<p>First of all, there are so few colleges on that list, I can’t even figure out why it would be useful.</p>
<p>Second of all, did you see how many they put on the waitlist? How many they take off the waitlist at those schools? I think some schools are accepting nearly a whole second class onto the waitlist. </p>
<p>On the surface, this seems really preposterous to me.</p>
<p>One does tire of hearing about students allegedly “gaming the system.” Under circumstances such as these, I say, “game away.”</p>
<p>Only a fraction of the students offered waitlist status will actually remain on the waitlist. I don’t have a clue what that fraction is- but the point is, when the school consigns applicants to the waitlist, it does so with awareness that those students are going to be accepted to other colleges. So whatever the yield is for accepted students, a corresponding waitlist “yield” is probably much smaller.</p>
<p>Do they calculate waitlist students in yield? That would influence yield rates also and make them less valuable since clearly a kid who says yes to a waitlist is more likely to attend if accepted off a waitlist. I high yield tells me the college is accepting the “right” kids. A low yield tells me that alot of kids are applying and getting accepted didn’t really want to go to that college.</p>
<p>The size of the waitlist and the number who accept a spot is NOT relevant to yield. The only relevant data are the overall number of admitted students and enrolled students. WL admission is a yield crutch and an antidote to summer melt and the compadre of aggressive selectivity.</p>
<p>Thank, I always wondered about wait list. I don’t put alot of weight in yield rates other than as an interesting fact that tells me more about the college’s marketing and admissions staff and the whims of college bound kids.</p>
<p>If you figure the average college applicant ( for selective colleges) applies to 8-10 schools and gets into 4 or 5, then the majority of offers of admission will be turned down. With few exceptions, the colleges are in a real bind, because the number of accepted offers is going to vary from year to year – and those kids who are waitlisted but got an offer of admission from a similar school are not going to bother to stay on the list. I can’t blame them for having huge wait lists.</p>
<p>n many cases this is true, especially for schools a little lower in the pecking order. But IMO it’s just ridiculous for a school like Princeton to waitlist a larger number than it enrolls (1,931 accepted, 1,292 enrolled, 1,395 waitlisted). Princeton regularly gets around 65% yield; this year it’s 66.91%. Even in 2011 when its yield unexpectedly dipped to 56.99%, Princeton accepted only 19 students off a waitlist of 1,248. They couldn’t possibly “need” that many on the waitlist. All I can think is that Princeton uses the waitlist as a kind of consolation prize, so the 1,300+ who got close but didn’t make the final cut can at least walk away saying, “Well, I got waitlisted at Princeton.” Which is, I suppose, something of an honor in its own right, if ultimately a hollow one.</p>
<p>Or maybe it’s a consolation prize for the admissions officer who pleaded the applicant’s case but lost; the AO can then put the file aside with the comforting thought that she “at least got this kid as far as the waitlist.”</p>
<p>In the past, I often made a similar remark, as I found the size of the waiting lists to be … well, ridiculous. I still do, but I have softened the stance after receiving a rather plausible explanation for having a large pool to show from.</p>
<p>In addition to representing a “soft landing” and ego-boosting “non-rejection” the schools prefer a very large pool because they realize many will turn the invitation to stay on the list down. Then, we can look at the holistic process of admission during which a school looks to create that “infamous” cohesive class of angular students. If the school decided to admit a particular student who should be an asset as a waterpolo player as well as play the oboe, they might be interested in locating one (or several) who presents similar qualities in their WL. It is good to remember that the WL is not a ranked affair but a complete pool from which to choose a few select ones, in case the first choices decide to attend a different school. </p>
<p>The reality is that nobody should be fooled or blinded by the WL process. The numbers are available for most schools. It is a non-risk proposal for the school, and the students, parents, and GC are (perhaps erroneously) honored by the WL offer. Hence, the quasi absence of reducing the size of the animal.</p>
<p>OK. I’d like to formalize my hypothesis. 1. Bias across regions as already explained. 2. Bias within the same region (each reporter’s marks for colleges in the same region tend to show little differences). Because of these biases, minuscule adjustment requires.</p>
<p>When HS counselors’ score considered (#1 to #22),
Cornell, JHU, CMU overestimated whereas Duke,UChicago,Rice,WASHU underestimated, IMHO.</p>
<p>I see some on that list that I anecdotally believe give terrible FA (Elon, for one). Cooper Union is at almost 76%, I wonder who turns them down…kids with tons of $ or excellent FA elsewhere?</p>
<p>One not listed is Berea in KY…yield was in the 70%s a couple of years ago, may be ahead of Harvard. I guess the service academies are way up there too.</p>
<p>A WL can also be a soft rejection for those candidate with connections, including legacies and faculty brats, who don’t have the numbers, but whose outright rejection may tick off someone who is politically/financially influential to P’ton.</p>
<p>One person from Virginia who made a big public statement this year about turning down Harvard had received a full ride merit scholarship from another leading university. I’m assuming his family income did not result in the same low cost if he had attending Harvard.</p>
<p>Some of the students who turn down Harvard decide to attend Stanford, Yale or Princeton because they like the atmosphere better, or because they want to stay in the western US.</p>
<p>Note - some colleges use huge wait lists to soften the blow for their alums, whose children did not get accepted.</p>
<p>I wonder how wait lists work. Do most students who take places on the wait list </p>
<p>(1) decline other acceptances and take the chance they won’t get into any college
(2) tell one accepting college that they are going, pay the deposit (typically how large?) and prepare to forfeit that deposit if they come off the wait list at the school they prefer? Is this ethical?</p>
<p><a href=“2”>quote</a> tell one accepting college that they are going, pay the deposit (typically how large?) and prepare to forfeit that deposit if they come off the wait list at the school they prefer? Is this ethical?
[/quote]
This is what most wait-listed students do. It’s ethical because all the schools maintain waitlists, and this is just how it works.</p>
</p>