What is the perfect number of college apps to submit?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We're looking at this as a two-stage process. Initially, two apps -- one EA private and one flagship public. If DC gets into the private, we may be done. If DC gets into public but not private, then DC will apply only to schools that sound even better than this really good option (my guess is 3-4). If DC gets into neither, then we could be looking at a larger number of apps.

While I whole-heartedly agree that even an applicant with top credentials should not just apply to HYPS, I don't see why that applicant shouldn't apply to all those schools plus any other highly selective school s/he would like to attend. That would be in addition to (rather than instead of) applying to good schools where the admission stats look much more favorable.

In addition to ED, would you do early action then regular decision to avoid the large number of apps?

ED makes sense ONLY for students who are full-pay or close to it, or for students with an EFC their families can afford applying to a school that pledges to meet 100% need. If your student does't fall into one of these categories, forget it.

ED also makes sense if you want to turn a reach into a target. The admission standards ED are not as rigorous. At some schools fully 50% of the first-year class is selected during the ED process. That makes getting in via the regular admission process even that much more selective - a point that's lost on many. ED can be tough, though, because many 17-18 year-olds aren't ready to make a final decision at the beginning of the college admissions process.

[Anonymous]

One of mine did 6, the other 11. It really depends on the type of schools. The one who did 6 applied to less competitive schools, the one who did 11 had a few ivies and other super selective schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We're looking at this as a two-stage process. Initially, two apps -- one EA private and one flagship public. If DC gets into the private, we may be done. If DC gets into public but not private, then DC will apply only to schools that sound even better than this really good option (my guess is 3-4). If DC gets into neither, then we could be looking at a larger number of apps.

While I whole-heartedly agree that even an applicant with top credentials should not just apply to HYPS, I don't see why that applicant shouldn't apply to all those schools plus any other highly selective school s/he would like to attend. That would be in addition to (rather than instead of) applying to good schools where the admission stats look much more favorable.

In addition to ED, would you do early action then regular decision to avoid the large number of apps?

ED makes sense ONLY for students who are full-pay or close to it, or for students with an EFC their families can afford applying to a school that pledges to meet 100% need. If your student does't fall into one of these categories, forget it.

ED also makes sense if you want to turn a reach into a target. The admission standards ED are not as rigorous. At some schools fully 50% of the first-year class is selected during the ED process. That makes getting in via the regular admission process even that much more selective - a point that's lost on many. ED can be tough, though, because many 17-18 year-olds aren't ready to make a final decision at the beginning of the college admissions process.

I'd put that a bit differently. Not applying ED in some cases (e.g. Northwestern) can turn matches into reaches. It's not that EA/ED has lower standards -- it's that certain categories (legacy admits at some Ivies) get filled in the first round and/or that the school cares about yield and is using an unambiguous expression of interest as an admissions criterion for highly-qualified students who seem likely to have prestigious alternatives. It would suck to admit a bunch of kids who just see your school as a safety and then to waitlist equally qualified kids who really want to be there. Basically, schools -- like applicants -- are looking for matches too.

[Anonymous]

DC applied to 4 and got into 4. For him it was 4 and two weren't really in the running.

[Anonymous]

For DS it was 6, for DD it was 9.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think it's necessarily the number but the range that's important. Even a very competitive student shouldn't just be applying to Stanford, Harvard, Princeton, and Yale.

In general, 2 safeties, 3 mid-range, 2 reaches.

This was what we did back in the early 90s. Shouldn't the #s be increased for the new model?

Why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think it's necessarily the number but the range that's important. Even a very competitive student shouldn't just be applying to Stanford, Harvard, Princeton, and Yale.

In general, 2 safeties, 3 mid-range, 2 reaches.

This was what we did back in the early 90s. Shouldn't the #s be increased for the new model?

Why?

Because more students are applying to more schools? Instead of being comparable to X number of similarly-qualified peers you are now being compared to 1.5X. Less chance of getting in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think it's necessarily the number but the range that's important. Even a very competitive student shouldn't just be applying to Stanford, Harvard, Princeton, and Yale.

In general, 2 safeties, 3 mid-range, 2 reaches.

This was what we did back in the early 90s. Shouldn't the #s be increased for the new model?

Why?

Because more students are applying to more schools? Instead of being comparable to X number of similarly-qualified peers you are now being compared to 1.5X. Less chance of getting in.

