Is The College Admissions Process Broken?

Parents Forum
604

Is the college admissions process broken? implies it can somehow be fixed (if needed). I don’t think it is broken so I don’t see a need to fix anything. Schools admit who they want to, and some get it and some don’t. Others can’t afford it even if they do get in.

There seems to be a feeling that public schools should admit ‘all’ the top students or that students should know they aren’t getting in. I don’t see how that is possible unless the answer is most aren’t getting in. Texas has that unique system that those in the top 6% of their hs will get in (but not guaranteed a major) but is the student in the top 6.5% unworthy? California (Cal and UCLA) sure seem to disappoint a lot of top students by capping the size of the incoming class. Michigan may have top students redirected to Mich State, and Florida can’t admit every instate students but there is FSU and UCF and USF. I can assure you there are plenty of top students who feel it is unfair that they weren’t admitted to UF so had to go elsewhere. Some states may disappoint their top students by not even offering a flagship that is ranked in the top 25 so those students are chased off to private schools or OOS publics from the get go. How could that ‘system’ possibly be fixed without having a flagship for 100k students-- and then people would complain the school was too big and there aren’t enough football tickets for students! or by making a state like NY create a #1 flagship and directing all funds to that school.

Does that make the process broken?

8 Likes
605

From someone up north, (but who’s applied to and graduated from an Ivy League business school frm the Third World - eg was born and raised in the 3rd world, applied to BSchool as such, now a Canadian AFTER graduation) - it does seem like the US college admissions process is “broken”. Why do I have this view:

a) seems like in Canada, Universities here do not “stress out” applicants as much as US Universities do. And yes, Canadian universities are NOT as good as the Ivy Leagues, HYPMS, etc but most Canadians from public and private high schools do enter Canadian universities - there certainly is less emphasis on ECs and clearly, no SATs, more transcript oriented. Essentially, it seems like a “public” good. The tuition $ certainly show it (eg no need to spend a lot vs US univ)

b) The way I saw it - as an applicant to the universities in the past (albeit in their graduate programs) and the way I see it now (following this forums, talking to nephews etc) - seems like the US admissions process is just a bit of “crapshoot”. It is almost impossible to clearly demonstrate that one is better than another candidate - first of all, different high schools have different grading curves/strictness, SAT’s might differentiate but even then, more selective schools want you to offer something unique to them - yes, thats where Extra Curriculars come in – but even then, that is “crapshoot” bec who’s to say that a great athlete is better than a great musician? Selective US universities want to “round out” their student body – well, if you’re in the “hard luck” category (say, the school has a very strong “quant” applicant pool, the “poets” applying get a easier path in – which means – you truly don’t know)

c) It is cleary difficult to verify/clarify how students embellish their application, essays, etc. But in a “holistic” process, that may be what divides accept vs reject. I’m not saying everyone/no one does embellishment, but I’m sure there’s varying degrees to which this is done – so how do Admissions Officers distinguish then?

Clearly, as with everything subjective, it is hard to say whether the process is “broken” or not. The way I analogize it is no different than admissions to the Hall of Fame in sports. In women’s pro golf, there’s a clear objective criteria – based on paper - no voting etc. so it could be the most “transparent” way to get into the HOF. Yet, there’s still rumblings whether this system is broken or not. Either way, I think, as with everything that involves subjective decisions, there will always be people stating it’s “broken” and with more selective schools that admit <20% of students, it would feel like the system is “broken”. I don’t have any answer on how to solve this, but I do “feel” that applying to universities (good universities - not even Ivies - where acceptance rates are at 15-20%) these days is much more random than applying to Ivy League MBA schools some 2 decades ago. (Despite the fact that the acceptance rates then to the Ivy League MBA schools is actually lower than acceptance rates to “good” 15-20% acceptance schools today) – maybe I’ve just been left behind by the times :smiling_face:︎

3 Likes
606

No one has really answered this on this thread….

If something is “broken” it means there is some outcome/result that needs to be fixed or changed. What is the outcome (or outcomes) that need to be fixed or changed?

