Anonymous wrote:I think we get that, but the end result will surely be 3% admission rates at dozens of schools.

This hurts kids. Too many kids -- not just UMC -- are spending their childhoods trying to "craft a story" for colleges that are just a crapshoot.

I really need this explained to me. How does this "hurt" kids?

Most importantly, what "solution" is there in this thread that does not hurt them more?

I'll tell you what most of this thread is: parents who think that limiting the number of apps to (i.e.) Yale increases junior's chances of being admitted, so they want to do that.

Anonymous wrote:I think we get that, but the end result will surely be 3% admission rates at dozens of schools.

This hurts kids. Too many kids -- not just UMC -- are spending their childhoods trying to "craft a story" for colleges that are just a crapshoot.

Having just sent my youngest through the NYC high school system where you get a lottery number at the beginning -- it was a bit of relief. Okay, so we don't have to worry about this entire tier of schools with your 78% lottery number, even with your straight As. And parents in one year pulled the data together to show lowest lottery number admitted so we knew.

I wish the colleges would put in a floor at least. No, we didn't take any kids with an 1150 or a 3.1. Publish that. They really do the opposite not. Mailers and emails to kids who have no shot. It's cruel iMO

They are never going to publish the absolute floor because it doesn't exist for any school. There are always exceptions (e.g., development, football recruit, 1st gen, etc.). However, if you look at the CDS for any school, you figure out the relative floor by looking at the stats for the majority of enrolled students.

I think we get that, but the end result will surely be 3% admission rates at dozens of schools.

This hurts kids. Too many kids -- not just UMC -- are spending their childhoods trying to "craft a story" for colleges that are just a crapshoot.

Having just sent my youngest through the NYC high school system where you get a lottery number at the beginning -- it was a bit of relief. Okay, so we don't have to worry about this entire tier of schools with your 78% lottery number, even with your straight As. And parents in one year pulled the data together to show lowest lottery number admitted so we knew.

I wish the colleges would put in a floor at least. No, we didn't take any kids with an 1150 or a 3.1. Publish that. They really do the opposite not. Mailers and emails to kids who have no shot. It's cruel iMO

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UCAS system is a better way IMO. And yes, they have elite schools too and a lot of kids with hopes pinned to them.

I'm not sure why private colleges that take federal money (ie 95%) don't have a US rate and a non-USA rate.

The US would have to fund higher education a lot more to have the kind of say you want. Yes, professors are funded by federal grants, but the benefits of those grants for society and private business in terms of both R&D, improved policy, and workforce training are estimated to be an easy 10fold return in the relative short-term and far more in the long-term. Yes, some students are funded by loans, but it would be easier and cheaper for colleges to say you can't pay, you can't come and just teach the UMC/wealthy. The benefits you are pointing to benefit society more than they do the colleges/universities so the government doesn't have a lot of bargaining power with colleges/universities.

Not really. If federal funds were tied to tuition, schools would find a way to cut fat to bring down tuition and keep federal money

A little bit maybe, but I think they would just accept fewer poor students. Especially selective private schools which are the ones relevant to this thread (3% admission race).

No R1 university is giving up federal research grants

The point of this thread isn't tuition costs, it's low admission rates. If the feds were to tie receiving federal research grants to tuition, sure the schools would cut tuition--but they could also cut institutional aid to anyone who can't afford the lower tuition rates. They could decide that the teaching side of their schools is less worth it and cap admissions making the admission rates even tougher. (And if feds made it too draconian, private universities could just switch to venture capital/private donors/use of endowments and skip the feds altogether and have a lot laxer policies around profiting from research, not sharing data openly, more patenting--they could switch the model quite a bit if the US continued to make a lot of demands on universities without concomitant support).

BINGO!!!

You cannot make the T25 schools open up more spaces in the freshman class. Nor do you really want that without the infrastructure in place. Just look at schools that have grown too rapidly---follow the parent's FB pages and see the issues they kids have. Housing is a pain, cannot get classes they need, coops that used to be easy to get (put out 100+ resumes and most kids had a job secured 1-2 months before but now kids are putting 150-200 and only 20% of certain majors have jobs because of the overcrowding and the economy so they all register for fall classes in case they don't get a coop, which means there are not enough classes for kids to take, etc the cycle continues), etc. Harvard can't just go from 2K freshman to 3K. There is no housing, there is not classroom space, advisors, food services, library/study space, gym space, etc. The school is designed for 7-8K undergrads---they cannot go to 12K without significant investments in all infrastructure. Not to mention the differences between a 7K and 12 K school is huge in terms of environment---they wouldn't "be Harvard" anymore.

The better solution is for people to realize it's a lottery and real treat to get selected to attend an elite school, but realize for someone that smart, there are hundreds of excellent universities and your kid can find the right one and love their 4 years and excel in life. You just need the right attitude. Recognize that it is NOBODY's Right to attend an elite university--no matter how hard you worked for the last 4 years. Set your target schools right and you should easily have 2-4 great schools you can attend that might even offer you great merit and/or honors admissions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:get rid of legacy. I think we're about 3 cycles from that anyway.

legacies and athletes are the biggest obstacles to fair admissions

Alabama football generated $50 million in profit last year. Anyone thinking that college sports are going away doesn't realize how big of a business it is for large schools

NESCAC & Ivy “athletes” (who would get their asses kicked in any mainstream sport by SEC athletes) aren’t generating revenue

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UCAS system is a better way IMO. And yes, they have elite schools too and a lot of kids with hopes pinned to them.

