Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TLDR

Yes, college admissions is a game. But then again, so is all of life. Do you think life is merit based? I mean look who's president, look at gerrymandering, look at how people vote against their own interests. Look at networking and how getting a job is largely who you know, not what you know.

It's all rigged and all a game.

We get you would vote against legislation prohibiting colleges from making ridiculous -sized waitlists. Not everyone is as good a parent as you are, apparently, and kids are kids — and some will suffer from the delusion of hope. End suffering. It costs nobody anything.

I can't imagine any legislature ever considering limiting college waitlists, most of the state schools need them and rely heavily on them, and talk about a minor issue in the grand scheme of highly rejective college admissions. If the emotional stress of the WL process is too much for you and your kid tell them not to accept any WL spots. Problem solved

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TLDR

Yes, college admissions is a game. But then again, so is all of life. Do you think life is merit based? I mean look who's president, look at gerrymandering, look at how people vote against their own interests. Look at networking and how getting a job is largely who you know, not what you know.

It's all rigged and all a game.

We get you would vote against legislation prohibiting colleges from making ridiculous -sized waitlists. Not everyone is as good a parent as you are, apparently, and kids are kids — and some will suffer from the delusion of hope. End suffering. It costs nobody anything.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Article in Ny times.. by Jeff Selingo


“That mind-set makes acceptance to a highly selective college feel like a game. The rules are set by colleges, then carried out by admissions offices, and are stacked against the vast majority of teenagers. Fewer than a tenth of applicants win that prize of getting into one of the nation’s most selective colleges. If that weren’t enough, every year elite colleges move the goal line with new rules for getting across it.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/22/opinion/college-admissions-seniors-stats.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare


I doubt most people will learn anything from his book or article. We keep playing this game and colleges keep winning..

Selingo says in this article you can’t do anything about the rules set by colleges. It’s called legislation. Abolish ED.

Nonsense, they are private institutions. People can choose to apply or not to apply but private schools have every right to create an admissions process that works for their interests.

It is a simple act of Congress. Or Mass can do it at the state level to get it started. Or enforce existing anti-trust law.

While we are at it, limit waitlists to some reasonable number — not in the thousands.

"A simple act of Congress."

Are you in the DMV and writing that without sarcasm? That's amazing.

A “simple act of Congress” just taxed endowments, with huge budget implications. A “no ED requirement” is not an unfunded mandate; it costs nothing. As would limiting waitlists to — I don’t know — 1/4 the size of the previous years fall freshman class?

Ok---so then your kid simply wouldn't get on any WL apparently. You'd rather have that? Quite frankly, we told our kid WL don't matter, pick a school and get excited about it. DOn't mull around and hope for "something better" and waste away your summer being miserable

Didn’t say there should be no waitlists. Reading comprehension is your friend. But it is funny that you felt you had to tell your kid not to be miserable. The fact that you even felt like you had to say it should be reason enough for this practice to be curtailed.

My kid wasn't "miserable". Because we made sure they knew that reaches were highly unlikely (5% acceptance rates where 90% of applicants are qualified means most highly qualified are WL or rejected, so don't take it personally). My kid got into all of their targets and safeties, ED deferral then rejection, Rejected at another T15, 1st year abroad at NEU and WL at Tufts. Otherwise they got into 8 other schools including 3 in the 30-50 range, two with $35-40K/year merit.
My kid was happy because we helped set expectations early in the process.

You seem awfully defensive. What difference does it make to you if waitlists were curtailed to something more reasonable, giving colleges still plenty of wiggle room to craft the class they want due to yield vagaries? I don’t think you realize that only 1-10% (the 10% only in a very weird yield year) are ever even considered. It’s a scam.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TLDR

Yes, college admissions is a game. But then again, so is all of life. Do you think life is merit based? I mean look who's president, look at gerrymandering, look at how people vote against their own interests. Look at networking and how getting a job is largely who you know, not what you know.

It's all rigged and all a game.

