<p>to add–VH, i wouldn’t be surprised if your rejection was a factor of both your over-qualified stats, as well as other, less significant factors (the types of things 4mygurl cites).</p>
<p>im definately feeling for you von, i had a 3.83 GPA, 2020 SATs (1340/1600) and ranked in top 3 of 300, but still nothing.</p>
<p>Posted by an admission counselor at Tufts…commenting on “tufts syndrome”</p>
<p>Question for dan… do you ever reject applications because they are too qualified?</p>
<p>I can’t speak for practices at other institutions, but I can be certain that (ironically) Tufts Syndrome does not apply to Tufts.</p>
<p>I know this is a huge bump but where did you get in?</p>
<p>wow, way to bring up an old post that will probably never get answered because people will be silly and read all of the drama and discussion. you’re better off just making a new thread.</p>
<p>There are a lot more variables than one’s statistics. The importance of essays are often underestimated. I think that is enforced at schools that require multiple forms of writing. While SATs and GPAs are important they don’t completely describe a person and admissions are a holistic process. If a college admitted every applicant with a 2400 SAT then places like Harvard would have ridiculous admission rates. There are people who get accepted with similar stats as the OP and ones that are far less appealing.</p>
<p>This holds even more true in the career world. While a resume may say a lot, it is only a small step in the process. Multiple interviews with different supervisors and managers are an attempt to capture that which is not on paper.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What do you mean by “ridiculous”?</p>
<p>I’ll just assume that you meant ridiculously high. In that case, you would be wrong: assuming that half of all 2400ers apply to Harvard and that there are 30,000 applicants, the acceptance rate would be under 1%. Many of those people do not have perfect GPAs or Subject Test scores either.</p>
<p>I am extremely skeptical of “yield protection.” I have not personally witnessed a case of this, and my HS was filled with top applicants who applied (and were accepted to) Ivies as well as less highly ranked schools such as NYU and state universities. I really do think it’s something rejected students made up to make themselves feel better.</p>
<p>HOWEVER, something high school guidance counselors do point out is that schools will sometimes “ban” high schools. This most frequently happens if a student applies ED and then attends another school, or if a student puts in a deposit and then attends another school. If NYU is unfriendly towards your HS, it may be a case of your high school being “flagged” by admissions as one in which one (or many) students in the past year or several years have applied ED and failed to attend or submitted deposits and failed to attend. My GC recounted a tale of how our HS was once flagged by a particular top private for years, simply because one student backed out on an ED commitment and went to another (better ranked in fact) university. This is “yield protection” to an extent, but I think the first type of yield protection is an urban legend.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>With respect to NYU or in general? I know with a high degree of confidence that WashU practices yield protection.</p>
<p>Are Stern’s standards really that high?</p>
<p>Silverturtle, what evidence do you have of WashU’s yield protection? one constantly hears of this practice, but I’ve not seen any compelling proof so far. (I haven’t looked for any in the least either.)</p>
<p>
Right… Accepting the 300 or so students that score a 2400 each year would result in ridiculous admissions rates.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I know one person who had 2400, 36, 4*800, and a 4.0 GPA who was accepted to many top colleges (including Harvard, Princeton, and Yale). WashU was the only school that did not accept him; he was waitlisted. </p>
<p>At my own school, we have a few WashU acceptances every year (somewhat strong but not amazing applicants). However, the strongest two applicants from my school within the last five years were both waitlisted from WashU and accepted to schools that are generally considered to be more selective. </p>
<p>My conclusion is not based on any specifically citable evidence, but the totality of all the anecdotes strongly suggests it. And there is not confirmation bias here: I was suspicious of this before I was aware of WashU’s reputation to that effect.</p>
<p>I would not attend WashU as I don’t want to get shot at St.Louis.</p>
<p>Do you guys honestly think that every person with a 2400 SAT gets into every single college they apply to?</p>
<p>^ I don’t recall anyone’s saying that.</p>
<p>To elaborate: Of course, not everyone with 2400 on the SAT gets accepted everywhere. They do, however, generally have excellent stats otherwise and, thus, enjoy relatively high rates of acceptance to all colleges.</p>
<p>What I was questioning, AoDay, was what you meant by “ridiculous admission rates,” a phrase that you still have not yet clarified.</p>