Reports of 10-year-olds taking summer PSAT prep classes seem ridiculous, but given the hype and stress surrounding college admissions, they are not unbelievable.

The SAT is only one of the many aspects that critics say need reform in the college admissions process. Lloyd Thacker, founder of non-profit Education Conservancy and author of “College Unranked: Ending the College Admissions Frenzy,” also scrutinizes bragging about rank, growing merit-based aid, increasing early decision acceptance and admission leveraging, which is when a school gives a counteroffer of admission when a much-desired student rejects the original one. At the heart of these concerns is the ethical practice of admissions officers, the most critical point on which the entire college application process depends.

Despite the need for colleges to re-examine admission policies, colleges are not the only ones to blame for the current state of affairs. On the other side of college admissions, the attitude and behavior of high school students and their parents contribute to the hype.

Indeed, the average SAT scoreat competitive colleges is high, but the decision to enroll in prep courses is the student’s or their parents’ own choice. The responsibility rests on students, aided by parental and counselor guidance, to determine how much effort they should allocate to test prep and what scores are realistic. Enrolling 10-year-olds in prep courses does not illustrate the flaws of the college admission process itself, but rather parents’ lack of judgment.

“Reformers can make a difference … by directing their energies to families who are at risk of being caught in the frenzy,” said Peter van Buskirk, former admissions officer. “Parents need to know there is a point of diminished return as they prep their kids for college … and students need to know that … pre-calculus is ultimately more important that an ‘SAT Math’ tutorial.”

Another subject where colleges unfairly take the brunt of criticism is rankings. A few colleges purposely inflate rank, but regardless of colleges’ integrity, U.S. News, not the colleges, began and continues to release the rankings. As Buskirk says, the news media is “the third player in the frenzy.” While a college boasting about rank is foolish and unattractive, of the three players, colleges have the least power: the media determines rankings and consumers choose to believe them.

While van Buskirk is right to spread the blame for the “frenzy” and misinformation of the college admission process to students, parents and the media as well as colleges, his proposal to make the system more transparent is unrealistic. Parents and students should receive helpful advice to prevent extreme SAT prep and utter faith in the ranking system (both of which common sense should already warn against), but van Buskirk’s more extreme suggestion to “increase the transparency of college admissions” is unrealistic. The business-like nature of competitive colleges and their sometimes incomprehensible admission decisions, like van Buskirk argues, are not ideal, but unavoidable given the numbers of stellar colleges and students.

Colleges will continue to promote themselves in a business-like fashion in order to recruit the best students. Like the students who brush up on vocabulary before the big SAT day or get a second opinion on their personal statements, colleges will put in that extra effort to make themselves more competitive. Also, given the amount of great students, who to accept and who to reject always comes down to an informed, yet subjective decision by admission officers.

Not only are competition and subjectivity realistic, but they also can encourage the best possible performance by colleges and students, just as long as college and student efforts stay on the reasonable side of the line – away from colleges haggling over students and parents prepping 10-year-olds for PSATs.