 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
CarolynLawrence
Administrator
| Joined: | Sun Mar 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 3216 |
| Mana: |    |
|
Posted: Wed May 14th, 2008 10:57 pm |
|
According to the annual UCLA Higher Education Research Institute's annual survey of college freshmen (over 260,000 surveyed), 75% of students still apply to five or fewer colleges. 
|
CardinalFang
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 17th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 142 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed May 14th, 2008 11:24 pm |
|
CarolynLawrence wrote: According to the annual UCLA Higher Education Research Institute's annual survey of college freshmen (over 260,000 surveyed), 75% of students still apply to five or fewer colleges.
The large majority of colleges accept most of their applicants, so if a student is applying to those schools, he doesn't need to apply to a lot of them.
But for students of the caliber of, let's say, Yale applicants, three is not enough. The students Yale rejects are pretty similar to the students Yale accepts. All those Yale rejects need some other schools to apply to, and two more isn't enough.
|
leftcoast
Member
|
Posted: Thu May 15th, 2008 03:29 am |
|
Yes, but I think it is a mistake for the student who wants to apply to Yale to be applying to a bunch of "equal caliber" schools (i.e., high prestige or Ivy's) simply because of the notion that the high prestige schools are so much better. The students should apply to schools she really wants to attend -- each school should be a place that the student would choose even if no one had ever heard of it. And the search for "colleges like Yale" or "colleges that also offer what Yale does" should produce some schools that are more predictible.
I agree that 3 is too few -- but I can see 8 as being a reasonable number.
My d. applied to 12 schools, but I thought at the time it was too many and said as much. Three were UC's, so there was one application for them -- so in all my d. completed 10 apps. One was a last-minute safety with a really easy online application, so it made a lot of sense at the time.
Ironically, one of the apps that my d. should not have bothered with was to an Ivy - Brown. For one thing, Brown was never at the top of her preference list -- it was 4th, after Barnard, NYU, & Chicago. It did not accept the common app and their application did not seem to provide much room for individuation -- and the app as a whole just didn't have (to me) the *feel* that it would stand out. And my d's numbers were not Ivy-league caliber -- nor could I articulate any particular reason for Brown to want my d. My d's special strengths were her dance background and intensive Russian study (and winning personality  ) -- Brown didn't have a dance department, its Russian classes were well-attended, and they didn't offer interviews.
On the other hand, Yale actually might have been worth a "Hail Mary" shot, because Yale was suffering from underenrollment of its Russian courses, and was desperate enough for Russian language majors to have profiled their one-and-only major in their college magazine - but my d. wasn't interested in Yale, so no app went that way. (Brown was not a prestige thing - she really liked the campus when she visited, and she liked the open curriculum and liberal Pass/Fail options).
But the point is: she got into the reach colleges that were targeted well to what she wanted and what she had to offer. I think too often students forget to look at that second piece: what does the student offer the college that most other applicants don't. She was waitlisted at 2 colleges that were not as selective as her top 3 choices (which all accepted her) ... probably in part because she failed to put a lot of energy into the applications.
Maybe the best approach would be: pick 3-5 colleges that you really want to attend. Then make a realistic assessment of chances for those colleges-- if none is sure thing, then add 2 colleges that would be sure things and would be acceptable to the student if none of the other 5 came through.
Oh... and forget the common app for reach colleges. If the student isn't going to put in extra effort for those schools, it probably isn't worth applying. Seriously: if you are reaching for the top, then you have to give it your very best shot. You can't do that without giving full attention to the application. I think the only "chances" that are improved by firing off identical applications to a bunch of near-impossible schools are the chances of rejection.
|
CardinalFang
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 17th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 142 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu May 15th, 2008 03:47 am |
|
leftcoast wrote: Yes, but I think it is a mistake for the student who wants to apply to Yale to be applying to a bunch of "equal caliber" schools (i.e., high prestige or Ivy's) simply because of the notion that the high prestige schools are so much better. The students should apply to schools she really wants to attend -- each school should be a place that the student would choose even if no one had ever heard of it. And the search for "colleges like Yale" or "colleges that also offer what Yale does" should produce some schools that are more predictible.
Sure-- but what if those schools are Williams, Amherst, Middlebury and Pomona? They're all lottery schools AFAIK.
