Anonymous wrote:The US DOE should take over the Common App. It can keep the 20 school limit or reduce it if it thinks best, but not allow other app platforms like Coalition or individual school apps. It has the leverage to do so if it conditions participation in federal student aid.

The last thing we need right now is more Administration intervention in education. They have gutted the Ed Dept and are strong arming colleges.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would this not help the yield if the universities could be more intelligent in knowing if they are OR are not being treated as a safety? Would it also not help the kids to have universities fight for them when they see direct competitors on the list?

P.S. I know this is not likely to happen - please look at this as a fun question to ponder

This would be terrible for my kids like mine, who are applying to a range of schools but leaning toward one of their safety schools for fit and financial reasons. If the school assumed he wouldn't come because he's applying to higher tier schools, they'd be wrong, and both school and students would miss out on each other.

Same, my kid applied to nine schools, accepted everywhere, going to the least selective of the bunch.

OP here. So in what I suggested your kids would have applied to a number of “less selective” (not the same as lesser) peer schools since they were leaning towards them already. Colleges would then be encouraged to offer more merit since they see that it’s the main thing that separates them from competition. They would not think your kid is overqualified and treats them as safety.

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think gate keeping based on making applications more time consuming or more expensive is the answer. Limiting applications to 10 might help. It’s really the top 75 schools where there’s a problem.

Suppose instead of strictly limiting applications to 10, students were allowed to tell schools “you’re on my short list.” Like roses on Hinge. All SCEA/REA/ED/ED2 schools would automatically be on the short list, and then students would get more spots, up to a total of eight or ten. Presumably top schools would rarely consider kids who did not “short list” them, but any school could be shortlisted by any student, and students who need to apply widely to compare financial offers and schools that are hungry for students to fill their class would still be able to find each other.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would this not help the yield if the universities could be more intelligent in knowing if they are OR are not being treated as a safety? Would it also not help the kids to have universities fight for them when they see direct competitors on the list?

P.S. I know this is not likely to happen - please look at this as a fun question to ponder

This would be terrible for my kids like mine, who are applying to a range of schools but leaning toward one of their safety schools for fit and financial reasons. If the school assumed he wouldn't come because he's applying to higher tier schools, they'd be wrong, and both school and students would miss out on each other.

Same, my kid applied to nine schools, accepted everywhere, going to the least selective of the bunch.

Anonymous wrote:Would this not help the yield if the universities could be more intelligent in knowing if they are OR are not being treated as a safety? Would it also not help the kids to have universities fight for them when they see direct competitors on the list?

P.S. I know this is not likely to happen - please look at this as a fun question to ponder

This would be terrible for my kids like mine, who are applying to a range of schools but leaning toward one of their safety schools for fit and financial reasons. If the school assumed he wouldn't come because he's applying to higher tier schools, they'd be wrong, and both school and students would miss out on each other.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of interesting suggestions. The problem with some of the ones that involve ranking is that a) money might influence the decision, and this is not known at the time of application, and b) these are 17/18 year old kids so their ranking is very likely to change between the time they submit apps and when they receive decisions, and/or if they visit schools after they are admitted.

A non-binding ranking is way more flexible than ED.

If it is non-binding then what good is it? People will use it to game the system rather than express true preference.

As the PP just said, kids often don’t have a settled true preference because (1) they’re only 17-18 and (2) the colleges haven’t informed them of the true price yet.

And the good of the ranking is that it’s data for the school about what it will take to yield you. More competitive schools can reject, or decline to give merit to, students who don’t rank them in the top four. But if an unranked school sweeps in with a full ride, and thus suddenly becomes the most-preferred option, the applicant is free to take it.

It’s similar to what private schools do when they cap applications. In that case, the colleges all know that, for students from that high school, they’re in the student’s top 10-12 schools. And the private schools impose these caps because they find that they help their college results.

Back in the day (early 90s), I seem to recall some colleges did ask.

Yes northwestern can see when you added northwestern to your common app.

It’s actually quite an important and relevant bit of data for a school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They can see when you added a school to common app.

Common App keep Colleges list private. Colleges do not share applicant lists or acceptances.

They can see when you added THAT school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of interesting suggestions. The problem with some of the ones that involve ranking is that a) money might influence the decision, and this is not known at the time of application, and b) these are 17/18 year old kids so their ranking is very likely to change between the time they submit apps and when they receive decisions, and/or if they visit schools after they are admitted.

A non-binding ranking is way more flexible than ED.

If it is non-binding then what good is it? People will use it to game the system rather than express true preference.

Anonymous wrote:Lots of interesting suggestions. The problem with some of the ones that involve ranking is that a) money might influence the decision, and this is not known at the time of application, and b) these are 17/18 year old kids so their ranking is very likely to change between the time they submit apps and when they receive decisions, and/or if they visit schools after they are admitted.

A non-binding ranking is way more flexible than ED.

Lots of interesting suggestions. The problem with some of the ones that involve ranking is that a) money might influence the decision, and this is not known at the time of application, and b) these are 17/18 year old kids so their ranking is very likely to change between the time they submit apps and when they receive decisions, and/or if they visit schools after they are admitted.

The US DOE should take over the Common App. It can keep the 20 school limit or reduce it if it thinks best, but not allow other app platforms like Coalition or individual school apps. It has the leverage to do so if it conditions participation in federal student aid.

Anonymous wrote:Would this not help the yield if the universities could be more intelligent in knowing if they are OR are not being treated as a safety? Would it also not help the kids to have universities fight for them when they see direct competitors on the list?

P.S. I know this is not likely to happen - please look at this as a fun question to ponder

I believe the HBCU common app does something that might interest those of us who have fun pondering these things: they allow (or require?) students to rank their top four schools. And the schools can see if/where they were ranked. So a school can have a policy like only giving merit to students who rank them in the top 4. It’s like a much softer version of ED, with four schools (instead of one) and no commitment, but still allowing students to signal “hey, you’re one of my top choices.”

If the common app adopted a similar ranking system for RD apps, that could help schools predict yield, and cut back on applications, without introducing a strict cap.

I don’t think gate keeping based on making applications more time consuming or more expensive is the answer. Limiting applications to 10 might help. It’s really the top 75 schools where there’s a problem.