That does not make sense to me. The number of students isn't increasing, just the number of applications. The number of actual slots available at a college has not changed either. So, the colleges will just accept more students and have a decreased % of their admissions actually attend. So the chances should be the same - sort of like 1/2 = 2/4.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think it's necessarily the number but the range that's important. Even a very competitive student shouldn't just be applying to Stanford, Harvard, Princeton, and Yale.

In general, 2 safeties, 3 mid-range, 2 reaches.

This was what we did back in the early 90s. Shouldn't the #s be increased for the new model?

Why?

Because more students are applying to more schools? Instead of being comparable to X number of similarly-qualified peers you are now being compared to 1.5X. Less chance of getting in.

That does not make sense to me. The number of students isn't increasing, just the number of applications. The number of actual slots available at a college has not changed either. So, the colleges will just accept more students and have a decreased % of their admissions actually attend. So the chances should be the same - sort of like 1/2 = 2/4.

Have they worked out all of the kinks with yield/wait lists?

More equally-qualified students applying per slot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think it's necessarily the number but the range that's important. Even a very competitive student shouldn't just be applying to Stanford, Harvard, Princeton, and Yale.

In general, 2 safeties, 3 mid-range, 2 reaches.

This was what we did back in the early 90s. Shouldn't the #s be increased for the new model?

Why?

Because more students are applying to more schools? Instead of being comparable to X number of similarly-qualified peers you are now being compared to 1.5X. Less chance of getting in.

That does not make sense to me. The number of students isn't increasing, just the number of applications. The number of actual slots available at a college has not changed either. So, the colleges will just accept more students and have a decreased % of their admissions actually attend. So the chances should be the same - sort of like 1/2 = 2/4.

Have they worked out all of the kinks with yield/wait lists?

More equally-qualified students applying per slot.

and fewer accepting- so the college need to admit more than they have in the past to make sure enough come in the fall.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We're looking at this as a two-stage process. Initially, two apps -- one EA private and one flagship public. If DC gets into the private, we may be done. If DC gets into public but not private, then DC will apply only to schools that sound even better than this really good option (my guess is 3-4). If DC gets into neither, then we could be looking at a larger number of apps.

While I whole-heartedly agree that even an applicant with top credentials should not just apply to HYPS, I don't see why that applicant shouldn't apply to all those schools plus any other highly selective school s/he would like to attend. That would be in addition to (rather than instead of) applying to good schools where the admission stats look much more favorable.

In addition to ED, would you do early action then regular decision to avoid the large number of apps?

ED makes sense ONLY for students who are full-pay or close to it, or for students with an EFC their families can afford applying to a school that pledges to meet 100% need. If your student does't fall into one of these categories, forget it.

ED also makes sense if you want to turn a reach into a target. The admission standards ED are not as rigorous. At some schools fully 50% of the first-year class is selected during the ED process. That makes getting in via the regular admission process even that much more selective - a point that's lost on many. ED can be tough, though, because many 17-18 year-olds aren't ready to make a final decision at the beginning of the college admissions process.

I'd put that a bit differently. Not applying ED in some cases (e.g. Northwestern) can turn matches into reaches. It's not that EA/ED has lower standards -- it's that certain categories (legacy admits at some Ivies) get filled in the first round and/or that the school cares about yield and is using an unambiguous expression of interest as an admissions criterion for highly-qualified students who seem likely to have prestigious alternatives. It would suck to admit a bunch of kids who just see your school as a safety and then to waitlist equally qualified kids who really want to be there. Basically, schools -- like applicants -- are looking for matches too.

I'm not sure your statement that ED doesn't have lower standards is true. And I'm not talking by much, but with admissions being so competitive, little nudges can help - especially if you are a girl at a non-STEM school, an Asian or among the vast hordes without a hook (recruited athlete, legacy, URM, first generation, nationally recognized talent). I'm not saying that the ED students are undeserving and aren't a match with the schools general profile by any means. But in the game where very small differences can be the difference between a thick and a thin letter, ED can and does make a difference. I wonder if there's any data on this topic that I'm not aware of.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We're looking at this as a two-stage process. Initially, two apps -- one EA private and one flagship public. If DC gets into the private, we may be done. If DC gets into public but not private, then DC will apply only to schools that sound even better than this really good option (my guess is 3-4). If DC gets into neither, then we could be looking at a larger number of apps.

