Agree it’s misguided, partially because people hear colleges say that and believe it means 60%-70% of the applicants are admissible.
Students with balanced lists don’t have to apply broadly. You really only need one affordable safety, two if you want to make sure you have a choice in the end. Then max 3-5 matches, 2-3 reaches.
According to the common app January update, this year’s applicants have submitted an average of 5.06 apps each. That’s up 2% from last year.
So, I probably wouldn’t say ‘many applicants apply very broadly’. I understand some may think otherwise. FWIW the applicants that I know that apply widely are merit hunters, because it’s unknowable what one’s discount may be ahead of time at many schools.
Note that total applicants thru Jan are up 7%, which in general, we want more people going to college. And then graduating college.
Through January 1, 2024, 1,153,033 distinct first-year applicants had applied to 834 returning members (an increase of 7% from 1,079,027 in 2022–23). a. Total application volume to returning members through January 1 rose 9% from 2022– 23 (5,335,987) to 2023–24 (5,836,529). Applicants were also applying to slightly more members in 2023–24 than in 2022–23 (+2% from 4.95 to 5.06 applications per applicant).
(Reminder that common app does not have all the college application volume.)
My answer to that is, only to a certain degree. To separate them out into a completely separate school is a disservice. In theory, it’s a public school, using public money. Those opportunities should be accessible at the other schools as well.
How about poorer or middle class families often believe rankings because they are readily available? Rich families know the rankings are more flawed than ever, but have trouble laughing them off because of class and status.
@Aimlesscat1, I think that charter school’s initial performance was quite variable, with some pockets of excellence but some really poor performance. I recently read a report that stated that charter school performance has improved gradually and substantially over time. Here’s one of the articles:
As a former professor who went into the private sector with kids already graduated from college, I don’t have dog in the fight. But, my instincts tell me that that these newer enterprises may well be a) better at learning; and b) more motivated to change. Hence, they were able to learn more quickly from poor performance than a comparable public school.
Glancing at the “parents of hs class of xx with 3.0-3.4 gpa” thread suggests that anxiety about the process and unpredictable results extends beyond elite schools.
I 99% disagree with you here, and that’s only because there may be some schools that are more disadvantaged than others. But if a school is compromised of no “top competitive” kids or kids with no aspirations, then there are other socioeconomic issues that exist in the community feeding into that school. The kids feeding into the TJ schools would do just fine in their assigned schools. Anyway, TJ doesn’t even impact my kids. I just found the school interesting because I was in a similar program. I don’t have a horse in this race, so I’ll drop off from the discussion.
In my area (part of the Bay Area), I’d guess based on numerous conversations I’ve had at for those vying for Ivy+ schools are generally applying to 15-20 schools. I know of a kid who did 22 or 23 apps, got into a T10 as well as several t20 yet rejected by certain T20s. Very very happy where he is and is finishing his degree early. He probably undermatched (his school was not his first choice; more like 4th). His family just didn’t want to take a chance and shotgunned his apps. It’s too unpredictable.
For those in my area going for tippy tops, they apply to more than 2-3 reaches. Usually more like 5-6. Our schools recommend 3-4 with a total of ~12. So like many things, it varies. But I think in my area you’d be hard pressed to get top 10% applicants to apply to only 10. Cupertino, Palo Alto, and Saratoga would probably trend on the higher side versus other areas.
I don’t recommend high app counts but a lack of predictability means many families (around here) can’t sleep without it
College admissions have…changed. Really that’s all that has happened. Costs have risen, more students are applying, students are applying to more colleges, etc. Different…I’m going to say…”broken” isn’t the right word.
My S21 applied to 11. It was probably too many, but Covid interrupted our plans to tour some colleges. So he applied to many - some that he would not have if he had visited them first.
S23 applied to 6. He got into his ED school and was done.
There is no one perfect way because everyone’s needs are not the same. I would discourage applying to a bunch for the thrill of racking up acceptances. I am getting old and the world is changing for sure, but I kind of cringe at the social media videos of kids opening their decisions.
The top 10% applicants around here don’t consider the number of admits as medals. They seem to feed on what was the best school they can get into. I had a mother tell me how confused she was regarding a Columbia acceptance vs a Harvard. Not really a balanced view but there you have it. For those types of families, they’d apply to have as many schools as they can so that they can attend a school that is more prestigious than, for example, UCSD.
Their private school pretty much capped the applications at ten with some exceptions for kids who truly needed to get the full ride and had the stats to get it somewhere.
I have too many friends who need the social media posts - Susie got ANOTHER acceptance. She just keeps winning!
Thus far on this thread, there haven’t been any examples of the process being broken.
Parents have shared stories of their children being accepted to some colleges and not accepted to others. Getting accepted to MIT and Caltech, but not accepted to Rice and GT doesn’t seem like a broken system.
Trying to figure out whether Columbia or Harvard is the better choice doesn’t seem like a broken system.
Dealing with uncertainty is not the most fun, but uncertainty doesn’t indicate broken-ness.
I do get that in middle school, being very academic doesn’t always equate to popular or even valued. It’s a tough age, and we live in a “ My kid beat up your honor student” society.
But do you really think that is true in most colleges? That holistic admissions means the super smart kids are being dragged down or bored by the presence of barely literate kids who got in with their tuba or interesting essay? At MIT? Or Cornell? Johns Hopkins? State Flagship University?
Luckily i don’t have that problem. I can see how that would get annoying really fast. However, those that understand the system better would probably show more restraint. Sorry you had to deal with that.
I don’t think it’s broken but I think it’s worth reducing the collateral damage. I think you are highlighting the families that are focused on the wrong things to defend the system as is. However there are indeed families who are focused on the right things whose conclusion is still that the cost is too much. Just because they want to customize their educational experience as much as possible they shouldn’t have to give up an arm and a leg to do so.
The HSs that my kids went to all bumped up the recommended number of apps. I don’t think it’s just a misguided family thing. The Columbia / Harvard thing was one extreme example. But to say that people around here would be satisfied with just 10 apps is a hard sell. There is little support for an informed decision regarding the tippy top schools so they have to spam the apps and grow everyone’s work and stress
Oh, boy.