied for 14, and I thought that was WAY too much. I honestly recommend applying to no more than 10 colleges. Donât even apply for more than 1-2 colleges with free apps (unless they were already on your list) since youâll still have to pay for transcripts and score reports.</p>
<p>If you go back and look at last yearâs results threads, you can see anon93âs own posts. She had absolutely breathtaking credentials, and applied Stanford REA. She was rejectedânot even waitlisted. She panicked (her own term) and applied to every top program in the US, as well as some in the UK. She figured something must be wrongâmaybe she had unrealistic expectations. Well, she got in everywhere (like the entire Ivy League), was waitlisted at Duke, and finally admitted there as well. Her own posts say âdonât panic and apply everywhere.â</p>
<p>Personally, I applied to 7 schools. Accepted at 5, wait listed at 1, and rejected at 1.</p>
<p>I come from one of the largest public school systems in the Midwest and many in my class donât go to a traditional college, they go to trade school or attend local affiliated technical high schools. The average number of school applied to by all the college applicants (so it wasnât brought down by the people who did not apply) was 3. The top 3 that nearly everyone applied to was Miami University, University of Cincinnati, and Ohio State. I applied to the first two as safeties. Attending neither.</p>
<p>sooz, I do not say fit is irrelevant, I say it is overrated. It is important. Difficult to explain in these messages, but perhaps the âfitâ for my son was a strong liberal arts/science/engineering science program highly rated (thats where USNews comes in) which is within driving distance of where we live since most of the 14, not all, are in northeast. But again he preferred and I supported (I did not push him into anything) rankings as proxy for quality. Of course, when I mention SAT kindly do not take it literally as the only measure. In the top schools, multiple measures are used and even if Tufts and UPenn have close SAT ranges, Tufts is a better school, and would have offered your daughter a better experience. But cognitive dissonance theory will say you will differ.</p>
<p>audellmom, the entire process is not narrow, quite the opposite: when kids and parents talk of fit, they are the ones who are narrow, USNews is broader, much broader (you can disagree with the methodology but they use more measures and more meaningful measures than parents use). Maybe not your family or sooz, but parents and kids tout dorms, cafeteria etc which are academically irrelevant. Also, American families value athletic participation more highly than we do and it is irrelevant to us and to academic strength. Your comment about one entity is perplexing, I used SAT as proxy for other things just as the US News rankings are proxies for quality. For my son the fit was the strongest student body, with the strongest faculty and the highest rankings. You can disagree.</p>
<p>In my view, the time to narrow the college list to a reasonable amount of options is before you apply and not in April of senior year when you may be sitting on 15 acceptances and have a month to decide. By then, you should have a good idea of what you want in a college. </p>
<p>I think if you have a well balanced list commensurate with your profile (a realistic assessment of your qualifications) that is approximately 40% reaches, 40% matches, and 20% safeties, you should not be shut out of college and in fact, should have options from which to choose come spring. </p>
<p>Now, my observation of some of these anecdotes where people applied to 18+ colleges is that it comes across almost as if âonly a reach school will doâ or âIvy or bustâ or âtop 15 on USNews rankings or bustâ. And so in order to get into one of these very reachy schools (for anyone due to the odds / admit rates), they apply to 12 or more reach schools. I have trouble relating to that. </p>
<p>For my own kid, she had 8 collegesâŠ4 reaches (happened to be Ivies), 4 matches, and 2 safeties. It is not as if ONLY the reaches would do. She liked every school on her list enough to attend, though naturally had some faves (her three faves in the fall happened to be two of the reaches and one of the matches). She got into 2 of the reaches, was waitlisted at one reach, and deferred EA/denied at one reach, and got into the 2 matches and 2 safeties. When it came to deciding where to attend, she narrowed it to 3 for return visits in April and these were one reach and two matches. She actually knocked one of the accepted reaches (an Ivy) off her final decision list. </p>
<p>It just should not take 15 or more schools to yield some options if you have the appropriate list and it is balanced. Now, if only a reach/Ivy/top 15 school will do, it is another way of looking at it (not one I am into but just saying), and even then, if you are an appropriate candidate for such schools and truly someone who would be in contention, even then you should not need more than 8 reach schools and two matches and two safeties. If you canât get into any of the 8 reach schools on your list, you are likely reaching too high.</p>