2 Likes
607

The most desired universities in Canada are public and huge. If a university is 11 times the size in a national population 9 times smaller, the competition for admission is much lower, and less likely to have an overflow of applicants at the stat ceiling.

Canada also has the advantage of more standardized high school course work and grading within each province, so high school courses and grades are more easily comparable than in the US.

3 Likes
608

My own sense as to the outcome that at least needs to be clarified -

transparency into the admissions process - for some high schooler that is applying to these schools, stating that you need to “Stand out” and not even a 4.0 GPA with perfect SAT scores and a standout EC list will give you a strong chance to get in (eg with <15% chance in very good schools - I’m basing it on “statistics here” -eg paper/published) - it no doubt creates a system where kids are stressed out since application is perceived to be “crapshoot”/“random”. (I have no one yet in my family even close to applying and as mentioned I didn’t go to university in US for undergrad, so everything I am looking at is based on my grad experience relative to reading what’s happening)

A lot of schools look into “fit” - I don’t know exactly what “fit” is when they say that. For example, when I did my MBA – I applied to Harvard, Wharton, Northwestern, Uof Chicago, Dartmouth, Columbia, NYU. I got in to 4 schools, declined in 2, WL in one. I still don’t know “fit” in their terms. I just eventually chose the best “prestige” - remember I was not in North Am then, so to me, I chose based on prestige. I wanted finance but Northwestern and HBS weren’t really “finance” schools. Yet I got into the programs. I didn’t even know why Philadelphia and New Hampshire would be completely different cities then (eg vibe, etc). Thankfully I got declined in Dartmouth. Net, to simplify - I feel it’s very much random and there’s no clear answer to applying in universities, especially for students who clearly are qualified to attend the select ones due to their strengths: honors, SAT, ECs etc

2 Likes
609

Here are some outcomes that I would like to see:

  1. Students would apply to fewer schools, and not just due to caps or mandates but because they no longer felt they “needed” so many schools. Some will argue that “not all students” apply to a lot of schools but there is no denying that the number keeps going up, especially for highly accomplished students.
  2. All highly accomplished students, no matter the state, would have access to a quality flagship at an affordable price. When students have to go OOS and pay OOS prices to find a quality program in their chosen fields, that is a problem.
  3. More transparency for all types of students at all levels of academic ability.
  4. Much improved price transparency especially. Schools required to do binding financial pre-reads on request.
  5. No more legacy, donor or faculty preferences at any public schools (private schools should do away with them too.)
  6. Decreased emphasis on ECs. Or if schools continue to value ECs they should do so in a more transparent fashion with an emphasis on honesty. No more rewarding kids who create a bogus non-profit that they abandon as soon as they get accepted. If volunteering is truly valued, volunteering with an established program should be considered just as valuable (if not more so.)
7 Likes
610

Here are some more:
7. Create at least 1 excellent American public university with stats-based admissions where students from all states would be in-state for tuition. Our high performing students shouldn’t have to be looking to Canada or Europe for a stats-based excellent affordable safety.
8. Improved access to technical colleges, with better preparation for this in high school for students who want it. This includes more dorms for students who are not located near their state’s technical colleges.
9. Decreased emphasis on sports in colleges. Colleges should not be “sports teams with schools attached.”
10. Students required to indicate on their applications whether they used a paid college consultant.

4 Likes
611

Life is full of stress. In college admissions (HS too), many students in other countries have significant stress related to the various tests they must take for entry into a given school, just to take one adjacent example, so the stress isn’t unique in the US system.

Further, students in the US don’t have to apply to any schools with under 20% acceptance rate….that is a choice to target those schools. There are plenty of excellent schools between the 20% and 50% acceptance range. Smart students can find similarly smart students at even less selective colleges…look at Alabama with their many NMFs to take one example.

For what it’s worth, I do believe for true academic outliers that being with other students at their level would be beneficial….but that is a tiny proportion of students, by definition.

For example, that group is much much smaller than the 15K NMFs per year…I am talking USACO platinum, Regeneron ISEF top 3 and the like. IMO, it wouldn’t make sense to change a process as you suggested to accommodate those students…not to mention those types of students already do enjoy relatively higher rates of admission at the tippy tops.

