<p>Agree. There is nothing “artificial”. Frankly if college-specific apps were instituted or re-instituted and the common app went away tomorrow, you’d have a more natural sense of who really wanted to apply where. The common app is the artificial part, not the college-specific app. Colleges get to both look like heroes (“we won’t make you, the applicant, sweat - we’ll keep it easy for you!”) AND boost their applicants.</p>
<p>
I could be wrong, but I think your second sentence is basically what cellardweller meant. Maybe it would be more precise to say that those colleges that use the common app artificially <em>increase</em> their number of applicants. But in relative terms, the effect is the same.</p>
<p>Notwithstanding that the University of Chicago’s admission rate has been dropping steadily, it remains an admissions “bargain” compared to many of its educational peers, whose admissions rates are barely 1/4th to 1/3rd of its rate. And there are others out there, as well. The University of Michigan’s admissions are pretty predictable for the sort of applicant who has a real shot at HYPS. It may not offer exactly the same educational experience as Harvard – there will be a good deal less snootiness, and you may occasionally speak with someone whose SAT score was under 2000 – but everything important in terms of opportunity and peers is there. In the LAC world, moving out of the NESAC cocoon raises one’s chances of admission significantly, and colleges like Carleton, Grinnell, Oberlin, Vassar, Reed, and the remaining ex-Seven Sisters offer wonderful educational experiences with much less random admissions than Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, and their ilk.</p>
<p>I do believe that there are some real differences between the most popular, most selective colleges and those I have named above, but those differences are much less important than their similarities, and are not remotely proportionate to the differences in admission difficulty, which are largely attributable to fashion and the madness of crowds.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Since high schools cannot control an even playing field like private counselors, tutors, private coaching, etc. should a high school control admission applications by being the gatekeeper to how many schools a student can apply to, and if they apply EA, RD, or by priority application? In other words, should they say we are sending out 8 transcripts period, or no more than 15, etc.?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think it’s any of the high school’s darn business or concern. </p>
<p>The analogy that comes to mind is the relationship with the doctor, pharmacist, and patient. The doctor and patient jointly decide the patient’s treatment. The pharmacist is there to dispense the medication and be a “safety check” (is the dosage the doctor wrote the appropriate dosage or is that an extra 0?). But it’s not the pharmacist’s job to deny me the medication. The pharmacist’s opinions are irrelevant to me; I didn’t ask for them.</p>
<p>Similarly, when it comes to sending out transcripts, personally I think the registrar is like the pharmacist here. It’s the registrar’s job to send them out as I see fit, possibly to be there as a “safety check” (looks like you’re ED-ing to 2 schools, you can’t do that). But it’s not the registrar’s job to deny my kid his or her transcript, whether he’s using them to apply to 20 colleges or to wallpaper his room. The registrar’s opinions are irrelevant to me; I didn’t ask for them.</p>
<p>The registrar is essentially the ATM for transcripts, as far as I’m concerned. I get to determine how many and who I want them released to. It’s no more their business than it is the bank’s when I take out cash from the ATM.</p>
<p>A college specific application tends to deter marginal students and leads to more self-selection which is generally a positive for the college and the applicants. But it also tends to reduce the number of highly qualified applicants who may not have the college as a solid first choice but would have considered the school as a second or third choice if the application process was simpler. With admission rates for HYPSM now in the single digits, there is a greater pool of strong candidates that Chicago wants to attract. The move to the Common App is part of that strategy. Inevitably it will also have the consequence that less qualified students will also apply and the admission rate will drop. Requiring lengthy supplements is one way to minimize the negative effect.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, then, they really weren’t all that interested in the first place. Given that there was a world before the Common App, where every school had its own forms, I think that represents the “natural state”, and the Common App (while well-meant) artificially inflated things.</p>
<p>Before we throw the Common App under the bus completely, what is natural about typing the same information over and over and over again into college applications. Talk about mind numbing!!!</p>
<p>Personally I regard the Common App as a huge step forward in rationalizing the work effort required in filling out college applications. If I became King, I’d make all colleges use the common app for the basic information and add supplements for the additional information that they want as a part of their decision process. After all, is there really something unique about the format of name, rank and serial number (ok Name, address, courses taken, schools attended, parents name, parents schools attended) for School A that differs so significantly from School B?</p>
<p>Agree, while the common app in theory is a “nice” idea, it has substituted for some elbow grease and some thought on the part of our young people and “fed” the parental beast.</p>
<p>Since every college my kids have applied to that used the Common Application also included substantial supplements, I don’t see it as a huge time saver. Sometimes those supplements even repeated questions from the Common App. :eek: But despite the glitches the basic idea is a good one.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why don’t ask applicants to handwrite the application as in the good old days? That will really tell us who is really motivated to apply to a particular school. We could also go back to the pre-SAT days where colleges had their own entrance examinations. </p>
<p>There is no doubt that the Common App has streamlined the process for applicants. Together with the application fee, interviews and supplements there are ways colleges can discourage marginal applicants without requiring them to reenter the same information all over again. </p>