But I think we agree. Three is really too few, but eight could be a reasonable number. But then again, what if the student needs aid? Suppose they apply to Yale, Williams, Amherst, Middlebury and Pomona for reach/high matches, hoping they'll be admitted and get the right aid. But if they get rejected at all five, which could easily happen, they still need three or four acceptances to compare aid. So then that's maybe four matches (50% chance of acceptance) and two safeties, making a total of eleven. It's hard for me to argue that that student shouldn't have applied to those eleven schools.
|
Deja
Member
| Joined: | Thu Apr 13th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 158 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu May 15th, 2008 10:14 am |
|
CarolynLawrence wrote: According to the annual UCLA Higher Education Research Institute's annual survey of college freshmen (over 260,000 surveyed), 75% of students still apply to five or fewer colleges.
Let's see what the next survey says.
Also, I'm wondering if the number of colleges applied to/student goes up as the student's stats go up. If the students are applying to very selective colleges, 5 is simply not enough. And then there is the finaid piece, also. If one needs finaid, one should apply to more colleges.
|
Deja
Member
| Joined: | Thu Apr 13th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 158 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu May 15th, 2008 10:17 am |
|
CardinalFang wrote: ...what if those schools are Williams, Amherst, Middlebury and Pomona? They're all lottery schools AFAIK.
But I think we agree. Three is really too few, but eight could be a reasonable number. But then again, what if the student needs aid? Suppose they apply to Yale, Williams, Amherst, Middlebury and Pomona for reach/high matches, hoping they'll be admitted and get the right aid. But if they get rejected at all five, which could easily happen, they still need three or four acceptances to compare aid. So then that's maybe four matches (50% chance of acceptance) and two safeties, making a total of eleven. It's hard for me to argue that that student shouldn't have applied to those eleven schools.
Exactly. It's certainly easier on certain people (admissions offices, guidance counselors) if students apply to fewer colleges, but I don't think it's really fair to expect certain (actually, many in today's college admissions atmosphere) top students to limit their applications.
|
Lupine
Member
| Joined: | Thu May 17th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 135 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu May 15th, 2008 03:20 pm |
|
Deja wrote: CardinalFang wrote: ...what if those schools are Williams, Amherst, Middlebury and Pomona? They're all lottery schools AFAIK.
But I think we agree. Three is really too few, but eight could be a reasonable number. But then again, what if the student needs aid? Suppose they apply to Yale, Williams, Amherst, Middlebury and Pomona for reach/high matches, hoping they'll be admitted and get the right aid. But if they get rejected at all five, which could easily happen, they still need three or four acceptances to compare aid. So then that's maybe four matches (50% chance of acceptance) and two safeties, making a total of eleven. It's hard for me to argue that that student shouldn't have applied to those eleven schools.
Exactly. It's certainly easier on certain people (admissions offices, guidance counselors) if students apply to fewer colleges, but I don't think it's really fair to expect certain (actually, many in today's college admissions atmosphere) top students to limit their applications.
We're thinking along these lines too, especially given what we've learned here about the differences in financial aid packages. While our income is such that D will be eligible for aid at most private schools, our home equity is large and we couldn't afford to pay significant home equity loans. In emails back and forth with quite a few schools I've gotten "it depends -- we look at each case individually" far more often than I like when the question of whether they use a cap on home equity. The most highly selective schools now all (or allmost all) seem to limit (or even eliminate) home equity, but that doesn't seem to be the case at many of the selective private colleges.
Applying to 10-12 schools is a relatively inexpensive decision given the cost of college. I certainly shop for cars using price as a significant consideration, and college costs a whole lot more than a car. Even with some financial aid, college is going to be like buying a brand new, nice car every single year for four years.
|
WestrnMom
Super Moderator
| Joined: | Fri May 26th, 2006 |
| Location: | West Coast, USA |
| Posts: | 1173 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu May 15th, 2008 03:46 pm |
|
Students should be able to apply to as many colleges as they want to apply to, if they can afford the time and the costs, as long as they understand the risks. The more applications they fill out, the less time devoted to each one, so they will not send out the same quality applications as the student who focuses on a few. A student with a good understanding of the concept of fit and eligibility should be able to limit the number and make a diverse enough selection to have a few safeties, matches and reaches in the list. Students who aren't sure what they want or where they will get in are going to need to apply to more schools than those who have a good understanding of the system and their qualifications and a realistic expectation about the possible outcomes. I know several families whose children applied to anywhere from 18-21 colleges. They were either interested in highly competitive majors where acceptance to the major was more important than the school or they were on the edge of being Ivy material but something in the application made them questionable, like one low test score in an otherwise spotless record or lack of strong ECs, or something else that they couldn't control or change by senior year.
|
outwest
Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 4th, 2007 |
| Location: | CA |
| Posts: | 552 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu May 15th, 2008 06:49 pm |
|
I thought my D applying to just 7 privates was a bit light. She got into 5/7 and could have attended 4/7 or 57%. The schools that were financially possible for her, with the exception of Bryn Mawr, were on the safe side. Maybe we overestimated her qualifications, but she was darned lucky in the end! I would recommend, based on her experiences, to apply to more then 7. But, she did have a choice of four. To me, that was almost an ideal number. Not too many to totally confuse her and not too few to make her feel she didn't have a choice. The most imPORtant thing to do is make a list of schools that the student would want to attend.
