<p>it shouldnt be surprising…</p>
<ol>
<li>Generation Y = ridiculous amount of kids</li>
<li>More nervous kids = more apps, driving application numbers</li>
</ol>
<p>Mini, the UC system raised the cost to $60 per application, so while it is easy to apply to multiple UC campuses, it is not cheap. </p>
<p>CSU applications must be sent separately to each college, as far as I know… so while those are cheap, it is not particularly easy to do multiple apps. </p>
<p>So whatever has happened in California, it certainly isn’t a result of making the process cheaper or easier.</p>
<p>And my son would be happy to come to Evergreen tomorrow if they’ll waive out-of-state tuition. ;)</p>
<p>‘Mini, the UC system raised the cost to $60 per application, so while it is easy to apply to multiple UC campuses, it is not cheap.’</p>
<p>Well, for those at the upper end of the income scales (and who are more likely to apply to UCs than to CSUs), ease is likely the bigger issue.</p>
<p>But we’ll see if they ever decide to do a count of discrete applicants.</p>
<p>P.S. - Our OOS tuition is roughly $14k - what is in-state tuition in Cal? (I think total cost might be cheaper than in-state at UCLA, etc.)</p>
<p>Mini, in-state tuition at the UC’s is about $6K. There are miscellaneous campus fees that might raise one campus a few hundred dollars above another. Washington adds $10K for out-of-state tuition and does not offer any sort of grant aid to out-of-staters. </p>
<p>Tuition at the CSU’s is $3K/year, which is why my son will probably end up choosing Humboldt over Evergreen. Humbolt is also located amid some of the most exquisitely beautiful real estate on the planet, and housing is relatively cheap there – not a bad deal overall.</p>
<p>marny, I really appreciated your post (#97 on this thread). One wonders, when reading those student reactions such as you referenced, whether these were cases of loathed reaches (a possible fallout of blanketing the upper-levels without reflection), or an inappropriate sense of “failure” for not having been admitted to the favorite reach(es). It’s painful enough to read reactions like this when only the match and/or safety schools have been claimed, but I have the same reaction as you do when I read that someone’s “life is over” or someone “has no future” when they have “only” been accepted to Duke, Emory, & Cornell. Some people would kill for such acceptances!</p>
<p>There was a vigorous debate going on within a previous thread (“lottery” thread) regarding the relative wisdom of applying to all the Ivies, or selecting from among them. Perhaps the bigger issues are, (1) gosh, keep everything in perspective, and (2) do not apply to any schools you cannot imagine feeling comfortable in – regardless of whether those are safeties, matches, or reaches. </p>
<p>I have decided that I’ve come down on the side of fewer Ivies (& other selectives), than all of them, unless a student has done the research like bandit_tx’s family & does envision a realistic fit in each case. I do think it’s the exception that a student will find every Ivy equally or nearly equally appropriate. They can vary vastly – by program, by campus culture, by location, activities of choice, & on & on. When careful research is NOT done, it not only leads to the kinds of student reactions marny mentions, I really do think it adds to the insanity & lottery aspects for all students. (hair-splitting by admissions & virtually arbitrary decisions in some “identical” cases.) I guess I wouldn’t want to see people’s freedom curtailed by a restraint on the #'s, but I would hope that students, GC’s, & parents would exercise responsibility regarding desires, outcomes, & choices.</p>
<p>We were genuinely surprised with D#1 to get the EA acceptance. Before that moment, she had 12 college choices on her list – & that was after her teachers counseled us to reduce the list from 15. However, it was NEVER 15 reaches. In the end it was 4 reaches, 4 matches, 4 safeties – pared down from about 7 safeties I think. Naturally it was pared down more with that first acceptance. But at no time did she or I believe her life would be “over” if even one of those reaches was not attained.</p>
<p>chocoholic,
I think both things are happening. It’s going in polar directions – with the successful students becoming increasingly successful and the failing or disengaged or underserved students dropping out. At least that’s what I see in my neck of the woods…</p>
<p>Modest Proposal: A national database where all students applying to an out-of-state/private American college/univ must register. It would have each student’s record: boards, transcript, locations, ecs/sports/arts/awards/, financial contribution your family is willing to make. You the student get to select up to 10 places you are interested in attending. You are able to pick two (in order of perference, no-retries) per month from 11/1 to 4/1.</p>