<p>ramaswami, I cross posted with you above. </p>
<p>The thing is that I donât think a very strong student body and very strong faculty are limited to say, the top 15 on USNews. Thatâs one place where we differ in our thinking. As I wrote, my kids also wanted very strong student body, academics, and faculty. This was a given. But there are more than 15 schools where this can be found and where admissions is quite selective. </p>
<p>For my kid, no sense going to a school like Harvard if it didnât offer the major she was interested in. </p>
<p>No, my kid did not use dorms and cafeteria as a selection factor. </p>
<p>As far as athletic participation, I donât know if your kid was very active in EC endeavors growing up and in high school. My kids were and these were lifelong passions, and not something they did to get into college. Thus, one thing they sought in terms of fit were if the schools offered their EC areas of interest so that they could keep doing these activities. Thatâs an important part of college and of fit. Sports is but one mere example. My daughter looked into her other EC activities of interest and met with people in those areas on campus when visiting. I mentioned alpine ski racing as that is one EC area that not every school offers and had been a lifelong passion of my childâs and so it was important to her to be able to continue in her EC areas of interest in college. Actually, for my other kid, her EC areas of interest, which had also been lifelong, became her major in college and her career. </p>
<p>Location and setting were a factor. For example, I fully understood why my kids wanted to experience an environment that was very different from where they grew up. They grew up in a rural area and wanted to experience being in or near a city. In fact, back when my husband and I moved to Vermont prior to having kids (having both gone to college and grad school in Boston), I remember thinking how it was a great place to bring up children and that one day they would likely go to college some place else and get to experience another way of life so that in their adulthood, they would have perspective of various settings and be able to pick what they wanted (D2 went to college in NYC and has never left there and makes her life there). So, Iâm glad this was a factor in their selecting colleges. My kid was offered a full ride at UVM, but had no intention of applying because not only was it not a good fit, but she would not have gone to college in our state as she wanted a new experience even though she enjoyed growing up in our state. </p>
<p>There are enough highly selective colleges from which to choose and so rather than go by rankings, other selection criteria can come into play while maintaining a given of âhighly selectiveâ or âvery strong students and facultyâ as a baseline. No need to stick with the top 14 schools, when you can select within the top X number (I hate to give a number but much bigger than 14) schools and find ones that match your other criteria (be it major offered, ECs offered, setting, location, size, etc.).</p>
<p>Let me add that wanting a school that offered her sport did not trump academic selectivity. Academic selectivity was a must (she was/is a top student) but within the many schools that are academically very selective and with strong student bodies, she had to narrow the list somehow and it made sense to also pick the ones where she could continue in her EC areas of interest. It is not like that was more important than academics. It isnât.</p>
<p>ramaswami, let me ask you, if I mayâŠletâs say your child got accepted to four schools and they were ranked on USNews as #3, #6, #9, and #13. Would you want him/her to attend the one ranked highest? Do you truly believe that the quality of the school or the strength of the student body or faculty differed in any significant way between schools ranked 3-13?</p>
<p>@ ramaswami: Though the U.S. News methodology factors in a broad number of considerations, it is only one source, one list. (THE list to most) There are many variables that a student and his/her family should investigate during the process (Soozievt touches on several of these). To move beyond the list is neither narrow or short-sided. I donât think any of us are talking about tasty dorm food or comfy mattresses here. These may be peripheral perks, but most likely NOT overarching/deciding factors for anyone.</p>
<p>The composite score difference between U.S. News national univ. list #4 and #15 is 8 points â this is rather incremental. And, no one really needs the U.S. news list to surmise which top schools have great faculty, strong student body, and overall highest rankings. The same top 15 just donât shift around that much â is Harvard, Stanford, MIT or Yale ever going to drop off the list? NO. Duke or U Chicago may drift up or down a few spots, but they are always in the 15. Iâm assuming that the devil in the details becomes more of an issue once the acceptance letters are in and a decision must be made. Then soozievtâs last query would become the material point.</p>