There is a story on CC about a kid who applied to about 8 schools. He didn't put much thought into those eight and got into 5 great schools, 4 of them small LACs, but he didn't want to go to a LAC. They were all too small and several were way too liberal for his desires! The one he wanted to go to he couldn't afford. So, why did he apply to those little schools in the first place? Because he didn't take the time to check them out thoroughly. He is ending up at a school right near home that is the size he wanted and he can afford, but he is depressed about it.
My D would have been happy to attend any of her schools. Make the time and take the effort to research, research, research all the schools you choose to apply to! None of them will be perfect, but they should all be schools you would be happy to go to. Some may be too far from home. Some may not have the club you want. In my Ds case, the school she chose doesn't have kitchens for student use and that is one thing she wanted, but other things outweighed that consideration. Again, no school is perfect, but many schools can make you happy.
Carolyn is right on the money. Make that list count! And, Deja, try to help him find 10-12. Have him start by applying to the ones he is absolutely sure about because he may lose steam as application season goes on. 10-12 is a lot of interviews! It is a lot of supplementls. It is a lot of money to spend and a lot of emails. It is a lot of work! It should be worth the effort, though.
|
CarolynLawrence
Administrator
| Joined: | Sun Mar 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 3216 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu May 15th, 2008 06:53 pm |
|
leftcoast wrote: For one thing, Brown was never at the top of her preference list -- it was 4th, after Barnard, NYU, & Chicago. It did not accept the common app
Just an FYI: The Common Application just announced in the past week or so that Brown has joined, so they will be using it next year. Just wanted to mention it before I forget.
|
CardinalFang
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 17th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 142 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu May 15th, 2008 06:57 pm |
|
outwest wrote: I thought my D applying to just 7 privates was a bit light. She got into 5/7 and could have attended 4/7 or 57%. The schools that were financially possible for her, with the exception of Bryn Mawr, were on the safe side. Maybe we overestimated her qualifications, but she was darned lucky in the end!
That's one trouble. It's so difficult to evaluate one's own child, and figure out what is the right level of college to apply to. One wants one's child to apply to some reaches, some matches and a couple of safeties, but... what if one is wrong about which colleges fit in which category?
|
CarolynLawrence
Administrator
| Joined: | Sun Mar 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 3216 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu May 15th, 2008 06:57 pm |
|
Deja wrote: CarolynLawrence wrote: According to the annual UCLA Higher Education Research Institute's annual survey of college freshmen (over 260,000 surveyed), 75% of students still apply to five or fewer colleges.
Let's see what the next survey says.
Also, I'm wondering if the number of colleges applied to/student goes up as the student's stats go up. If the students are applying to very selective colleges, 5 is simply not enough. And then there is the finaid piece, also. If one needs finaid, one should apply to more colleges.
The number has been pretty consistent for the last four years. Also, the Common Application reports that the average number of applications sent per student on their system hasn't changed much either - it's about 3.5 or so on average. They are, however, seeing more and more students each year use the system, it's just that the number of applications being sent are about the same each year.
I think, to a certain extent, that some of the media hype about students sending out more and more applications is overstated. On the other hand, it may be true that students appying to certain colleges are sending out more applications. But, there is no hard proof of that, just ancedotal evidence.
I also agree with Westrnmom: kids who are applying to highly selective majors (i.e., musical theater or architecture or accelerated BS/MD programs, for example), will probably need more applications.
In terms of financial aid, with a little research up front, you can get a pretty good idea of which schools are unlikely to give you merit aid or large institutional grants, so you may not need to apply to as many schools as you think you need to even then. Additionally, keep enrollment management in mind --- at many schools, the best financial aid and merit offers are going to go to the most desirable applicants. So, the dartboard approach may not be the best way to get aid. Now, I am sure some will say that if you're aiming for some of the "no loans" packages at the tippy top schools, you need to send apps to each one. But, there are differences in how each of those schools will treat different income levels (see http://www.projectonstudentdebt.org for a good analysis), so even then the dartboard approach won't take into account the individual student matchup with the schools.