I'm not sure why private colleges that take federal money (ie 95%) don't have a US rate and a non-USA rate.

The US would have to fund higher education a lot more to have the kind of say you want. Yes, professors are funded by federal grants, but the benefits of those grants for society and private business in terms of both R&D, improved policy, and workforce training are estimated to be an easy 10fold return in the relative short-term and far more in the long-term. Yes, some students are funded by loans, but it would be easier and cheaper for colleges to say you can't pay, you can't come and just teach the UMC/wealthy. The benefits you are pointing to benefit society more than they do the colleges/universities so the government doesn't have a lot of bargaining power with colleges/universities.

Not really. If federal funds were tied to tuition, schools would find a way to cut fat to bring down tuition and keep federal money

A little bit maybe, but I think they would just accept fewer poor students. Especially selective private schools which are the ones relevant to this thread (3% admission race).

No R1 university is giving up federal research grants

The point of this thread isn't tuition costs, it's low admission rates. If the feds were to tie receiving federal research grants to tuition, sure the schools would cut tuition--but they could also cut institutional aid to anyone who can't afford the lower tuition rates. They could decide that the teaching side of their schools is less worth it and cap admissions making the admission rates even tougher. (And if feds made it too draconian, private universities could just switch to venture capital/private donors/use of endowments and skip the feds altogether and have a lot laxer policies around profiting from research, not sharing data openly, more patenting--they could switch the model quite a bit if the US continued to make a lot of demands on universities without concomitant support).

My suggestion - find a steady state so that applicants can better predict where they will be accepted. The uncertainty created by the change upon change upon change for 21/22/23 admissions leads to more and more applications. If it settles down, people will maybe figure out a realistic balanced list that doesn't have to be so huge.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:get rid of legacy. I think we're about 3 cycles from that anyway.

legacies and athletes are the biggest obstacles to fair admissions

Alabama football generated $50 million in profit last year. Anyone thinking that college sports are going away doesn't realize how big of a business it is for large schools

Any university that gives legacy preference is hypocritical when they so openly praise DEI

Anonymous wrote:get rid of legacy. I think we're about 3 cycles from that anyway.

legacies and athletes are the biggest obstacles to fair admissions

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

Yes, get rid of those meaningless tests altogether. They don't tell us anything useful.

get rid of legacy. I think we're about 3 cycles from that anyway.

Anonymous wrote:UCAS system is a better way IMO. And yes, they have elite schools too and a lot of kids with hopes pinned to them.

I'm not sure why private colleges that take federal money (ie 95%) don't have a US rate and a non-USA rate.

Sounds good to me!

I'm also okay with a box that says how many apps you've submitted. I don't care too much about UMC kids applying to 8 reaches, 8 targets, etc. 3/3/3 is totally fine and w me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UCAS system is a better way IMO. And yes, they have elite schools too and a lot of kids with hopes pinned to them.

I'm not sure why private colleges that take federal money (ie 95%) don't have a US rate and a non-USA rate.

The US would have to fund higher education a lot more to have the kind of say you want. Yes, professors are funded by federal grants, but the benefits of those grants for society and private business in terms of both R&D, improved policy, and workforce training are estimated to be an easy 10fold return in the relative short-term and far more in the long-term. Yes, some students are funded by loans, but it would be easier and cheaper for colleges to say you can't pay, you can't come and just teach the UMC/wealthy. The benefits you are pointing to benefit society more than they do the colleges/universities so the government doesn't have a lot of bargaining power with colleges/universities.

Not really. If federal funds were tied to tuition, schools would find a way to cut fat to bring down tuition and keep federal money

A little bit maybe, but I think they would just accept fewer poor students. Especially selective private schools which are the ones relevant to this thread (3% admission race).

No R1 university is giving up federal research grants

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UCAS system is a better way IMO. And yes, they have elite schools too and a lot of kids with hopes pinned to them.

I'm not sure why private colleges that take federal money (ie 95%) don't have a US rate and a non-USA rate.

The US would have to fund higher education a lot more to have the kind of say you want. Yes, professors are funded by federal grants, but the benefits of those grants for society and private business in terms of both R&D, improved policy, and workforce training are estimated to be an easy 10fold return in the relative short-term and far more in the long-term. Yes, some students are funded by loans, but it would be easier and cheaper for colleges to say you can't pay, you can't come and just teach the UMC/wealthy. The benefits you are pointing to benefit society more than they do the colleges/universities so the government doesn't have a lot of bargaining power with colleges/universities.

Not really. If federal funds were tied to tuition, schools would find a way to cut fat to bring down tuition and keep federal money

A little bit maybe, but I think they would just accept fewer poor students. Especially selective private schools which are the ones relevant to this thread (3% admission race).