Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's the Common App that's behind this. Severely curb or eliminate the common app, and you're back to students applying to 6-8 schools.

Again:

Colleges don't want this.

Kids don't want this.

It doesn't magically create more seats where people want to go - it just increases the odds they ill get shut out and limits their options.

Worst. Idea. Ever.

Wrong. College admissions officers do NOT want to be flooded with applications. They are burned out, short-staffed, and suffer from low morale. They do NOT want what the Common App has created.

You could not be more wrong about what colleges want. Yes AOs are overworked and underpaid. They always have been. All colleges want as many applicants as possible to build he class they want from. All of them. That's why elite colleges send email recruitments and even still mail expensive brochures.

If they didn't want what the common app offers, guess what they would do? They LOVE the common app. Many more applications for much less cost.

You are just flat out wrong.

+1 I work in higher ed, and admissions staff across institutions is low. However, admissions answers to the institutional leadership (e.g., the board, president, etc.) and alumni/donors. The job of admissions officers is, first and foremost, enrollment. I listened to a pitch by Common App to a school that recently adopted the Common App. The number 1 selling point is a 10% guaranteed increase in applications.

I've worked in higher ed for 20 years, and everyone in admissions HATES the CA. Admission officer retention rates are at an all time low. They are burned out. If you eliminated the CA, or reduced the number of applications a student could submit using the CA, then the across the board increase in applications (which made universities appear more selective) would also go down across the board. The rankings are all relative.

Yes, they are burned out, but selectivity is not the only thing the senior admin/leadership care about. As you know, institutional priorities are real, and receiving more apps is a plus for schools to reach those goals. I think higher ed treats most staff, including admissions officers, as interchangeable or a means to an end, which I don't support. Therefore, they don't care that AOs are burnt out--at least at my institution, they don't. Therefore, I don't see a path to fix this problem, especially limiting or doing away with the Common App because there is no incentive at this time for institutions to do this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's the Common App that's behind this. Severely curb or eliminate the common app, and you're back to students applying to 6-8 schools.

Again:

Colleges don't want this.

Kids don't want this.

It doesn't magically create more seats where people want to go - it just increases the odds they ill get shut out and limits their options.

Worst. Idea. Ever.

Wrong. College admissions officers do NOT want to be flooded with applications. They are burned out, short-staffed, and suffer from low morale. They do NOT want what the Common App has created.

You could not be more wrong about what colleges want. Yes AOs are overworked and underpaid. They always have been. All colleges want as many applicants as possible to build he class they want from. All of them. That's why elite colleges send email recruitments and even still mail expensive brochures.

If they didn't want what the common app offers, guess what they would do? They LOVE the common app. Many more applications for much less cost.

You are just flat out wrong.

+1 I work in higher ed, and admissions staff across institutions is low. However, admissions answers to the institutional leadership (e.g., the board, president, etc.) and alumni/donors. The job of admissions officers is, first and foremost, enrollment. I listened to a pitch by Common App to a school that recently adopted the Common App. The number 1 selling point is a 10% guaranteed increase in applications.

I've worked in higher ed for 20 years, and everyone in admissions HATES the CA. Admission officer retention rates are at an all time low. They are burned out. If you eliminated the CA, or reduced the number of applications a student could submit using the CA, then the across the board increase in applications (which made universities appear more selective) would also go down across the board. The rankings are all relative.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's the Common App that's behind this. Severely curb or eliminate the common app, and you're back to students applying to 6-8 schools.

Again:

Colleges don't want this.

Kids don't want this.

It doesn't magically create more seats where people want to go - it just increases the odds they ill get shut out and limits their options.

Worst. Idea. Ever.

Wrong. College admissions officers do NOT want to be flooded with applications. They are burned out, short-staffed, and suffer from low morale. They do NOT want what the Common App has created.

You could not be more wrong about what colleges want. Yes AOs are overworked and underpaid. They always have been. All colleges want as many applicants as possible to build he class they want from. All of them. That's why elite colleges send email recruitments and even still mail expensive brochures.