By the way, I'm not saying that students can't or shouldn't apply to as many schools as they want. I'm just saying that the "dartboard" approach to randomly sending out more and more applications in the hope that one will stick isn't as effective as really looking for the match-up between what the student has to sell and what the colleges are looking for, and then focusing on making sure your application for each school demonstrates that matchup. Each school on the list should be there for a reason and not just because "it's a highly selective school". Also, there is some strategy involved in deciding when to apply --- If you build a list that includes some non-single choice EA or rolling admissions safeties in, and you get one or two good offers early in the game, do you really need another 20 choices come April?
Last edited on Thu May 15th, 2008 07:07 pm by CarolynLawrence
|
outwest
Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 4th, 2007 |
| Location: | CA |
| Posts: | 552 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu May 15th, 2008 08:52 pm |
|
Carolyn said, "Also, there is some strategy involved in deciding when to apply --- If you build a list that includes some non-single choice EA or rolling admissions safeties in, and you get one or two good offers early in the game, do you really need another 20 choices come April? "
I agree. There were a couple schools on my Ds short list that were never applied to because she had one EA acceptance in hand. She knew that she would rather go to that one then those two she was planning to apply to, so she didn't hassle applying to them. That is one reason the list got shorter and easier. Actually, she was half way through applying to them (scores sent, interview done, recs. sent). She just saved the extra essay work.
|
peabodie
Member
| Joined: | Thu Aug 9th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 26 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri May 16th, 2008 12:36 pm |
|
D applied to 9 schools (2 reaches, 3 matches, 4 safeties). In retrospect, it was too many safeties/matches but those were the only ones that offered a chance at merit scholarships, and none of them were true safeties---one that she absolutely knew she would get in to. So she applied to several thinking that not all of them would reject her.
If any of them had been rolling decision or an EA that notified before the deadlines of the other schools, she would have eliminated others on the list, because she really liked all the schools on her list. So if she had known she had a spot somewhere, she wouldn't have needed so many of those. Unfortunately, none of the ones on her list had rolling admission, and she didn't get her first acceptance until Dec. 24. And since this was the year when the common application was locked at the time she applied to her ED school, she went ahead and submitted to all of them because at that time she wasn't going to be able to make any changes to her application anyway. Obviously, that was a dumb decision on the CA people's part, and they changed it after she had already submitted her applications.
So, I guess what I'm saying is that if a student has an early acceptance to a school that they would be happy to attend, that would really cut down on the number of applications submitted. So I'm all in favor of making EA decisions even earlier. The kid isn't locked in, but they know they are going to college somewhere.
|
Lupine
Member
| Joined: | Thu May 17th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 135 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri May 16th, 2008 02:20 pm |
|
I talked to a friend last night, and her very talented son didn't get into any of the colleges he really wanted to attend, though he's on some waitlists, and he's working them. This makes at least the third student with > 3.85 unweighted gpa, notable accomplishments, and strong SAT scores who's in this position right now, and I keep hearing parents saying that the guidance counselors were really blindsided by admissions results this year, and that the Naviance data wasn't very useful as a predictor of matches. And, these weren't kids applying to HYP as match schools, or even reach schools.
I hope the waitlists work out, but I'd guess that enough families know or have heard about these situations this year with kids they know are strong students that there will be a strong push to increase the number of applications next year even more.
I think that our plan of not trying to visit any reach schools may be a good one -- at least I hope so. (The deal is that she can apply to any school, but we'll only visit schools her counselor thinks are matches or safeties before admissions results come in, because I really, really don't want her falling in love with only reach schools.)
I guess we'll see. (The gloomy day outside isn't helping either.)
|
mackinaw
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 6th, 2006 |
| Location: | Michigan |
| Posts: | 777 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri May 16th, 2008 02:38 pm |
|
Lupine, I think starting from the "bottom", i.e., lining up the safety and match schools first, is the right approach. It's part of Carolyn's general recommendations, I believe. But once those lists are settled if you're going to apply to a couple of genuine reaches then you have to take those seriously too (again after you've got good safeties and matches settled). This means visiting the schools if you can, but in any case researching them well and if appropriate contacting a variety of persons there, attending adcom college night briefings in your region, etc. This is partly for the sake of "showing interest" in the school, and most adcoms at the more selective colleges do look for evidence of that.
Last edited on Fri May 16th, 2008 11:18 pm by mackinaw
|
Alumother
Member
| Joined: | Fri Mar 24th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 201 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri May 16th, 2008 02:56 pm |
|
I really second that concept of building your list from the bottom up. Although both my kids will be going to the same school next year, the process was very different for each of them. For my D we were ignorant. She had no safety she would really want to attend - since we used the UCs and she didn't like really big schools. We were lucky.