We get you would vote against legislation prohibiting colleges from making ridiculous -sized waitlists. Not everyone is as good a parent as you are, apparently, and kids are kids — and some will suffer from the delusion of hope. End suffering. It costs nobody anything.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Applying to colleges should not be as stressful as it has become. Colleges shouldn’t be as expensive as they are now. High school students shouldn’t be expected to win national awards, present themselves as prodigies, professional athletes etc. They are just teens beginning their lives. They might not know what they want to do in college and yet they already expected to have achieved so much success in various fields. Its insane! They should instead be allowed to make mistakes and learn from them, which in the current system is not allowed. Imagine the stress when KIDS are not allowed to make mistakes. Cause one mistake (one B or C) can mean no chance at the elite schools.
Then we wonder why our kids are anxious and stressed.

This problem is completely manufactured. No kid needs to go to an elite school and all of this stress is caused by fear of not being UMC or rich, because things are getting worse and harder for those who don’t get good jobs. Plenty of good schools are happy to take normal kids with normal stats who don’t have a mountain of ECs. There is no need for all of the stress and pressure.

Instead of focusing on getting more kids into the elite schools, how about making society better so things don’t suck so much for everyone else? The problem is not that these elite institutions don’t let enough kids in, it’s that the system is perpetuated in the first place.

Back in the day, it wasn't as difficult to get accepted by the state flagship. These schools served as the backstop for students rejected by elite schools, or just as the respected school of choice. The flagships have the express purpose of educating the successful HS students of the state, but this mission has been undermined, if not eliminated, by the increased number of applicants and increased selectivity. Now, more in state students are being rejected by them, which creates uncertainly, which leads to anxiety. Note how many flagships admit 40%. 50% or more OOS. Yes, there are schools for these rejected students, but this newer model requires families to familiarize themselves with more schools and reduce expectations for reasons out of their control. Increasing state funding for the flagship, so as to require the school to admit a higher percentage of in state kids would be a minor move in the right direction, after all, that is supposedly their purpose.

Anonymous wrote:TLDR

Yes, college admissions is a game. But then again, so is all of life. Do you think life is merit based? I mean look who's president, look at gerrymandering, look at how people vote against their own interests. Look at networking and how getting a job is largely who you know, not what you know.

It's all rigged and all a game.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Article in Ny times.. by Jeff Selingo


“That mind-set makes acceptance to a highly selective college feel like a game. The rules are set by colleges, then carried out by admissions offices, and are stacked against the vast majority of teenagers. Fewer than a tenth of applicants win that prize of getting into one of the nation’s most selective colleges. If that weren’t enough, every year elite colleges move the goal line with new rules for getting across it.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/22/opinion/college-admissions-seniors-stats.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare


I doubt most people will learn anything from his book or article. We keep playing this game and colleges keep winning..

Selingo says in this article you can’t do anything about the rules set by colleges. It’s called legislation. Abolish ED.

Nonsense, they are private institutions. People can choose to apply or not to apply but private schools have every right to create an admissions process that works for their interests.

It is a simple act of Congress. Or Mass can do it at the state level to get it started. Or enforce existing anti-trust law.

While we are at it, limit waitlists to some reasonable number — not in the thousands.

"A simple act of Congress."

Are you in the DMV and writing that without sarcasm? That's amazing.

A “simple act of Congress” just taxed endowments, with huge budget implications. A “no ED requirement” is not an unfunded mandate; it costs nothing. As would limiting waitlists to — I don’t know — 1/4 the size of the previous years fall freshman class?

Ok---so then your kid simply wouldn't get on any WL apparently. You'd rather have that? Quite frankly, we told our kid WL don't matter, pick a school and get excited about it. DOn't mull around and hope for "something better" and waste away your summer being miserable

Didn’t say there should be no waitlists. Reading comprehension is your friend. But it is funny that you felt you had to tell your kid not to be miserable. The fact that you even felt like you had to say it should be reason enough for this practice to be curtailed.

My kid wasn't "miserable". Because we made sure they knew that reaches were highly unlikely (5% acceptance rates where 90% of applicants are qualified means most highly qualified are WL or rejected, so don't take it personally). My kid got into all of their targets and safeties, ED deferral then rejection, Rejected at another T15, 1st year abroad at NEU and WL at Tufts. Otherwise they got into 8 other schools including 3 in the 30-50 range, two with $35-40K/year merit.
My kid was happy because we helped set expectations early in the process.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Article in Ny times.. by Jeff Selingo


“That mind-set makes acceptance to a highly selective college feel like a game. The rules are set by colleges, then carried out by admissions offices, and are stacked against the vast majority of teenagers. Fewer than a tenth of applicants win that prize of getting into one of the nation’s most selective colleges. If that weren’t enough, every year elite colleges move the goal line with new rules for getting across it.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/22/opinion/college-admissions-seniors-stats.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare


I doubt most people will learn anything from his book or article. We keep playing this game and colleges keep winning..