<p>Step 2, Each school reviews all candidates that have selected it as a ‘1’ each month and sends out electronic notification by the end of the month. An individual school cannot select more than 33% of its class in any one month and must publicly announce the number of available slots at the end of each month.</p>
<p>If selected, the admission is binding and all other schools are unable to review the student. Each month a school works down through its list of applicants that present as students are denied entrance by their higher choices. </p>
<p>This way you get a truer picture of who really wants to go where along with fewer reaches as choices are limited to 10. Admissions becomes a much more straightforward process and less energy is wasted by adcoms poring through and accepting kids that ultimately don’t come.</p>
<p>Each school would effectively have it’s own ED program. students would see where openings were as the school year went along and laws of supply and demand would correct for under or over supply. </p>
<p>i.e. I see Northwestern has 55% still available after first two months, and I am still not accepted at my first 4 choices, some of which are ‘ranked’ below NU. I am on the fence between NU and Chi, but I decide that they may be hitting the panic button a little more than cross-town rival UChi who has filled up 60% in same time, so I apply to NU over UChi. </p>
<p>I certainly realize that one could (and you guys no doubt will) come up with many reasons why this is a good idea like Hillary Health Care was a good idea, but remember I promise not to hold Senate hearings on it :)</p>
<p>
True. I was only referring to how random the process of hiring at companies is…which makes it a not so good analogy for adcomms picking students for colleges.</p>
<p>not bad, indy, not bad. </p>
<p>Actually, some of us parents had discussed databases last year, in some organized fashion. And last week I had proposed to an aquaintance that I thought it was time for “serial ED,” eliminating more & more applicants through the months, & announcing the # of openings. (Not dissimilar to what you suggest.) Btw, you say 10 choices, but there are 6 inclusive months, unless you meant to exclude Jan. 1, due to the holiday period.</p>
<p>I cannot say that I object. I see only one problem with it in a way that could affect students: the November senior can be very different from the April senior, & this certainly would have been true of my own D. So a student may be prematurely boxing him/herself in before a more reflective decision can be made. OTOH, I would be in favor of a 2/1 through 6/1 period (5 months, 10 choices), as I think the second half of the Sr. Yr. presents the “truer” candidate, as well as more opportunity to do the research. I know: that presents some planning & hiring problems for colleges, but maybe they would be willing to trade slightly more frenzy between June & Sept. for volumes more sanity during the previous fall & winter.</p>
<p>
So, the end of need-blind admissions? Each college gets to choose based on the highest bidder?</p>
<p>In the cool blue light of morning, yes both a 2/1 - 6/1 period would give everyone involved more time to consider choice and make at least 1/2 of senior yr count as opposed to today’s ED where it does not.</p>
<p>Also, calmom, I threw that one in at the last second (see comma not slash), and I am on the fence here. I can see leaving this info off and each school including the amount is it willing to PAY for the student in it’s acceptance offer, but then the acceptance could not be binding unless that offer was financially reasonable to the student. The student of course runs the risk of spurning offers that take them away from their 1st/2nd choice schools. The school’s generosity comes down to how badly they want YOU at that point in time. Schools would know the student is sincerely interested in coming, since not more than 2 schools at a time are being considered by a student. If you as an adcom knew who your ‘competition’ was for this student at any given time, you would probably make a more concerted effort to structure your bid accordingly. Howie Mandel is <em>not</em> allowed to be involved in this process in any way 
</p>
<p>One thing I forgot to mention, each school would have a monthly list posted of specialties (tuba players, potential Aramaic majors, women’s butterfly swimmers) it is looking to fill. A student would be bound to participate in this activity for at least 3 semesters. This list would change monthly as certain slots are filled. This would eliminate the endless speculation about the byzantine logic of what ‘hooks’ are hot, etc</p>
<p>“This would eliminate the endless speculation about the byzantine logic of what ‘hooks’ are hot, etc”</p>
<p>Doesn’t this intimate that families are speculating about what is hot for the sole purpose of gaming the system even further? Obviously, the gaming worked well for particular subsets of applicants, especially when the pursuit of solitary activities in music and “research” were met with oohs and aahs. The loudest voices decrying the randomness of the admission come from the precise crowd who kefpt their offspring hostage in the backseat of the Honda in an endless afternoon quest from the Suzuki Academies to … whatever new award-yielding activity that could look good on a college application. Creating the perfect “application” kid invariably results in just one more Stepford kid. </p>
