To the Editor:
Re “2024 Was the Year That Finally Broke College Admissions,” by Daniel Currell (Opinion guest essay, May 5):
While Mr. Currell effectively lays out the current admissions climate, the sunny last-minute outcomes for the two applicants he follows undermine his otherwise valid critiques.
While Ivy was rejected by her early decision school, she was admitted to her second choice, Dartmouth, an Ivy with a 6 percent acceptance rate. Rania, though disappointed with her Barnard rejection, also found herself a terrific outcome at Wesleyan, another highly acclaimed school, with a free ride to boot.
Both of these outcomes are extreme positive outliers these days. Convincing families to temper these kinds of expectations and consider in-state public institutions for cost reasons as well as excellent but more far-flung liberal arts colleges (such as the College of Wooster in rural Ohio) is the task at hand these days.
Following two applicants who actually had to make significant compromises would have more accurately encapsulated the reality check that college-bound kids and parents need in the face of the very real insanity of college admissions these days.
Jamie Berger
Turners Falls, Mass.
The writer is an independent educational consultant.
To the Editor:
After temporarily settling in the U.S., my high schooler fell in love with the idea of the small liberal arts school. She was lucky to have the support of a counselor who constantly affirmed her self-worth, and was admitted to one of her top schools. The process was stressful, and the result is not pain-free; it will require serious lifestyle changes to be able to afford it.
Coming from the Netherlands, where a reputable university education is still quite accessible for about $2,700 in annual tuition for domestic and E.U. students, I find the system here insane at every level — in its lack of transparency, in privileging the privileged and in through-the-roof costs.
In this land of the free market, the author is right: The college admission process needs scrutiny and accountability. And even a measure of regulation.
Blanche Tax
Queens
To the Editor:
The most remarkable aspect of Daniel Currell’s piece on admissions to selective colleges is the rare mention of the quality of education, such as the concession that we might “shift our cultural focus toward the hundreds of schools that offer an excellent education but are not luxury brands.”
The education quality offered at those hundreds of schools is often no less than that of the so-called “elite” schools. And that quality is less likely to be influenced by big-money donors.
Mr. Currell has made it clear that the brand, and not the education, is what has become important. Students are going to school not to learn, but to get a badge. And they carry that attitude throughout life.
External displays become more important than interior satisfaction with genuine accomplishment and contribution. The real problem is the very notion of elitism. Why do we want to train people to be snobs? To what end?
Joel Solow
Newark, N.J.
To the Editor:
I would like to point out one omission in an otherwise interesting article regarding higher education admissions: Much of the breakdown of the admissions process is due to the substantial increase in the number of applications that students submit.
For example, the Common Application reports that the number of college applications increased by 39 percent between 2019 and 2023 (the number of applicants also increased, by 28 percent).
When I applied to college in the late 1950s, students typically applied to three or so colleges (including a stretch school like the Ivies, a safe school like a state college and something in between). This was also the case when my children applied to college in the late 1970s and early 1980s.
But this past year, my grandchildren could apply to up to 20 colleges via the Common Application (although on average students apply to around six colleges). This greatly increases the number of applications that college admissions officers needed to consider.
It was increases in the number of applications that students submitted that contributed to the breakdown.
Marlaine Lockheed
Princeton, N.J.
To the Editor:
Daniel Currell’s essay catalogs the problems, but offers no solution. A year ago, before my son knew he would be among the more than 100,000 applicants rejected from his dream school (U.C.L.A.), he was looking at the required classes and asked, “Why can’t I just study what I want to study?” “You can,” I answered. “Go to school in the U.K.”
My son had bad grades in classes that didn’t interest him, and was generally unsuccessful applying to U.S. colleges. But he is brilliant, and managed top scores on eight Advanced Placement exams. He got several offers from U.K. colleges, and is now at University College London, which is regularly ranked among the top in the world.
U.K. universities are considerably more costly for international students than for U.K. ones. But for students who are good at studying, they are an excellent alternative to the U.S. beauty contest.
Wayne Camard
Palo Alto, Calif.
To the Editor:
Re “The Best College Is One Where You Don’t Fit In,” by Michael S. Roth (Opinion guest essay, nytimes.com, May 5):
For students who have had a comfortable and fulfilling K-12 social life, going to a more diverse and socially uncomfortable setting is indeed a good choice. But for the many adolescents who have struggled to find their tribe, choosing a college where they can finally develop a strong social network is critical.
Katharine H. McVeigh
New York