Selingo says in this article you can’t do anything about the rules set by colleges. It’s called legislation. Abolish ED.

Nonsense, they are private institutions. People can choose to apply or not to apply but private schools have every right to create an admissions process that works for their interests.

It is a simple act of Congress. Or Mass can do it at the state level to get it started. Or enforce existing anti-trust law.

While we are at it, limit waitlists to some reasonable number — not in the thousands.

"A simple act of Congress."

Are you in the DMV and writing that without sarcasm? That's amazing.

A “simple act of Congress” just taxed endowments, with huge budget implications. A “no ED requirement” is not an unfunded mandate; it costs nothing. As would limiting waitlists to — I don’t know — 1/4 the size of the previous years fall freshman class?

Ok---so then your kid simply wouldn't get on any WL apparently. You'd rather have that? Quite frankly, we told our kid WL don't matter, pick a school and get excited about it. DOn't mull around and hope for "something better" and waste away your summer being miserable

Didn’t say there should be no waitlists. Reading comprehension is your friend. But it is funny that you felt you had to tell your kid not to be miserable. The fact that you even felt like you had to say it should be reason enough for this practice to be curtailed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Article in Ny times.. by Jeff Selingo


“That mind-set makes acceptance to a highly selective college feel like a game. The rules are set by colleges, then carried out by admissions offices, and are stacked against the vast majority of teenagers. Fewer than a tenth of applicants win that prize of getting into one of the nation’s most selective colleges. If that weren’t enough, every year elite colleges move the goal line with new rules for getting across it.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/22/opinion/college-admissions-seniors-stats.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare


I doubt most people will learn anything from his book or article. We keep playing this game and colleges keep winning..

Selingo says in this article you can’t do anything about the rules set by colleges. It’s called legislation. Abolish ED.

Nonsense, they are private institutions. People can choose to apply or not to apply but private schools have every right to create an admissions process that works for their interests.

It is a simple act of Congress. Or Mass can do it at the state level to get it started. Or enforce existing anti-trust law.

While we are at it, limit waitlists to some reasonable number — not in the thousands.

Why? Why do you care? Colleges are businesses whose ultimate goal is to fill the freshman class with X students. Not X+100 and not X-100. Both create different ramifications for the school. You can either get on a WL or not. Up to you. But in general it's best to assume you wont get off any WL, and make your best pick by May1 and proceed with attending in the fall.

But the school needs to ensure they have X students matriculating for Fall semester. WL are part of that management.

Sure, why should anyone care if colleges have 5,000-person waitlists for 10 potential spots? Nothing wrong with that — at all. It should even be celebrated. Thanks, colleges.

So you would rather your kid get put on ZERO Wait lists? When a college sends out a WL offer, they have no clue how many spots there will be. Their jobs is to fill their freshman class. You can choose to accept a WL or not.

If your kid is "qualified " for a T25 school, they can literally find tons of merit and mostly acceptances in the 30-75 range. If you find schools outside the T25, you won't have so much stress and will be happier

What are you, nutty? Yes, 4,500 kids would be done a tremendous favor if it was mandated that the waitlist be limited, in this example, to, say, 500 kids. What you fail to understand is that no more than 100 kids had any chance in hell of getting off that waitlist, let alone 500, let alone 5,000. It is totally unnecessary and borderline emotionally abusive.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Admissions should be based on merit and not on subjective criteria like EC’s which can be easily embellished and manipulated. It will stop all this madness to a great extent.