<p>The Common App may eventually lead to a system where applicants list their desired colleges by order of preference as is practiced by several other countries such as France or a system as used by medical schools for residency assignment to match students with hospitals. Students and colleges would effectively bid on each other. If admitted by a college you have a short period of time to accept or decline the offer. Several studies have shown such systems to be highly efficient to match applicants and institutions.</p>
<p>I’m not throwing the Common App under the bus entirely … It makes sense in this era of online applications. I’m just commenting that I don’t think having a school-specific app “artificially restricts” the pool. It may bring the pool back down to what it would have been pre-Common App, but I don’t think it’s “artificially” restricted. Carry on, though!</p>
<p>BTW, I do think the residency-match approach is an interesting idea but I wonder what it would do to the demographics and stats. From a statistical point of view I don’t doubt it’s highly efficient.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think it’s justified as a “leveling the playing field” approach. It’s justified if there are budget issues for the GC’s office. If the average number of requested transcripts doubles, but the GC office staffing remains the same, there’s gonna be a problem.</p>
<p>I’d also like to see the GC’s office do what it can to squelch trophy hunting. A couple of years ago there was a student at D1’s school who was admitted to Yale SCEA. It was the student’s dream school, and the student knew that’s where they’d be matriculating. But the student still applied to a ton of tippy top schools RD, just to collect scalps. Not pretty, especially when other equally qualified students at the high school were rejected from those same RD schools, ones that the other students had as their own first choices. To use Pizzamom’s analogy, the GC is the doctor and the pharmacist rolled into one, at least at our school. </p>
<p>cellardweller, I was also thinking about a med school residency-like preference system. It only works for college admissions if FA isn’t an issue.</p>
<p>Since it took DD (and me since I was there providing information that she might not have off the top of her head) approximately 2 hours to fill out the basic info portion of the Common App (e.g. everything but the essays and the short answers), if she were to have done that for the 6 colleges she plans to apply to that take the common app, that would have been 10 more hours. The way her schedule is (and most of our kids have similar schedules) - those are 10 precious hours to be used for other, actually valuable activities.</p>
<p>Most of her schools don’t have extensive supplements - so there will be further savings on writing one essay that meets the needs of multiple schools rather than writing 6 essays, each tailored to the clever question that some admin officer thought up on order for the school to be unique. Let’s call it 10 hours saved for each college essay - thats another 50 hours.</p>
<p>Did the old manner deter people from applying to lots of colleges - absolutely. But is it a good thing to have the application process being a barrier to entry? I would argue that tilts the scale even more in favor of the rich. After all, if you don’t work after school - or if you have the support of a secretary (as one of my classmates did 30 years ago) - you can fill out more applications than someone who has less time.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think that’s a very specific situation, though, which has negative impact on specific other people at the school. But that’s very different from a blanket prohibition or limitation on X number of transcripts being released. As I just told a poster in PM, I don’t think it’s really the school’s business where the students choose to send their transcripts.</p>
<p>If I want my 2.0 kid to apply to the Ivies and only the Ivies, my school can certainly tell me it’s not a wise strategy but at the end of the day it’s my choice and my problem if kid doesn’t get in. </p>
<p>If I want my 4.0 / 2400 SAT / cancer-curing kid to apply only to East Bumble State U because I can’t bear to have him go more than 20 miles away for college, my school can certainly tell me that I’m selling him short but at the end of the day it’s my choice.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Forgive my stupidity here, but aren’t we just talking making a photocopy and sticking it into an envelope? So some admin person works more than 40 hours a week for a week or two to get it all done. Maybe comes in on a weekend. Oh Teh Horrorz. Sorry, this annoys me as much as the elementary school “come and help the librarian shelve all the books” crap. The elem school librarian could actually have the work ethic that professionals do and just stay late and do it, problem solved.</p>
<p>Slitheytove, Do you think EA apps should be restricted in number (when there aren’t any SCEA schools)? Do you think that students should be able to freely apply to as many schools as they want? Should a high school start charging for transcripts at some point? Should they charge for a fee for all transcripts that are mailed out?</p>
<p>I like that idea (where applicants list their desired colleges). They wouldn’t necessarily even need to “rank” them as many times kids don’t know their first vs. second choice early in the senior year but kids should certainly know by then where they might like to attend. For example to some my #2’s list could appear random, but it doesn’t take long to discern what they all have in common. 5 schools: a reach, two matches, two safeties. He likes them all after parsing down from about 15 schools and would be happy to attend any of them. Bidding would definitely incent the colleges to be thoughtful about their choices and financial packages.</p>
<p>^^ LOL at Pizzagirl. Definitely – GC wrote one rec, then photocopied it multiple times. Moreover, I had stamped, addressed & return addressed (w/HS address) the envelopes for her! Same thing for registrar – gave her a list of labels, and son filled out the request form. Not a ton of work. Though, because son applied to about 19 schools, I wanted to make it as easy on the GC/registrar/teachers-with-recs as possible.</p>
<p>Although, one of son’s teacher recommenders tailored many of her recs to the specific schools to which son applied (19!!). That was impressive.</p>
<p>PS Funny, at daughter’s elem school, librarian gets all cranky and yelly at the kids and justifies it as “I just didn’t have any help, today” (parent volunteers). Um, okay.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I see no problem with a modest fee for transcripts, whether it’s per transcript or for any transcripts past a certain number. That’s not restrictive.</p>