While I whole-heartedly agree that even an applicant with top credentials should not just apply to HYPS, I don't see why that applicant shouldn't apply to all those schools plus any other highly selective school s/he would like to attend. That would be in addition to (rather than instead of) applying to good schools where the admission stats look much more favorable.

In addition to ED, would you do early action then regular decision to avoid the large number of apps?

ED makes sense ONLY for students who are full-pay or close to it, or for students with an EFC their families can afford applying to a school that pledges to meet 100% need. If your student does't fall into one of these categories, forget it.

ED also makes sense if you want to turn a reach into a target. The admission standards ED are not as rigorous. At some schools fully 50% of the first-year class is selected during the ED process. That makes getting in via the regular admission process even that much more selective - a point that's lost on many. ED can be tough, though, because many 17-18 year-olds aren't ready to make a final decision at the beginning of the college admissions process.

I'd put that a bit differently. Not applying ED in some cases (e.g. Northwestern) can turn matches into reaches. It's not that EA/ED has lower standards -- it's that certain categories (legacy admits at some Ivies) get filled in the first round and/or that the school cares about yield and is using an unambiguous expression of interest as an admissions criterion for highly-qualified students who seem likely to have prestigious alternatives. It would suck to admit a bunch of kids who just see your school as a safety and then to waitlist equally qualified kids who really want to be there. Basically, schools -- like applicants -- are looking for matches too.

I'm not sure your statement that ED doesn't have lower standards is true. And I'm not talking by much, but with admissions being so competitive, little nudges can help - especially if you are a girl at a non-STEM school, an Asian or among the vast hordes without a hook (recruited athlete, legacy, URM, first generation, nationally recognized talent). I'm not saying that the ED students are undeserving and aren't a match with the schools general profile by any means. But in the game where very small differences can be the difference between a thick and a thin letter, ED can and does make a difference. I wonder if there's any data on this topic that I'm not aware of.

There is data on stats of ED vs RD but what we were told at several selective schools in info sessions is that difference is primarily recruited athletes. So they were pretty adamant that a non athlete is held to the same standards as RD applicants. When you subtract the athletes the admit rate is still higher, but not much. This is explained by the school preferring to manage yield with committed students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Amother thread talks about the brutal admissions year with some submitting 5-6 applications with all being wait listed or flat out rejected. I personally think 10-12 is reasonable as competition is heavy,

One of the students in the link below submiited an astounding 56 colleges (musician)!

So what do you think is reasonable for YOUR family situation? Yes, we know the application fee can be prohibitive.

http://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/11/17/student-opinion-what-is-the-perfect-number-of-college-applications-to-send/

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBREA3O1VU20140425?irpc=932

There is no perfect number, it varies for everyone. My D submitted to only 5 whereas my son is probably going to be near 14. It varies and there is no right or wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We're looking at this as a two-stage process. Initially, two apps -- one EA private and one flagship public. If DC gets into the private, we may be done. If DC gets into public but not private, then DC will apply only to schools that sound even better than this really good option (my guess is 3-4). If DC gets into neither, then we could be looking at a larger number of apps.

While I whole-heartedly agree that even an applicant with top credentials should not just apply to HYPS, I don't see why that applicant shouldn't apply to all those schools plus any other highly selective school s/he would like to attend. That would be in addition to (rather than instead of) applying to good schools where the admission stats look much more favorable.

In addition to ED, would you do early action then regular decision to avoid the large number of apps?

ED makes sense ONLY for students who are full-pay or close to it, or for students with an EFC their families can afford applying to a school that pledges to meet 100% need. If your student does't fall into one of these categories, forget it.

ED also makes sense if you want to turn a reach into a target. The admission standards ED are not as rigorous. At some schools fully 50% of the first-year class is selected during the ED process. That makes getting in via the regular admission process even that much more selective - a point that's lost on many. ED can be tough, though, because many 17-18 year-olds aren't ready to make a final decision at the beginning of the college admissions process.

I'd put that a bit differently. Not applying ED in some cases (e.g. Northwestern) can turn matches into reaches. It's not that EA/ED has lower standards -- it's that certain categories (legacy admits at some Ivies) get filled in the first round and/or that the school cares about yield and is using an unambiguous expression of interest as an admissions criterion for highly-qualified students who seem likely to have prestigious alternatives. It would suck to admit a bunch of kids who just see your school as a safety and then to waitlist equally qualified kids who really want to be there. Basically, schools -- like applicants -- are looking for matches too.

