In my reply I didn't get that the "Common App" is similar or even more expensive, but reduces the effort for each application. So, yes absolutely no help in the "this costs too much to begin with" scenario and I went a little overboard with my reply.
> "Entirely flawed" is also incorrect. At least according to this UK-based ranking:
The ratings are not about cost for education and accessibility, i.e. a fair system for the population. They are about elitism.
I can't speak for other countries, but German universities are also underrated in these university rankings. Not on purpose, but because in the German system a huge part of the world class research does not happen at the universities, but at external research facilities like the Frauenhofer or Max Planck institutes. Those are afaik not included in the research and citation scores of universities.
And to come back to entirely flawed: There is also a lot of bad research happening just to boost publications and citation counts, two metrics that heavily influence the university ranking and "scientist rankings". If the university optimizes for ranking positions rather than high quality research, I would also call that a flawed system.
I think what I'm trying to get at with the Common App is that it turns a time problem into a money one. If I had to write separate essays for every college app, I could've only applied to maybe 6 or 7. Instead, I could pay money to apply to more schools.
As for the quality of the American college system. I think it's hard to argue that many of the best universities are generally in the US. (I choose the UK ranking initially b/c it was the least friendly to American Universities). Many of these universities are also public and fairly low cost. My gauge on the problem of American universities is the bubble in demand. Too many people want to go to college for skills that aren't needed widely. This demand drives up cost to its currently crazy levels and creates long term debt issues.
> "Entirely flawed" is also incorrect. At least according to this UK-based ranking:
The ratings are not about cost for education and accessibility, i.e. a fair system for the population. They are about elitism.
I can't speak for other countries, but German universities are also underrated in these university rankings. Not on purpose, but because in the German system a huge part of the world class research does not happen at the universities, but at external research facilities like the Frauenhofer or Max Planck institutes. Those are afaik not included in the research and citation scores of universities.
And to come back to entirely flawed: There is also a lot of bad research happening just to boost publications and citation counts, two metrics that heavily influence the university ranking and "scientist rankings". If the university optimizes for ranking positions rather than high quality research, I would also call that a flawed system.