My son, despite his spottier record and fewer leadership positions etc., had a much better list, with a safety he could like, a match he loved loved loved, and several reaches where he had something of interest specific to that school.
His experience of the acceptance season was one of suprise at abundant success. My daughter's experience of the acceptance season was one of surprise at just squeaking out success.
Of course, me I was more of a wreck over a longer period for S, but heck, what am I, just the mom, right?
Last edited on Fri May 16th, 2008 02:56 pm by Alumother
|
CardinalFang
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 17th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 142 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri May 16th, 2008 02:58 pm |
|
Lupine wrote: I talked to a friend last night, and her very talented son didn't get into any of the colleges he really wanted to attend, though he's on some waitlists, and he's working them. This makes at least the third student with > 3.85 unweighted gpa, notable accomplishments, and strong SAT scores who's in this position right now, and I keep hearing parents saying that the guidance counselors were really blindsided by admissions results this year, and that the Naviance data wasn't very useful as a predictor of matches. And, these weren't kids applying to HYP as match schools, or even reach schools.
I don't suppose you could give these unlucky kids' stats and results, so we '09 parents can beware of those schools? Of course I don't mean you'd put any identifying details.
Also, what is Naviance? My son's school doesn't have it; I don't know how it would work out with a student body of one, anyway
|
Lupine
Member
| Joined: | Thu May 17th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 135 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri May 16th, 2008 03:24 pm |
|
CardinalFang wrote: Lupine wrote: I talked to a friend last night, and her very talented son didn't get into any of the colleges he really wanted to attend, though he's on some waitlists, and he's working them. This makes at least the third student with > 3.85 unweighted gpa, notable accomplishments, and strong SAT scores who's in this position right now, and I keep hearing parents saying that the guidance counselors were really blindsided by admissions results this year, and that the Naviance data wasn't very useful as a predictor of matches. And, these weren't kids applying to HYP as match schools, or even reach schools.
I don't suppose you could give these unlucky kids' stats and results, so we '09 parents can beware of those schools? Of course I don't mean you'd put any identifying details.
Also, what is Naviance? My son's school doesn't have it; I don't know how it would work out with a student body of one, anyway
The three I know are kids I've known for years, and they were applying to very selective colleges and selective colleges, but not the most highly selective schools. Each had wons some local or regional awards, none had won anything national as far as I know, none were recruited athletes. One was a legacy. Two were girls, one a boy.
Naviance is a software system that a school can contract to use. It tracks the applications and results of every student who applies to any college from our high school, and then displays the last two years worth of data in a scatterplot with gpa as the x-axis and SAT/ACT as the y-axis. The plot points distinguish between admitted (and further distinguishes between early vs. regular), deferred to the regular decision, rejected, waitlisted, and admitted from the waitlist. Your kid's test scores and gpa are graphed -- if you see that applicants all around your kids point are consistenly (but not 100%) admitted, then that's an indication that the school is a match. If kids with much lower stats from your school are consistently admitted, that's a safety, and if it is a much more mixed picture, then it is a reach. If the only admissions are way above and to the right of your point, then that's extremely unlikely. There's also a screening function that lets Naviance suggest colleges that might match your score/gpa profile. That still leaves a lot our of the admissions equation, but when kids consistently got into Boston College with certain scores/gpas over the past two years, and then kids with similar stats don't get in this year, it makes me wonder whether there really has been a shift in what it takes. (On the other hand, it could have been that a number of the applicants from prior years had an academic interest or athletic ability of particular interest to BC -- and there's no way to see that.) I do wish that the system would not display info for students who were recruited athletes, because those kids are not very useful as predictors for non-athletes, and it isn't even helpful for other athletes because sport to sport comparisons aren't valid.
Of course, Naviance is only helpful when a bunch of kids from the past two years have applied to a college you're interested in. It won't display data when there are too few applicants because of privacy issues.
And, I think you're right that it might not be too helpful anyway for a school of one!
Last edited on Fri May 16th, 2008 03:25 pm by Lupine
|
CardinalFang
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 17th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 142 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri May 16th, 2008 03:30 pm |
|
Lupine wrote:
The three I know are kids I've known for years, and they were applying to very selective colleges and selective colleges, but not the most highly selective schools. Each had wons some local or regional awards, none had won anything national as far as I know, none were recruited athletes. One was a legacy. Two were girls, one a boy.
I was kind of hoping to hear the SATs and GPAs of the kids, and the schools involved. But I understand if you don't want to post those details.
|
Current time is 10:08 pm | Page:   1 2 3 4 5   |
|
|
|
|
