<p>Why bidding is silly? The difference amount of FA between school could be in the 100k+. Everyone is terrified with the prospect of not being to pay. Maybe you are really rich or at the opposite end where this might not be a factor but for the rest of most other people, it is a big deal.</p>
<p>That would be fine rocket louise, if the schools would tell you upfront what they cost for your student, or even the ballpark. But they don’t.</p>
<p>^nope i’m middle class. And my parents aren’t giving me a penny for school, so I’m probably just as worried if not more worried about FA.
Instead of gaming the system, I found one financial safety, and will be leaving the other ones up to chance.
It’s the way kids should do it</p>
<p>If this thread has demonstrated anything it’s that circumstances between applicants are so varied that any ethics questions have to be left up to the individual. Different kids with different needs, likes, dislikes, stats, abilities to pay, confidence in their chances of admission, majors, etc. mean varied bases for the ethical portion of their decisions about how many schools to apply to. Nothing about this process is one size fits all.</p>
<p>My son’s best FA packages came from schools that were reaches for anyone. (You know from my other posts I think a few of those reaches could be a fantastic fit for you and cheaper than your financial safety.) Had we been able to get firm FA offers prior to his applying he certainly would not have included some of the schools he did. So we did the best we could with the information we had. Definitely wasn’t gaming.</p>
<p>Schmoomcgoo, agreed. I’d add that I don’t think people should apply to schools which they have no interest in attending simply to “trophy hunt” for acceptances.</p>
<p>I can only think of one unethical situation with which I am familiar in this area. A student got into the school of his/her choice and money was no object. That student refused to withdraw his/her application at another highly competitive institution where others from the high school were on the waiting list. The student’s reason: he/she wanted an acceptance rate of 100%.</p>
<p>Other than that selfish situation, I don’t see an ethical issue.</p>
<p>Yes, 2blue, I agree no trophy hunting and I do agree there is an ethical dimension, it’s just very individual.</p>
<p>Another variable – some kids have disparate stats. My son, e.g., had pretty high standardized test scores, less high gpa (quite a disparity, actually). We had no idea how various schools would react to that (quick refusal, decide to give him a chance?). </p>
<p>He applied to about 19 schools (I think?) including some real reaches. Because of the gpa, nothing was deemed a safety. We researched each school – except for the last three we just threw on at the last minute because heard they had good programs & good financial aid.</p>
<p>He ended up going to the school that was the 19th one he applied to (fabulous financial aid package, beautiful school, very welcoming). </p>
<p>Other schools were so far away (1000 miles) that he wasn’t going to bother visiting until acceptance (& he did visit, then). </p>
<p>As stated before – it depends a lot on the kid. I figure – you are paying $50 (or more!) per application. Colleges are going to be asking you to pay sometimes $160,000 total to attend their institution. And (as stated above) they are keeping the final cost figure quiet until after acceptance. </p>
<p>I’m not seeing this as a huge ethical quandry, as long as you would at least consider going to the ones to which you applied.</p>
<p>I’m not so sure it’s unethical but I’m totally opposed to it like rocket6. If kids had to reveal/state where they were applying as they do on the FAFSA, I bet money there wouldn’t be so many fishing expeditions. Why would you not reveal? Clearly if you have a well crafted targeted list it should be no surprise to any school? No kid needs more than one finanical safety, a couple schools they are fairly certain they will get in and one reachy type school or one financial safety and seven reaches… 5-7 at most. I’ve seen too many posts here where someone actually says they applied to schools where they have no intention of going…huh???.. It would be fairly simple to put a lid on these ■■■■■■■■ applications if kids and it would save money in admissions offices. My LAC had 2 admissions officers in the 70s at the peak of the baby boomers…they now have ten. I do not equate it to searching for a job. In a job hunt relatively low level clerical people scan resumes for key words or the key word hunt is done electronically and a very short list goes to HR or the hiring manager. I do not want to see colleges move from a holistic application process with more experienced people actually spending 15-20 minutes or more on an application. I do think there are many other ways to limit applications at the high school level by limiting how many transcripts will be transmitted. A third way that would work is by all schools to operate on a rolling or early action basis with a financial estimate by January, they could then open up if needed a second application session for the parents that want to ■■■■■ for more bucks. Kids could apply to a limited number of colleges early action and then add more apps during the winter/spring if needed. Bottom line is that an enormous amount of applications is just silly and at the back end costs money for everyone.</p>
