<p>@EyeVeee: We probably agree more than we disagree. I think we would both applaud a reduction in the amount of time students spend applying to college. But if fewer applicants spend more time on their Swarthmore applications, the aggregate time spent could go up or down. For sake of argument, suppose that the average Swarthmore applicant would spend twice as much time when there are two 500-word supplemental essays than when there is just one 250-word essay. If 10% fewer students apply, then much more time is being spent on Swarthmore applications. As long as the percentage increase in the average time spent on the application exceeds the percentage drop in the number of applications, the aggregate time spent will rise. Of course, this example is only looking at time spent on Swarthmore applications. </p>
<p>I agree that requiring 10 essays would cause Ivy applicants to pick and choose. But that might reduce students’ choice without saving much time. If it took as long to apply to each Ivy in 2015 as it did to apply to all eight Ivys in 2014, there would be a loss of choice with no time savings. Or to take a less extreme example, we gain little if students now apply to five schools rather than ten, but each application now takes twice as long to complete on average. </p>
<p>A more general question is whether colleges should control the number of applications through high application fees (with fee waivers available) or time-intensive applications. The latter provide information about applicants but they certainly soak up a lot of time on both ends. </p>