<p>What happens to “being yourself” in such pre-programmed future. How many children are forced in activities they hate? Read the accounts on CC for a couple of months and a bleak picture emerges. </p>
<p>The good news is that we can also read VERY successful stories that describe the life of students who were allowed to pursue their passion without ulterior motives related to the “perfect” college. For some, this passion is music, for others it is solving differential equations in 7th grade. But the difference is that it came from within and was not the result of a decade long forecast of the possible hooks. </p>
<p>Preparing for college life and applying should be not be a “paint-by-the-numbers” project nor a database matching exercise. It is about individuals presenting themselves as honestly as possible to another set of individuals.</p>
<p>by the time you are a senior it’s a bit late to take up the tuba or learn the butterfly. How would I know when I get up at 5am in 9/10/11 grade for swimming practice who is going to need me when I graduate? My premise is that student are <em>not</em> presenting themselves honestly b/c they are like Cheney shooting at whatever moves and hoping to hit something.</p>
<p>I thought the process was all about fit and match. The whole thing now is a matching exercise if nothing else. It’s obvious to those of us in the process as students/parents and according to many adcoms that the process is out of control and there is a tremendous waste of resources going on both sides with very unpredictable results for all involved.</p>
<p>Obviously, I don’t pretend that the above is implementable as stated, hell I probably contradicted myself already, but the point is the system is highly inefficient and producing questionable results. Some major overhauls are needed. At the very least a cap on the number of applications per student. </p>
<p>If the DB seems too Orwellian, then you probably don’t approve of the FBI file the gov’t no doubt has on you too :P</p>
<p>After reading the articles and this thread, I have come to a simple conclusion:</p>
<p>Perfect Storm = a direct, personal impact on me or my child</p>
<p>Overreaction = it doesn’t affect me or my child (or at least not yet)</p>
<p>Re: “the highest bidder”</p>
<p>Yeah, I also skipped over that part; shouldn’t have. Do agree that financial need should not exclude anyone for any stated need-blind admit college. Nor do I think that <em>overt</em> “Enrollment [financial] Management” should be part of the app. process. </p>
<p>There could be a way to account for f.a., I’m sure. It would occur as some kind of negotiating process between the college & the student, in the offer itself. There would have to be an opt-out clause for f.a. students, & theirs would not have to be binding until all their f.a. efforts were in for their 10 choices. Thus, it would not be as clean & “early” in the final analysis, because ultimate distribution of students would still not be known until after 6/1. However, I still think there’s a way to do this to make it much saner & more responsible from all ends.</p>
<p>I think you may have misunderstood the thrust of indy’s proposal, xiggi. I don’t think it was an attempt to impersonalize or depersonalize the process, or to take it out of the hands of the individual student. I think it’s an attempt to reduce gaming, not increase it. And I agree with indy about the e.c. thing. Btw, this is a very elastic situation with regard to colleges. They may be overwhelmed with some e.c.'s one yr, underwhelmed another yr., & that <em>is</em> part of the blindness or “lottery” quality of it. Parents who imagine they can outguess the worth of a particular e.c. by “keeping offspring hostage” are mistaken. I also think this happens a lot less than you seem to believe. (Or at least they’re not necessarily doing it for the purpose of college admissions.)</p>
<p>“by the time you are a senior it’s a bit late to take up the tuba or learn the butterfly. How would I know when I get up at 5am in 9/10/11 grade for swimming practice who is going to need me when I graduate? My premise is that student are <em>not</em> presenting themselves honestly b/c they are like Cheney shooting at whatever moves and hoping to hit something.”</p>
<p>I fail to understand the Cheney analogy, but that is OK. As far as “knowing who is going to need me when I graduate” … you simply don’t and that is the way it SHOULD be. You should not swim in high school because Harvard or Stanford might like that. You should swim because you WANT to and enjoy it. Trying to become someone else for the sake of pleasing an illusory admission committee is the surest way to end up being disappointed. Campaigning for the creation of a giant cheat sheet (aka the database’s qualifications) is far from being an improvement. If you need a roadmap, you already are lost.</p>
