Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s all game theory. Everyone would be better off if they were all applying to fewer schools. But people individually are better off applying to more, and there is no coordination mechanism to get to the better point.

Somewhat agree. I don’t think people really would be better off as there still be intense clustering around the top schools.

If there was some mechanism for more top stat kids to secure a guaranteed but not binding in state safety spot a year prior to admissions then perhaps there would be less shotgunning across safety schools opening up spots for kids who truly wanted those schools.

But it would help at the top schools because instead of kids launching applications to 15 of the top 20, they may only be able to do 5. So fewer apps all around, more distinguishing based on actual preferences rather than a desperation to get into any T20 no matter which, higher admit rate, higher yield. Plus less pressure to ED.

But kids/families who are, in fact, desperate to get into any T20 no matter which would be more likely to get shut out.

No, they would adapt and have to include some middle range options so they would be able to go to college. The current system rewards crazy behavior (20+ applications) and is leading to the sharp increase in app numbers - which leads to colleges having to put more resources into admissions or use AI or both. A ranked choice system is a great idea, for both applicants and colleges.

So the colleges should limit competition in order to save adult paying customers from themselves (and incidentally reduce the likelihood that anyone gets a better FA/MA offer at a similarly-ranked school).

I can see how it would be more genteel, and better for rich people who would like to maintain relatively exclusive access to their relatively exclusive club.

Hey, I have an idea: see if you can’t get all the private day schools in one metro area to agree to such a plan for their own admissions process. That would be easier than getting universities on board, and it would be a great proof of concept.

Anonymous wrote:The solution is to have multiple, possibly non-binding, rounds (like 4 for example) of admission where the previous round decision comes out before the deadline for the next round. This allows a student to stop applying if they got into something they like early. You could potentially limit the number of applications for each applicant for each round but allowing an applicant to apply to a large number of schools if they want to participate in all the rounds.

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one that thinks 12 is a lot? Lol

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s all game theory. Everyone would be better off if they were all applying to fewer schools. But people individually are better off applying to more, and there is no coordination mechanism to get to the better point.

Somewhat agree. I don’t think people really would be better off as there still be intense clustering around the top schools.

If there was some mechanism for more top stat kids to secure a guaranteed but not binding in state safety spot a year prior to admissions then perhaps there would be less shotgunning across safety schools opening up spots for kids who truly wanted those schools.

But it would help at the top schools because instead of kids launching applications to 15 of the top 20, they may only be able to do 5. So fewer apps all around, more distinguishing based on actual preferences rather than a desperation to get into any T20 no matter which, higher admit rate, higher yield. Plus less pressure to ED.

But kids/families who are, in fact, desperate to get into any T20 no matter which would be more likely to get shut out.

No, they would adapt and have to include some middle range options so they would be able to go to college. The current system rewards crazy behavior (20+ applications) and is leading to the sharp increase in app numbers - which leads to colleges having to put more resources into admissions or use AI or both. A ranked choice system is a great idea, for both applicants and colleges.

So the colleges should limit competition in order to save adult paying customers from themselves (and incidentally reduce the likelihood that anyone gets a better FA/MA offer at a similarly-ranked school).

I can see how it would be more genteel, and better for rich people who would like to maintain relatively exclusive access to their relatively exclusive club.

Hey, I have an idea: see if you can’t get all the private day schools in one metro area to agree to such a plan for their own admissions process. That would be easier than getting universities on board, and it would be a great proof of concept.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s all game theory. Everyone would be better off if they were all applying to fewer schools. But people individually are better off applying to more, and there is no coordination mechanism to get to the better point.

Somewhat agree. I don’t think people really would be better off as there still be intense clustering around the top schools.

If there was some mechanism for more top stat kids to secure a guaranteed but not binding in state safety spot a year prior to admissions then perhaps there would be less shotgunning across safety schools opening up spots for kids who truly wanted those schools.

But it would help at the top schools because instead of kids launching applications to 15 of the top 20, they may only be able to do 5. So fewer apps all around, more distinguishing based on actual preferences rather than a desperation to get into any T20 no matter which, higher admit rate, higher yield. Plus less pressure to ED.

But kids/families who are, in fact, desperate to get into any T20 no matter which would be more likely to get shut out.

No, they would adapt and have to include some middle range options so they would be able to go to college. The current system rewards crazy behavior (20+ applications) and is leading to the sharp increase in app numbers - which leads to colleges having to put more resources into admissions or use AI or both. A ranked choice system is a great idea, for both applicants and colleges.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s all game theory. Everyone would be better off if they were all applying to fewer schools. But people individually are better off applying to more, and there is no coordination mechanism to get to the better point.

Somewhat agree. I don’t think people really would be better off as there still be intense clustering around the top schools.

If there was some mechanism for more top stat kids to secure a guaranteed but not binding in state safety spot a year prior to admissions then perhaps there would be less shotgunning across safety schools opening up spots for kids who truly wanted those schools.

But it would help at the top schools because instead of kids launching applications to 15 of the top 20, they may only be able to do 5. So fewer apps all around, more distinguishing based on actual preferences rather than a desperation to get into any T20 no matter which, higher admit rate, higher yield. Plus less pressure to ED.

But kids/families who are, in fact, desperate to get into any T20 no matter which would be more likely to get shut out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s all game theory. Everyone would be better off if they were all applying to fewer schools. But people individually are better off applying to more, and there is no coordination mechanism to get to the better point.

Somewhat agree. I don’t think people really would be better off as there still be intense clustering around the top schools.

If there was some mechanism for more top stat kids to secure a guaranteed but not binding in state safety spot a year prior to admissions then perhaps there would be less shotgunning across safety schools opening up spots for kids who truly wanted those schools.

But it would help at the top schools because instead of kids launching applications to 15 of the top 20, they may only be able to do 5. So fewer apps all around, more distinguishing based on actual preferences rather than a desperation to get into any T20 no matter which, higher admit rate, higher yield. Plus less pressure to ED.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s all game theory. Everyone would be better off if they were all applying to fewer schools. But people individually are better off applying to more, and there is no coordination mechanism to get to the better point.

Somewhat agree. I don’t think people really would be better off as there still be intense clustering around the top schools.

If there was some mechanism for more top stat kids to secure a guaranteed but not binding in state safety spot a year prior to admissions then perhaps there would be less shotgunning across safety schools opening up spots for kids who truly wanted those schools.

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one that thinks 12 is a lot? Lol

Anonymous wrote:So dumb. They can only take so many kids. Other students are not the reason your kid is not getting in.

Anonymous wrote:It’s all game theory. Everyone would be better off if they were all applying to fewer schools. But people individually are better off applying to more, and there is no coordination mechanism to get to the better point.

Anonymous wrote:too many of the top 10 kids in a big high school class gobbled up 20 acceptances.

everyone would be better off if people thought more carefully, ran the NPC early, and didn't apply to 5 safeties.