If they didn't want what the common app offers, guess what they would do? They LOVE the common app. Many more applications for much less cost.

You are just flat out wrong.

+1 I work in higher ed, and admissions staff across institutions is low. However, admissions answers to the institutional leadership (e.g., the board, president, etc.) and alumni/donors. The job of admissions officers is, first and foremost, enrollment. I listened to a pitch by Common App to a school that recently adopted the Common App. The number 1 selling point is a 10% guaranteed increase in applications.

Anonymous wrote:

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%.

Yes. There are ~4000 4 year institutions in the USA. 5% is 200. UMD is easily in the Top 200 schools in the country. THat's the point---most people are only looking at the Top schools and complain when their kid doesn't get in. But there are plenty of great schools, they just don't want to look at them. The sheer fact most don't realize all the schools routinely discussed on DCUm are T200/top 5% explains the issue. Over focus on needing the "top/elite" schools to take their kid.

+1 even if you only consider the approx. 1500 schools ranked by USNews, the T200 schools on the national list, plus the top 100 SLACs and top 100 regional/comprehensive schools, we are still talking about the top 10% of colleges.

Is there anyone with a kid on this board that didn't get into any of those schools?? Didn't get into any in-state public? Your child can only attend 1 school. The only time when the government, the general public, and institutions collectively agree that the admissions system is a problem is when we get to a point where kids can't get into any public 4-yr in their state and top 5% of the 3500 schools in the US.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's the Common App that's behind this. Severely curb or eliminate the common app, and you're back to students applying to 6-8 schools.

Again:

Colleges don't want this.

Kids don't want this.

It doesn't magically create more seats where people want to go - it just increases the odds they ill get shut out and limits their options.

Worst. Idea. Ever.

Wrong. College admissions officers do NOT want to be flooded with applications. They are burned out, short-staffed, and suffer from low morale. They do NOT want what the Common App has created.

You could not be more wrong about what colleges want. Yes AOs are overworked and underpaid. They always have been. All colleges want as many applicants as possible to build he class they want from. All of them. That's why elite colleges send email recruitments and even still mail expensive brochures.

If they didn't want what the common app offers, guess what they would do? They LOVE the common app. Many more applications for much less cost.

You are just flat out wrong.

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

That is the stupidest thing I have heard in a long time on DCUM

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.

THIS^^^.

Look at WPI for example. They have been test optional since 2012...and were well on their way to going test blind. Covid sped that process along and for the HS class of 2022 (fall 2022 start) they did go test blind. They do not look at scores and wont change that. Their average GPA (UW) is 3.92. They have found GPA is a much better indicator than SAT/ACT. They are a STEM focused school/engineering and admit kids with an AVG gpa of 3.92 UW. Pretty damn impressive. They have found a way to find really smart kids who will succeed. Their grad rate is 87 or 88%, which given that they have a 92% retention rate after freshman year. Given how challenging engineering is, I suspect the remaining loss is people who simply transfer out after freshman year because they want something other than STEM. Point is, they have an excellent graduate rate for a school ranked in the 60s, and they learned a long time ago that SATs were not needed to get the right group of students---they found they were missing great students by using the tests.

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%.

Yes. There are ~4000 4 year institutions in the USA. 5% is 200. UMD is easily in the Top 200 schools in the country. THat's the point---most people are only looking at the Top schools and complain when their kid doesn't get in. But there are plenty of great schools, they just don't want to look at them. The sheer fact most don't realize all the schools routinely discussed on DCUm are T200/top 5% explains the issue. Over focus on needing the "top/elite" schools to take their kid.

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.

There are ~4000 4 year undergrad schools in the USA. 5% is 200 schools. All the schools you listed are in the T200 schools---most are in the T100.

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.

Wont work because schools like getting 100K applications. It makes them appear to be highly ranked and desirable. They are still getting an excellent group of freshman so they don't care if they need to reject 95%. Can't control what private schools do really

This is a big part of the problem. The priority shouldn't be the "highly ranked and desirable" level of the school . . . Jesus.

