Steps to fix the race to 3% admission rate

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, you are really concerned about at most 5% of US schools. Why would the public and colleges in general care about low admit schools? Also, the current system works for highly selective schools.

I'm not OP, but I don't think your 5% is true at all. Many schools that were once "safeties" are now getting difficult to get into. Schools like UMD, JMU, U South Carolina, Auburn are all schools I've seen posted about here, or experienced with my own kids'/their friends.

UMD is part of the top 5% of schools. If you live in MD or VA, there are many choices that many in-state students could attend. Why should UMD or JMU or the state governments care that the admit rates have gone down? There are enough overall seats in both states to serve in-state students at the network of 4-year public institutions. Also, the other safeties you mention are public schools that meant to serve their in-state students first. U of SC, Auburn, Clemson, etc. have no incentive to change their admission policies to cater to out-of-state students.

[Anonymous]

USC School of Cinematic Arts already has 2-3% acceptance rate

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, you are really concerned about at most 5% of US schools. Why would the public and colleges in general care about low admit schools? Also, the current system works for highly selective schools.

I don't care about the schools at all. I care about the kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, you are really concerned about at most 5% of US schools. Why would the public and colleges in general care about low admit schools? Also, the current system works for highly selective schools.

I'm not OP, but I don't think your 5% is true at all. Many schools that were once "safeties" are now getting difficult to get into. Schools like UMD, JMU, U South Carolina, Auburn are all schools I've seen posted about here, or experienced with my own kids'/their friends.

UMD is part of the top 5% of schools. If you live in MD or VA, there are many choices that many in-state students could attend. Why should UMD or JMU or the state governments care that the admit rates have gone down? There are enough overall seats in both states to serve in-state students at the network of 4-year public institutions. Also, the other safeties you mention are public schools that meant to serve their in-state students first. U of SC, Auburn, Clemson, etc. have no incentive to change their admission policies to cater to out-of-state students.

UMD is in the top 5%? That surprises me (I'm not trying to be snarky.) And I'm not saying that the state government should "care" about anything--I'm just saying that this "race to 3% admission rates" (which this whole thread is about) involves many more schools than just the top 5%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t the issue really that people who have limited understanding of their chances think “maybe me” and apply to those top schools?

Yes. And going test optional made this a serious problem. So many that never would have applied to schools with scores nowhere in the schools range are now applying in droves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One idea:

I think we need to place a soft limit on apps. Here's how.

All schools have to be on the common app.

Students can apply to 9 schools free of charge

Pro 1: while not an ED situation, schools know this applicant is serious enough about their school to put it on this pretty tidy list. Safeties go back to being safeties.

Pro 2: Schools may not want to encourage 100k+ apps.. Will start to cost them too much to process. Marketing may become more targeted.

After the 9 school limit, students can apply to additional schools but the common app will have a box that auto-fills how many schools each applicant has applied to. This gets filled in for every applicant applying to more than 9 schools, and says exactly how many apps this kid is applying to this cycle. Would update all schools as you apply (ie so that app you send in in November will have how many apps would apply to then, but that box updates throughout the cycle).

Pro: This gives schools key data that's lacking now. For some kids who clearly need a lot of FA, schools may think this applicant is responsibly chasing merit. Other schools may get used to saying in presentations, "we think 12 schools is reasonable". And "Of course, we take a second look at those applicants who have done their research and have us on their short list". Most schools won't take the kids applying bazooka-style, improves yield.

Also, every app after the 9 is $50 and that goes into a fund for community colleges. I think this could be something like 20-50mm a year min.

Artificially limiting competition seems like a great way to get the DoJ to investigate

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who wants to submit a score is still welcome too. The panic over test optional is very telling, as is the mindset that private universities could somehow be forced to consider standardized testing in their admissions criteria

What exactly does it "tell?"

NP well there’s a common misperception that high test scores are an indicator of intelligence or college readiness, for one thing. When in fact it’s been demonstrated not to be anything more than an artificial barrier to entry that discriminates against POC. Test bias is a real thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No more test optional. No more super scoring. Early restricted to one school only.

No, we need to keep test optional. That’s the only positive development of the last few years. It levels the playing field dramatically and that’s a great thing.

How does it level the playing field dramatically?

It removed an arbitrary barrier to entry. Plenty of wicked smart people simply don’t test well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who wants to submit a score is still welcome too. The panic over test optional is very telling, as is the mindset that private universities could somehow be forced to consider standardized testing in their admissions criteria

What exactly does it "tell?"

NP well there’s a common misperception that high test scores are an indicator of intelligence or college readiness, for one thing. When in fact it’s been demonstrated not to be anything more than an artificial barrier to entry that discriminates against POC. Test bias is a real thing.

Just certain POCs. Asian POCs do extraordinarily well versus whites. I guess the test must be soaked in Asian cultural references

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, you are really concerned about at most 5% of US schools. Why would the public and colleges in general care about low admit schools? Also, the current system works for highly selective schools.