<p>Hereâs a slightly different question: is it appropriate to apply to more colleges given that the number of applicants, and the rejection rates, are at record highs?</p>
<p>With so much competition increase just in the last year or two, it seems like more applications is justifiable.</p>
<p>In the current environment, it seems like oneâs chances of striking out completely are good.</p>
<p>By âmoreâ I mean 8-10, as opposed to 6, the traditional recommendation at my dâs high school. Not 29 or 35.</p>
<p>I think the answer is yes, but the anti-application people in my midst arenât persuaded. What do you think?</p>
<p>Iâm from California, and Iâm applying to UC Berkeley, UC San Diego, Kenyon College in Ohio and University of North Carolina (Iâm double-legacy there).<br>
I really like Berkeley, and I am confident that I can get in, so I donât feel that I need a lot of back up schools. I originally had a much much longer list, but then I asked myself, âIs there any particular reason I would want to go to that school?â That knocked it down, and since I am not applying to any Ivy League schools, itâs not like Iâm taking a shot at everything and hoping a school likes me.<br>
Berkeley and Kenyon (the two I actually want to go to) are opposites in a lot of ways, but I know I would be happy at either of them.<br>
I am not applying to any other UC because I need a true back-up, and I really donât feel comfortable with wasting admission officersâ time on my application when I donât even particularly like the school. If UCLA accepted me (I know this sounds stupid), I would put just another person on the waiting list who would wait with a whole lot of anxiety until the day he/she was taken off.<br>
I know one girl at my school applied to 18, but it was encouraged to apply to around 6-8 schools.</p>
<p>sooz, although I referred to my son applying to the top 14 USNews colleges, I have not talked about my son. This is not to question your approach or defend ours. Yes, I do believe college #3 is better than #13. If you want to get into McKinsey or Goldman Sachs this might make the difference, if you want a good academic experience the difference will be less. You and audelmom treat me like an idiot. I do know a little bit, including the methodology and its limits. If one wanted to go to grad school, then Harvey Mudd and Reed have the highest no of graduates going to PhD programs. If one wanted to work in aerospace an engineering degree from MIT might actually be a disadvantage and one might be better of going to Purdue or GA Tech. For someone wanting to work in finance and overseas, the signaling effect of the top 14 is very relevant. </p>
<p>By the way, I never said any other approach was narrow or shortsighted. Both of you have made negative comments on my approach and I have studiously avoided it. As far as USNews being only one source, thanks for informing me. For many of the top schools it overlaps with Shanghai rankings and also with the Times rankings if one takes out UK colleges.</p>
<p>Good luck to your kids.</p>
<p>ramaswami, I surely did not intend to make you feel idiotic as I donât think that at all. We may have differences of opinion and approach and thatâs fine. I think I asked you some valid questions and if you donât wish to address them, thatâs fine too. </p>
<p>By the way, I know you think if you want to work at Goldman Sachs that going to a school ranked #3 is better than #13, but I do not agree. I donât see a wide range of difference between school ranked 3 or 13. You might have point if you compared school ranked 3 to school ranked 33. My kid went to Brown. Iâm not sure what Brown is ranked, but I donât think it is in the top 10. She knows lots of friends there who have worked at Goldman Sachs. </p>
<p>Likewise, you donât have to go to Harvey Mudd or Reed to have a very good ch ance to go to a fine PhD program. Again, my Dâs fellow graduates at Brown have gone onto the top grad programs in their respective fields (my own D includedâŠat MIT, though not a PhD). For that matter, my D is currently working overseas and has worked overseas several times in the past few years (while a student) and for pay. Her resume has gotten her professional jobs overseas. </p>
<p>I do believe that having a set of selection criteria, which may include âhighly selective collegeâ for a top student, is a good idea, rather than narrowly creating a college list based on rankings. </p>
<p>And I did ask if your child had a safety school because conventional wisdom is that the top 14 in the rankings are not a safety for any student. Others are reading this thread and so sharing that opinion may be of value for them, even if it doesnât matter to you.</p>
<p>chnews, as I wrote earlier on this thread, I believe that 8-10 schools is a reasonable and realistic amount for many college students. And for MOST, no more than 12 are necessary, unless some very specific circumstances warrant it. </p>
<p>But yes, while I donât know anything about your child, a list of 8-10 schools is a reasonable and common amount that should work.</p>