If "merit" is solely grades and tests scores then hard pass from me. I live in NYC. My kid got into top SHSAT schools but we opted out. Because the majority (but not all) of the kids who get in on "merit" have zero personality. And before someone has a cow, this refers to white kids, Asian kids, Indian kids, etc. And to avoid another cow, again, there are plenty of exceptions. But a university full of these types would be a miserable place to go. I want my kids to go to a school not only with smart kids but ones who have non-academic interests, who have some charisma, emotional intelligence, compassion, and a sense of humor. People who not only will find the cure for cancer in the lab but could also do well at a cocktail party, potentially do well in a sales job, getting really excited at a football game but also appreciate a classical music concert, an art gallery and a rock concert, and would be fun to have a beer with (at the appropriate age, of course).

Admissions people are pretty good at sniffing out fake EC's from real ones. Again, I'm sure we all know someone who snuck one by them. But they know what they are doing.

Why are these characteristics mutually exclusive? Students can still have other interests, just because they don’t have to list their non-academic interests doesn’t mean they don’t have any. What are you even talking about? Do you think students from the rest of the world (canada, Europe ) have no interests?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Article in Ny times.. by Jeff Selingo


“That mind-set makes acceptance to a highly selective college feel like a game. The rules are set by colleges, then carried out by admissions offices, and are stacked against the vast majority of teenagers. Fewer than a tenth of applicants win that prize of getting into one of the nation’s most selective colleges. If that weren’t enough, every year elite colleges move the goal line with new rules for getting across it.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/22/opinion/college-admissions-seniors-stats.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare


I doubt most people will learn anything from his book or article. We keep playing this game and colleges keep winning..

Selingo says in this article you can’t do anything about the rules set by colleges. It’s called legislation. Abolish ED.

Nonsense, they are private institutions. People can choose to apply or not to apply but private schools have every right to create an admissions process that works for their interests.

They are private and can do whatever they want, except they also want Govt funding.

The "govt funding" is largely for research they are doing. Research that is being done by graduate students at a highly reduced pay rate versus if we have to do it in industry (Think $25K pay yearly versus $150-200K for a PHD expert in the industry). I will take still giving funding to institutions to do this brilliant work for cheap, as I like advancing science

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Article in Ny times.. by Jeff Selingo


“That mind-set makes acceptance to a highly selective college feel like a game. The rules are set by colleges, then carried out by admissions offices, and are stacked against the vast majority of teenagers. Fewer than a tenth of applicants win that prize of getting into one of the nation’s most selective colleges. If that weren’t enough, every year elite colleges move the goal line with new rules for getting across it.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/22/opinion/college-admissions-seniors-stats.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare


I doubt most people will learn anything from his book or article. We keep playing this game and colleges keep winning..

Selingo says in this article you can’t do anything about the rules set by colleges. It’s called legislation. Abolish ED.

Nonsense, they are private institutions. People can choose to apply or not to apply but private schools have every right to create an admissions process that works for their interests.

It is a simple act of Congress. Or Mass can do it at the state level to get it started. Or enforce existing anti-trust law.

While we are at it, limit waitlists to some reasonable number — not in the thousands.

"A simple act of Congress."

Are you in the DMV and writing that without sarcasm? That's amazing.

A “simple act of Congress” just taxed endowments, with huge budget implications. A “no ED requirement” is not an unfunded mandate; it costs nothing. As would limiting waitlists to — I don’t know — 1/4 the size of the previous years fall freshman class?

Ok---so then your kid simply wouldn't get on any WL apparently. You'd rather have that? Quite frankly, we told our kid WL don't matter, pick a school and get excited about it. DOn't mull around and hope for "something better" and waste away your summer being miserable

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Article in Ny times.. by Jeff Selingo


“That mind-set makes acceptance to a highly selective college feel like a game. The rules are set by colleges, then carried out by admissions offices, and are stacked against the vast majority of teenagers. Fewer than a tenth of applicants win that prize of getting into one of the nation’s most selective colleges. If that weren’t enough, every year elite colleges move the goal line with new rules for getting across it.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/22/opinion/college-admissions-seniors-stats.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare


I doubt most people will learn anything from his book or article. We keep playing this game and colleges keep winning..

Selingo says in this article you can’t do anything about the rules set by colleges. It’s called legislation. Abolish ED.

Nonsense, they are private institutions. People can choose to apply or not to apply but private schools have every right to create an admissions process that works for their interests.

They are private and can do whatever they want, except they also want Govt funding.