Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why someone who likes Dartmouth would feel the need to apply to Columbia or Harvard or Stanford, etc. it was easier to curate a carefully thought out list when we had to type our applications on a manual typewriter.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Application numbers are out of control because of prestige chasers, merit chaser/very price conscious, & decision procrastinators (do I want small or big? Rural or urban? Apply to both, decide later!).

All of it leads to less predictability in admissions with further drives group 1.

I don’t think there’s any way to reduce application numbers. Even doubling application costs I doubt will help. Potentially, doing a UK system where, say, you can only apply to 1 Ivy or T20 or what could work but that requires a lot more coordination & buy in than I think American organizations driven on completion will ever do. I mean, they are the ones winning here

Going TEST REQUIRED used to limit the prestige chasers at schools. So many kids couldn’t meet the score cutoffs prior. You still have Duke, Vanderbilt, Hopkins, Princeton as test optional.

Bring back some clear merit standards and it should ease up.

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:Application numbers are out of control because of prestige chasers, merit chaser/very price conscious, & decision procrastinators (do I want small or big? Rural or urban? Apply to both, decide later!).

All of it leads to less predictability in admissions with further drives group 1.

I don’t think there’s any way to reduce application numbers. Even doubling application costs I doubt will help. Potentially, doing a UK system where, say, you can only apply to 1 Ivy or T20 or what could work but that requires a lot more coordination & buy in than I think American organizations driven on completion will ever do. I mean, they are the ones winning here

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:our high school limits it to 12 apps

everyone HATES this - until their kid is in it and then they totally get it, especially when you have super hooked kids in the pool

this is how high school too. all sophomore parents really grumble about this. by senior year, they get it.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is not a solution. It won't reduce app numbers by much because a kid who applies in Round 1 and gets accepted will still want to apply in subsequent rounds to see if he gets a better FA package/merit award.

Anonymous wrote:our high school limits it to 12 apps

everyone HATES this - until their kid is in it and then they totally get it, especially when you have super hooked kids in the pool

Anonymous wrote:When you are playing the lottery buying more tickets increasing your chance of winning. Since colleges admissions has become analogous to playing the lottery the more applications the greater the chance of winning as well.

Anonymous wrote:How do we lobby for a better system? I think with AI essays there is no ceiling on the number of apps a kid can do and the problem will only become worse. Is anyone trying to address this?

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.