<p>This thread is not quite as entertaining as the “craziest reason child applied to college” thread, but it certainly is related. If students weren’t trophy hunting, the Ivies’ numbers would certainly plummet. I am happy the process is finished for child number one and I have two more years until “Mr. Big Fun” starts applications.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why not? It presupposes that students have very particular preferences. But there are those who seriously would like schools that are urban and schools that are rural, schools that are small and schools that are large, etc. Not everyone has this narrow window of only-these-types-of-schools-would-fit-me. I agree trophy hunting takes place and that’s not good, but then again, trophy hunting only impresses shallow high school seniors, so who cares.</p>
<p>i knew a top student who applied to mostly highly selective schools. and applied to a school that offered one of those priority applications. had visited that school, not particularly thrilled with it, but applied because it was a free application. if the story stopped there, seems like some people would say they shouldn’t have taken advantage of that free application since they were wasting the admissions officers’ time and possibly taking an acceptance from someone else.</p>
<p>well – given the realities of highly selective college admissions, this student met with a lot of disappointments. had a much narrower choice of colleges to attend than expected. on second look, that free application school compared favorably to the other choices available. attended, graduated, enthusiastic alum.</p>
<p>i’ve known other kids who ended up attending the “safety” they never thought they’d attend. (thankfully most ended up happy at their schools). luckily they didn’t decide not to apply thinking that “one more” application was too many for them.</p>
<p>these are the kinds of stories i was thinking of ,NEM. I’m not a fan of this approach; my own kids were less than interested. But I still don’t see it as an ethics question. The schools factor these numbers in, and I stand by the statement that the same number, at the end, occupy the same number of spots.</p>
<p>I don’t think that anyone is condemming that “wild card” application that turns out to be the winner… the concerns lies with the kids that apply to 10, 15 20 schools with little more than “fear” driving them, fear they won’t be accepted, parents fear about costs, fear that they won’t have a choice. The other driver is the twisted thinking along the lines of “winner take all” or “he who has the most acceptances must be the king” which is also illogical as kids can only go to one school. Both these motives are driven by the process the colleges are cow towing to and is supported by some wierd variable called yield, which means very little now and would mean more if the applicants were seriously considering attending the schools they apply to. The winner take all motive would cease if the high school guidance councils would get some spine and limit the number of transcripts they were willing to send. And yes, I suspect that the kids who come off the deferr list due to multitudes of kids who are accepted but have no intention of going do get the shaft with finaid in some way, shape or form.</p>
<p>Honestly, I’m less concerned about the administrative burden on adcoms. The price of college attendance has skyrocketed (past the rate increase of the cost of living I think?). It’s a huge, huge investment. Several high-quality schools were asking our family to shell out $40k a year for son to attend.</p>
<p>There are few guarantees in the college admission process. If a student is unsure whether he’ll be admitted, I don’t see being overly worried about ‘burdening’ the administrative staff at the admissions office (who will be chosing who gets to spend $150k to have their child live in a tiny dorm for 4 years). If it’s done in good faith, and increases the applicant’s options, that answers the question pretty reasonably, to me.</p>
<p>Hmmm…8 extra admissions folk is probably at least $2 million dollars during the course of the 4 years our kids will be in college for salaries, load (benefits), T&E. Not sure I can buy the necessity because of a broken system.</p>
<p>Maybe I have a smaller view. I was looking at my kid maximizing his chances for opportunities at schools at which he would thrive, which had good programs in his major and which he had a chance of liking. Plus, maximizing our chances of getting some merit money so he/we weren’t drowning in debt for years on end.</p>
<p>So…the financial investment was ours ($50 a pop for apps) but I don’t think I was calculating ‘burden on adcoms/translated to increased positions-salaries-benefits/cost of tuition.’ </p>
<p>Casting a net broadly in our case gave a kid w/a 3.1 gpa & no in-school ECs two full-tuition scholarships, multiple other scholarships and admission to some surprisingly competitive schools. </p>
<p>If I weighed those benefits against potentially increased admin costs at colleges which have already jacked up their tuition to incredible levels – I wouldn’t have to think too hard. But that’s just me! :-)</p>
<p>momofthreeboys, well those who send out lots of apps are doing their part to stimulate our economy and keep people employed!</p>
<p>rocket6louise - Please name me a financial safety (COA <20k in list price or guaranteed merit aid) with <5k total enrollment that offers both linguistics and computer science. It doesn’t exist. (If it does, TELL ME NOW, because I’d love to find one.) I’ve visited lots of larger schools, and while I have one as my financial safety, I don’t LIKE it–and I doubt I will ever fall in love with a school >10k students.</p>
<p>I don’t support applying to 20+ schools unless it’s for musical theatre or conservatory, but your hard limit of 8 is unrealistic and unfair.</p>