5 Likes
612

Problem with this is that there aren’t enough spots in the schools within the flagship for number of interested applicants.

Texas system already has this issue - getting accepted to the flagship doesn’t mean you’ll get accepted to the program you most desire. At a certain point - everyone has to accept some compromise…do you want the school, or do you want the program?

5 Likes
613

In my opinion, Texas is actually doing well in this respect. The very tippy top students already get into UT-Austin even in majors like CS. For other strong but not tippy-top students, schools like UT-Dallas and Texas Tech also have excellent CS. This is in contrast to some states that don’t even offer plenty of majors. Students from these states should have access to a voucher system.

614

Lots of great ideas, I hope that you are advocating for them in real life.

I would encourage you to eliminate areas of subjectivity, for example ‘highly accomplished students’…people don’t agree on what that means, so when one starts talking about that, everyone isn’t in the same place.

Big picture what I hear behind the suggested improvements on this thread is that some believe that the current US admissions process leads to some students being in schools where they shouldn’t, is that what what posters are saying or do I have that wrong (which is entirely possible)?

615

It’s also the perception of high quality flagship. In Florida, we have UF, FSU, UCF, USF and others. The perception among high achieving kids is that it’s UF or disappointment…or now UF, FSU or disappointment as FSU has gotten more competitive. At least in this state, I don’t think kids getting into a quality flagship is really an issue. It’s more they aren’t guaranteed the one they think is the most prestigious.

3 Likes
616

Oh I like that idea. It could be somewhere near the median center of population (around where IN, IL, and KY meet) or the mean center (somewhere in Missouri). Call it Federal University or Eagle U, or United U…

2 Likes
617

Looking at the big picture, some of what you have suggested is high cost…who pays for vouchers, and expanding flagships, even creating a new school where everyone gets in-state tuition?

IMO it is difficult to advocate for spending more money on higher ed, when K-12 impacts everyone…and where funding and spending is dysfunctional, and outcomes are lacking (to say the least). I don’t understand why it would make sense for the DOE or state ed systems to spend more on higher ed, when K-12 is suffering across many measures.

5 Likes
618

No, not really. Not other than petitioning my alma maters to abolish legacy (successful in both cases!)

My area is in mentoring FGLI students for health careers, mainly trade school level health careers.

5 Likes
619

Where do top students not have access to a good flagship? In DC, where there isn’t a good flagship, students get $10k to go to an OOS public school, and that gives them the same costs as if DC had a flagship.

1 Like
620

I’m not sure it would have to increase cost so much. It might actually be cheaper for smaller states to eliminate entire departments (or even entire schools) and provide vouchers for their students to study OOS. Or perhaps they could require a year of coming back and living in the state for each year of tuition voucher paid. The proposed National University doesn’t have to be created from scratch (although UC-Merced’s success shows such a thing is possible), instead perhaps a school in a reasonably desirable location with good airport access and room to expand could be expanded and made national --UT-Dallas?

621

Yeah, because given the demographics, the closing of so many smaller colleges, and the financial straits that others find themselves in- building a NEW COLLEGE is absolutely the way to go.

There are no shortages of seats at four year institutions. The seats may not be where YOUR kid wants them to be (rural is out, at least right now; religious is out for many people and single sex is out for a lot of people, etc.) but there is no shortage. So adding seats- building a new U, creating yet another something or other-- what’s the logic here?

If your own state flagship isn’t affordable to kids in your state, the lowest cost solution is a targeted and localized subsidy to bring the cost down.

Problem is-- of course- that the “I don’t live in Michigan” folks get ticked that the price differential for instate and out of state grows bigger with this method. Problem is- of course- that apparently NOBODY wants to attend Merced but EVERYONE wants to attend Berkeley.

But adding more seats? The opposite of what needs to happen.

8 Likes
622

Such a school may need to be huge in order not to have an overflow of applicants at the very top of the stat range.

1 Like
623

Seems that most students in most states see only one or two state universities as having the “flagship prestige” that they prefer. So it can be a hard sell to get students to accept the third, fourth, … most selective or prestigious state university as flagship level.

1 Like