I still shake my head at some of the arguments posted here…
The idea that forcing a kid who otherwise would apply to 20 schools to be limited to 10 apps will somehow make the remaining choices more “well thought-out” ?!? Realistically, that kid would be forced to pare down the existing list, not start from scratch with sudden newfound insight.
That colleges should make the application process MORE difficult to trim # of apps?!? DON’T push more of the burden/stress/essaywriting on the students. This proposal is totally backward.
Please don’t fix what isn’t broken. Colleges are filling their freshman classes just fine with a qualified, well-rounded group of students at great diversity of payment. There is currently a healthy spectrum of easy-to-apply, affordable, (as well as match & reach) options for virtually all students. Just because your or my kid didn’t get accepted to an Ivy isn’t evidence of a broken system.
And I will throw out a counterargument for all to consider… Is it statistically possible that the trend to larger # of apps per student actually benefits ALL students in admission to well-matched colleges? My logic: given the reduction in yield, colleges must admit a larger number of ‘well-matched’ applicants to fill the class (admittedly from a larger applicant pool. ) Overall it remains a wash, IMO. But for every kid bumped out from a reach by the better-qualified kid who sent an incremental app, there may be a borderline kid, otherwise rejected, who now grabbed one of the extra acceptance letters.