<p>Well, I think they should offer - publicly - a certain number of slots to qualified highest bidders. They do now - they are called “developmental admits”. But the process is private rather than public. Funds could be used to subsidize financial aid, raise the paltrey number of low-income admits at top schools, provide extra educational assistance for low-income high school students who, with just a little push, might qualify.</p>
<p>There are school websites that list what schools are looking for. My alma mater, for example, lists the particular musical instruments that the music department is seeking right on the music department page. For athletes, in sports like basketball, it is not difficult to see who is graduating and what position they played. It is simple to go to the common data set to see how many students graduated in particular majors. </p>
<p>I agree with Xiggi that this shouldn’t be a “paint-by-numbers” exercise. There is nothing, repeat NOTHING, going on at Yale today for your kid than is happening in your own backyard. As William Ayers says, “The best preparation for a meaningful future life is a meaningful present one.”</p>
<p>xiggi,
I couldn’t agree more. My son fell in love with Latin in fifth grade, never knowing that six years later it might lead him to a “hot” major. It’s been his passion for all these years (and nearly all his ECs and awards relate to it) and if it ends up helping him get into some school that needs Classics majors, cool. Luckily, he fought me about taking up a sport or an instrument to “look better” to colleges. I was wrong for wanting him to be something he wasn’t. Whatever school he gets into will want him for him and not for some package that was created.</p>
<p>“Parents who imagine they can outguess the worth of a particular e.c. by “keeping offspring hostage” are mistaken. I also think this happens a lot less than you seem to believe. (Or at least they’re not necessarily doing it for the purpose of college admissions.)”</p>
<p>It may not happen on a national level because this relates to only a fraction of the college admission process. On the other hand, there is “another” world where the wrong choice of the “correct” kindergarten is deemed to represent a doomed future. It is the same world where everything is based on building the perfect resume that is invariably built on individual accomplishments at the expense of team work. Anecdotal as it may seem, their presence in our K-12 is unmistakable, especially the loud complaints that all the jockeying was for naught because the adcoms were onto the gamesmanship and had grown wiser. At least, the 10-12 years of violin can come handy to accompany the appropriate dirge.</p>
<p>I agree with Xiggi: the student needs to be himself/herself and be the <em>best</em> at that he/she can be. From there, look at what colleges are a good fit…the colleges are doing vice versa. </p>
<p>Thinking in Myers-Briggs terms, many people seem to look at college admissions as a process that leads to a goal. No, it’s a process that leads to another process. It’s not attending Yale, Vanderbilt, Duke, or Smith that’s what’s important: it’s what the student <em>gets</em> from attending Yale, Vanderbilt, Duke, or Smith that’s important…and those who see it as ticket getting punched are the most likely to be disappointed, imo.</p>
<p>TheDad, I do not see how indy’s suggestion (or some form resembling that) excludes the concept of a process that leads to a process. I think if the first app were due on 2/1, the Process would very much have been occurring. Nor does it prevent any evolution on the part of the student between 2/1 and 6/1. It’s hard for me to believe that one cannot come up with a couple of favorites by the first of February in Sr. Yr. As it is now, many people have favorites by 11/1 – vis-a-vis the current ED deadlines.</p>
<p>I think the current way is far, far more goal-driven & invites far more gaming. While it still allows for reflection, it certainly does not require it.</p>
<p>I don’t know how representative the CC population is of the country at large. However, given self-reported app numbers, by the upper-tier colleges, & given similar extreme increases for lesser-known colleges, my guess is that fewer than half of the total college apps are the result of a reflective & “careful-fit” process (with or without adult guidance). People tend to react to the feeding frenzy by engaging in one-up-manship, which merely adds to the bait in the ocean. I do not see the picture changing unless some controls, or at least incentives, are attempted. I actually think we may have reached the point where the colleges may see that the mutual marketing may be having a negative impact on decisions & yields. (That would be the only thing that would get them to initiate any changes.)</p>