<p>sooz, lets end this conversation. I said going to school no 3 rather than 13 might, MIGHT, make a difference at Goldman Sachs. Actually it does if you look at their analyst backgrounds. That is not to say that someone from Brown or UIUC will never make it. Again, Reed and Harvey Mudd have the highest percentage (sorry, not highest absolute nos) of their grads going onto grad school. Again this is not to say that no one from anywhere else will make it to grad school.</p>
<p>No, I do not want to tout my son and go on and on about my wonderful approach to apps and safeties and my sonâs grand ECS etc.</p>
<p>The only points I wish to make: applying to more than 6 to 8 which is currently recommended by school counselors (maybe enlarged to 10 or so) is not a bad idea. And using rankings is not a bad idea. This is not to say that my son overlooked fit, this is not to say other yardsticks are irrelevant. Some like you may rule out Harvard and go to Duke, for example, and get great academics and sports. Someone else like us may believe that H has the best math dept which is superior to Dukeâs and that alone trumps everything else.</p>
<p>The USNews gets trashed but it is a very useful guide and again has signaling effect.</p>
<p>I am sorry I am not going to broadcast about my son and my process anymore.</p>
<p>sooz, sorry one other thing: it is far tougher for bright Asians to get in to the top schools and hence for a top Asian it is not a bad idea to apply to all the top ones if they want to study subjects like econ or math in which the top ones are almost always the best. We look for the pure academic fit, you seem to take into account sports. I salute you but kindly dont preach to me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How can one say that FIT is overrated? Does this mean that a student should spend four miserable years at a school that offers a poor fit ⊠just because it SUPPOSEDLY might offer better chances for an interview on Wall street, or because it looks better on USNews? </p>
<p>Fwiw, I happen to value the services of the USNews and find that it offers a great service to readers by making them aware of the subtle differences between schools. However, the USNews is also incredibly susceptible to geographical cronyism and organized manipulations by schools. As a result, it does generate a number of outliers, which are easily and usually missed by a certain group of applicants who are excessively focused on prestige and lucrative professional careers.</p>
<p>This position is clearly underscored by your point that states that âit is far tougher for bright Asians to get in to the top schools.â This myth --which stems entirely from a poor or self-serving reading of the statistics-- is as often quoted as it is mostly untrue. If the statistics show that Asians are admitted at a lower rate per applications, they do earn admittances at rates that are substantially higher than their demographical representation in the US. The statistics are skewed because so many Asians believe that it is important to apply to a unreasonable number of schools that ALL fit in an incredibly narrow range. Fwiw, do YOU really believe that the children of Asians face higher hurdles than Soozieâs daughters when applying to Brown, or any of the non URM groups? </p>
<p>It also happens that school recognize the growing trends of candidates who see it necessarily to apply to ALL schools that are highly ranked, and this without much common sense or reason. One who treats the applications as a roulette game does have to live with the odds. </p>
<p>Except for their membership in the Ivy League, how can ALL the 8 schools offer a reasonable fit to the same candidate? Yet, hundreds of people send applications that seem to simply follow the USNews or what is discussed in the SAT Boot camps that are so popular among a subgroups of immigrants.</p>
<p>I donât agree with everything Ramiswami (or anyone else on this thread!) has said but our approach is close to his. The system unfortunately at the highest level schools is a lottery. Sadly, the logical approach to a lottery is to buy as many tickets as possible. My son will be applying to 15-17 schools and I know noone applying to top schools who is not applying to at least 12 or so. Obviously if the system was more logical, we would not have to do this, but we need to deal with the reality. And for what it is worth, I do believe every Ivy would be a good fit for my son. In fact, in almost every school in the country which offers decent academics and is large enough to have many different types of students and activities could be a good fit. I agree that the small/large rural/urban looms large to the kids but is not all that relevant to their actual college experience - generally a college is a bit of a bubble and in most cases campus life is not that different in one from another. I know lots of kids who applied to many schools, were rejected by most of the top ones but admitted into one or two. If they had cut down their list, they may well have eliminated these and had to go to their safeties.</p>