I'm not OP, but I don't think your 5% is true at all. Many schools that were once "safeties" are now getting difficult to get into. Schools like UMD, JMU, U South Carolina, Auburn are all schools I've seen posted about here, or experienced with my own kids'/their friends.

UMD is part of the top 5% of schools. If you live in MD or VA, there are many choices that many in-state students could attend. Why should UMD or JMU or the state governments care that the admit rates have gone down? There are enough overall seats in both states to serve in-state students at the network of 4-year public institutions. Also, the other safeties you mention are public schools that meant to serve their in-state students first. U of SC, Auburn, Clemson, etc. have no incentive to change their admission policies to cater to out-of-state students.

UMD is in the top 5%? That surprises me (I'm not trying to be snarky.) And I'm not saying that the state government should "care" about anything--I'm just saying that this "race to 3% admission rates" (which this whole thread is about) involves many more schools than just the top 5%.

There are almost 6,000 colleges in the US. All of the schools PP listed are in the top 5%

[Anonymous]

Get rid of financial aid or only allow it for majora that are worthwhile like stem

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So only those wealthy enough to afford to pay $50 an extra app can apply to over 9? Only those with enough money can try to get the better aid packages you mentioned?

you're away they ALL cost money now, right? waivers take information, and we have kids who limit themselves to 2 or 3 bcs kids don't know about waivers.

No, they don't all cost money now. My DD applied to 7 schools and only three had app fees (all public schools). The others were less selective LACs.

https://blog.prepscholar.com/colleges-with-no-application-fee

I get that the current environment is really frustrating for those aiming for more selective schools but the truth is that most colleges admit most applicants and most students don't apply to a ton of colleges (4 in the latest average). So there's not going to be much interest in putting up more barriers.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeltnietzel/2022/11/18/some-good-news-on-the-college-application-front/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One idea:

I think we need to place a soft limit on apps. Here's how.

All schools have to be on the common app.

Students can apply to 9 schools free of charge

Pro 1: while not an ED situation, schools know this applicant is serious enough about their school to put it on this pretty tidy list. Safeties go back to being safeties.

Pro 2: Schools may not want to encourage 100k+ apps.. Will start to cost them too much to process. Marketing may become more targeted.

After the 9 school limit, students can apply to additional schools but the common app will have a box that auto-fills how many schools each applicant has applied to. This gets filled in for every applicant applying to more than 9 schools, and says exactly how many apps this kid is applying to this cycle. Would update all schools as you apply (ie so that app you send in in November will have how many apps would apply to then, but that box updates throughout the cycle).

Pro: This gives schools key data that's lacking now. For some kids who clearly need a lot of FA, schools may think this applicant is responsibly chasing merit. Other schools may get used to saying in presentations, "we think 12 schools is reasonable". And "Of course, we take a second look at those applicants who have done their research and have us on their short list". Most schools won't take the kids applying bazooka-style, improves yield.

Also, every app after the 9 is $50 and that goes into a fund for community colleges. I think this could be something like 20-50mm a year min.

Artificially limiting competition seems like a great way to get the DoJ to investigate

This limits nothing. Kids can still apply to 100 schools -- but colleges will know you've applied to 100 schools.

Also there is a reason the top private high schools limit college apps: it works out better for students as a pool and as individuals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One idea:

I think we need to place a soft limit on apps. Here's how.

All schools have to be on the common app.

Students can apply to 9 schools free of charge

Pro 1: while not an ED situation, schools know this applicant is serious enough about their school to put it on this pretty tidy list. Safeties go back to being safeties.

Pro 2: Schools may not want to encourage 100k+ apps.. Will start to cost them too much to process. Marketing may become more targeted.

After the 9 school limit, students can apply to additional schools but the common app will have a box that auto-fills how many schools each applicant has applied to. This gets filled in for every applicant applying to more than 9 schools, and says exactly how many apps this kid is applying to this cycle. Would update all schools as you apply (ie so that app you send in in November will have how many apps would apply to then, but that box updates throughout the cycle).

Pro: This gives schools key data that's lacking now. For some kids who clearly need a lot of FA, schools may think this applicant is responsibly chasing merit. Other schools may get used to saying in presentations, "we think 12 schools is reasonable". And "Of course, we take a second look at those applicants who have done their research and have us on their short list". Most schools won't take the kids applying bazooka-style, improves yield.

Also, every app after the 9 is $50 and that goes into a fund for community colleges. I think this could be something like 20-50mm a year min.

Artificially limiting competition seems like a great way to get the DoJ to investigate

This limits nothing. Kids can still apply to 100 schools -- but colleges will know you've applied to 100 schools.

Also there is a reason the top private high schools limit college apps: it works out better for students as a pool and as individuals.

Kids at top private high schools don’t have to worry about finances.

[Anonymous]

We need a UCAS system here. Somehow that manages to be legal in a country with much tighter anti trust and anti competition laws.

If colleges limiting apps to 1 via systems like ED is legal, than giving away 9 free applications via common ap is legal. Disclosing how many apps a student has submitted is plenty legal.

Not sure of this idea, but we need more ideas for sure.