Obviously that should not be the priority. But from reading here and CC and Reddit, it apparently is for many many people. That is the problem----those applying with a balanced list and those who realize that reaches are REACHES and most wont get into their reaches but you apply for the fun of it and just because it might happen, are much happier.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's the Common App that's behind this. Severely curb or eliminate the common app, and you're back to students applying to 6-8 schools.

Again:

Colleges don't want this.

Kids don't want this.

It doesn't magically create more seats where people want to go - it just increases the odds they ill get shut out and limits their options.

Worst. Idea. Ever.

Wrong. College admissions officers do NOT want to be flooded with applications. They are burned out, short-staffed, and suffer from low morale. They do NOT want what the Common App has created.

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?

Because many are simply not good at testing. SAT/ACT benefits kids from higher income homes. Those that can afford it do great test prep---$1000 and 8-12 hours of work can easily get a kid from a 1350 to a 1550.

Many smart kids with learning issues (ADHD/anxiety/depression/dyslexia) simply suck at test taking. My ADHD kid did 40+ hours of test prep. And got the same essential DAMN score every time they took a practice test or real test. Half way thru tried switching tests, and did slightly better on the ACT but once again their first practice ACT was where their score stayed. No amount of test prep was going to change that.

Now, that kid has graduated from a T100 school with a good GPA, great job at an excellent company, just got first year raise and got the highest amount (the kids talk---using over 20 data points, they have the highest raise of everyone in that group). Successful kid who will excel in life but not so much with testing, testing, testing.

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, 1000%! Applying to 10-12 Reach schools and only 2-3 targets/reaches is a recipe for disaster. People need to wake up and realize, no matter what your stats, anything with less than 25% acceptance rate is a REACH for everyone. If you have a balanced college list: reaches, 3-4 targets (25%+ acceptance and your kid is at/+ 75% stats), and 3-4 true safeties (2 with at least 50% acceptance and kid at 75%+ stats and another 2 with at least 75% acceptance and kid at 90%+) and make sure you can afford and your kid WANTS TO ATTEND them all, you will do well. You are likely to get into a few targets and at least 2 of your safeties---most likely you will get into more of the targets and safeties.

People complaining just are pissed their special snowflake with high stats is not getting into all the highly rejective schools---get over it, 90-95% do NOT get into those schools. You should know that going into the process and plan accordingly

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Wont work because schools like getting 100K applications. It makes them appear to be highly ranked and desirable. They are still getting an excellent group of freshman so they don't care if they need to reject 95%. Can't control what private schools do really

Yeah, schools think system is working, but there have been times the Govt came in. NPC is a government thing, for example. We could mandate something

Cannot mandate at private schools. Only states can mandate at their state schools, so nothing would be accomplished.

A lot is mandated at private schools. Once again, Americans confused how many things are mandated. Or what mandate means.

I think we all understand it's working for the schools. But why carry water for these schools?

NPC, for example, was a small step forward. It was better for schools before -- when it was a total black box for consumers. This improved things.

Maybe you don't like the OP idea. But surely we could improve this somehow. Nearly all colleges get a lot of fed money and anything can be tied to that.

I'd like to see Pell expanded - by both who qualifies and the amount.

I'd like to see direct subsidized student loans bumped up to 10k per year and open to all. Skip loan forgiveness, do this. Happy to cripple a big chunk of the private student loan business.

I'd like to see more data on admissions. I'd like to see lowest admitted test score/GPA by major. We're wasting kids time applying to programs they won't get admitted to.

We need a UCAS-style system not run by College Board.

Unpopular, but I personally dont think any for profit business can offer scholarships to kids for under 2500. There are too many business putting out feel good marketing materials with a single $500 scholarship attached. Kids waste so much time and effort and hope on dead ends.

And number one: We need to change rules about taxation on endowments.