I'm not sure your statement that ED doesn't have lower standards is true. And I'm not talking by much, but with admissions being so competitive, little nudges can help - especially if you are a girl at a non-STEM school, an Asian or among the vast hordes without a hook (recruited athlete, legacy, URM, first generation, nationally recognized talent). I'm not saying that the ED students are undeserving and aren't a match with the schools general profile by any means. But in the game where very small differences can be the difference between a thick and a thin letter, ED can and does make a difference. I wonder if there's any data on this topic that I'm not aware of.

I agree that ED/EA can make a positive difference wrt outcome for a particular individual at a particular school -- what I'm disputing is whether it does so by lowering standards for early admittees. Basically, there are often many more qualified candidates than there are spots and applicants with identical qualifications experience different outcomes. These are built-in features of the current system and would exist even if EA/ED didn't exist. What EA/ED does (among other things) is introduce a new rationing principle -- applicants who apply first/apply exclusively/are willing to commit without hearing from other schools get first shot at spaces for candidates like them (however defined). In a situation where there's a real risk that virtually all the slots for a candidate like them could be allocated in the first round, EA/ED raises the bar for such candidates in the RD round.

So, yes, do EA -- it helps. And choose wisely where to spend your chip because you often only get one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We're looking at this as a two-stage process. Initially, two apps -- one EA private and one flagship public. If DC gets into the private, we may be done. If DC gets into public but not private, then DC will apply only to schools that sound even better than this really good option (my guess is 3-4). If DC gets into neither, then we could be looking at a larger number of apps.

While I whole-heartedly agree that even an applicant with top credentials should not just apply to HYPS, I don't see why that applicant shouldn't apply to all those schools plus any other highly selective school s/he would like to attend. That would be in addition to (rather than instead of) applying to good schools where the admission stats look much more favorable.

In addition to ED, would you do early action then regular decision to avoid the large number of apps?

ED makes sense ONLY for students who are full-pay or close to it, or for students with an EFC their families can afford applying to a school that pledges to meet 100% need. If your student does't fall into one of these categories, forget it.

ED also makes sense if you want to turn a reach into a target. The admission standards ED are not as rigorous. At some schools fully 50% of the first-year class is selected during the ED process. That makes getting in via the regular admission process even that much more selective - a point that's lost on many. ED can be tough, though, because many 17-18 year-olds aren't ready to make a final decision at the beginning of the college admissions process.

I'd put that a bit differently. Not applying ED in some cases (e.g. Northwestern) can turn matches into reaches. It's not that EA/ED has lower standards -- it's that certain categories (legacy admits at some Ivies) get filled in the first round and/or that the school cares about yield and is using an unambiguous expression of interest as an admissions criterion for highly-qualified students who seem likely to have prestigious alternatives. It would suck to admit a bunch of kids who just see your school as a safety and then to waitlist equally qualified kids who really want to be there. Basically, schools -- like applicants -- are looking for matches too.

I'm not sure your statement that ED doesn't have lower standards is true. And I'm not talking by much, but with admissions being so competitive, little nudges can help - especially if you are a girl at a non-STEM school, an Asian or among the vast hordes without a hook (recruited athlete, legacy, URM, first generation, nationally recognized talent). I'm not saying that the ED students are undeserving and aren't a match with the schools general profile by any means. But in the game where very small differences can be the difference between a thick and a thin letter, ED can and does make a difference. I wonder if there's any data on this topic that I'm not aware of.

I agree that ED/EA can make a positive difference wrt outcome for a particular individual at a particular school -- what I'm disputing is whether it does so by lowering standards for early admittees. Basically, there are often many more qualified candidates than there are spots and applicants with identical qualifications experience different outcomes. These are built-in features of the current system and would exist even if EA/ED didn't exist. What EA/ED does (among other things) is introduce a new rationing principle -- applicants who apply first/apply exclusively/are willing to commit without hearing from other schools get first shot at spaces for candidates like them (however defined). In a situation where there's a real risk that virtually all the slots for a candidate like them could be allocated in the first round, EA/ED raises the bar for such candidates in the RD round.

So, yes, do EA -- it helps. And choose wisely where to spend your chip because you often only get one.

Only ED or SCEA helps. EA is only early notification and doesn't signal any commitment to the college