<p>On another forum a poster asked what the purpose was of a college asking where else you've applied. To a casual observer, it might look like ds's list is all over the place -- in-state, OOS, large state unis, tiny rural LACs. But, truthfully, a lot of thought went into his list, and he likes each of these colleges for different reasons. Plus, we needed financial safeties. I'm wondering -- if you have a list like ds's, (and doesn't everyone???) is it better to:</p>
<p>1) only list like colleges;
2) only list colleges that wouldn't normally be competition;
3) decline to list any colleges; or
4) quit overthinking it and just be honest?</p>
<p>I don’t think it’s dishonest to answer by listing only those schools the college wouldn’t expect a student to prefer. I don’t know how much weight, if any, colleges give the question, but I also don’t see how it benefits the student to give up every detail. (Of course, not all schools ask.) I’d think it makes sense to list the state school, if there is one, and maybe one academic safety and one match.</p>
<p>My kids answered this question differently. One left the question blank. One listed all the schools she had room for on the app (though she did leave out the two highest-ranked schools). And one mentioned just a few schools, not usually seen as direct competitors to the college in question, when the question came up in an interview.</p>
<p>I’m not sure I buy everything in that article. Washington University has been accused of turning down “overqualified” applicants (Google “yield protection”), and the article supposedly disproves this notion by asking the Admissions Director at WashU about it. I guess if they had any concerns about questionable practices in the Bush administration, they’d ask Karl Rove. The article also says colleges don’t compare notes to see where their applicants might be heading, but they’re all very well aware of who their main competitors are. Hendrix and Rhodes, Austin/Southwestern/Trinity, and Maguire U vs Swigmore are just a few examples They may not talk about the current crop of applicants (although I bet they do), but they do talk. That article was full of gently soothing information to set your heart at ease, but the cynic in me isn’t buying it.</p>
<p>But YDS, if it were me, I’d gladly share that information. It may appear to the casual observer that your son is applying to a random collection of schools, but the insiders should be able to find the common thread that drew your son to each of them. I’d just add one or two really insulting schools to the mix, to make the admissions officer say, “He applied to us and to THEM?!”</p>
<p>If you look at Wash U’s admission stats over the last five or six years you will see that those accepted ED (binding) have lower overall stats than those who are accepted RD which is usually reversed at most other highly selective schools. Wash U is and has been “need aware” and they can better control their yield and FA allotment by doing this. Wash U is definitely about yield.</p>
<p>For anyone who is in anyway a more marginal applicant with no financial need concerns, ED has historically been by far the better route to a Wash U. acceptance than RD.</p>
<p>I don’t have anything saved but about 6 years ago someone on CC tipped me to start watching the disparity between ED and RD. Since my son was applying RD (though not a marginal applicant) I began watching not only the CC accepted/rejected statistics but also looking at data sets that I found (with some difficulty) on their website. A classmate of my son’s parents were both Wash U alum and also were alumni nominators and interviewers for the Danforth Scholars program. In casual conversation they both agreed that ED was the route of choice for marginal applicants with no financial need.</p>
<p>It appeared then and has continued to appear that Wash U was/is willing to lower the bar a bit in ED to gain the guaranteed matriculation and the lack of squabbling over FA that comes with ED. In the RD round they are often used as a fallback (I won’t dare to call them a safety) for those applying to HYPMS which seems to significantly reduce their yield after April 1 decisions come out. </p>
<p>Interestingly each year as admissions have become more competitive their wait list percentages have also grown. Go to the Wash U archives from the last few years on CC and see how many were wait listed, while obviously somewhat anecdotal, last year in particular seemed extraordinarily high.</p>
<p>Well, count me in the cynics corner as to how this information might potentially be used to the detriment of the applicant. Why don’t they collect this information after they’ve sent out the acceptances? Granted, it would then provide data from a different angle but the applicant is then not put at risk for improper use of the data.</p>
<p>Do you really think they would want to publish something that in effect says " we’re willing to take you even if you have stats that are a bit lower than the norm as long as you are willing to commit and won’t need FA?"</p>
<p>It takes some digging and a little bit of piecing things together but you can make that case over the last 5-6 years at least. Perhaps this is a result of their aggressive marketing campaign; applications have gone way up (helping their selectivity numbers for USNWR) but they have a harder time predicting yield as a result. One answer would be somewhat altering the admissions parameters for the ED process to assure matriculation while wait listing a larger number of RD applicants “just in case…” This could also be a result of a less strong average ED pool BECAUSE so many much stronger candidates are using it as a fallback…</p>
<p>I am not saying this is the absolute case, nor am I trying to claim any type of deliberate action, I am just opining that ED sure looks to be that way from where I have been watching their admissions decisions…not quite 50,000 ft…:)</p>
<p>And for the record, I have no axe to grind with WUSTL. My son was admitted for the entering class of fall 2004 with significant merit monies but chose not to attend. I really like the place so I have found this to be a bit interesting to say the least.</p>
<p>I tend to be rather cynical on this subject as well. I really don’t like the question, even if it is to see who their competition is, I don’t feel any burning obligation to spill all the beans. Since I don’t think it should be a factor in college decisions, I have no problem cherry picking the colleges listed. </p>
<p>I have much the same observations (but no hard data) about WUSTL as eadad. </p>
<p>As far as TX, isn’t it more “by the numbers” like many state schools??</p>
<p>Colleges legitimately should want to know what other colleges are attracting the same students that apply to them, and also to track what happens with the students they accept and reject. Molliebatmit has described the process whereby MIT used Facebook to figure out where all but a handful of admitted students who went elsewhere went.</p>
<p>That said, I wouldn’t trust most schools not to use the information in a nefarious way. Most of all WUSTL.</p>
<p>S2 did not answer that question last year, but did when asked at final visits after acceptance. By that time it was of use when comparing “merit” $$, and trying to get school A to up the ante. </p>
<p>I never liked the question and felt it wasn’t necessary to answer, nor detrimental if left blank.</p>
<p>I would believe that the colleges ask the question to get some marketing intelligence. For them to immediately assume a student will “choose” the college with the highest USNWR ranking over them is a false assumption. I would think it would be a false assumption to think that students choices of where to apply influence an admin decision to accept or deny. There is no benefit to a college to do this that I can discern. Colleges know that there are many family factors in play with college apps.</p>
<p>eadad - From what I gather from your answer, it sounds like you have no solid data to back up your statements about ED at WashU. Obviously CC accepted/rejected stats have only marginal value at best, since they are self reported and from a very small data set. </p>
<p>By the way your statement about Danforth interviewers is totaly off base, since any teacher, HS administrator, alumni and a host of additional other people can nominate for the Danforth. All interviews are done only on campus by WashU staff during scholars interview weekend.</p>
<p>It just bothers me when you make unfounded and unsubstantiated statements like the following;
"It appeared then and has continued to appear that Wash U was/is willing to lower the bar a bit in ED to gain the guaranteed matriculation and the lack of squabbling over FA that comes with ED. In the RD round they are often used as a fallback (I won’t dare to call them a safety) for those applying to HYPMS which seems to significantly reduce their yield after April 1 decisions come out. </p>
<p>Interestingly each year as admissions have become more competitive their wait list percentages have also grown. Go to the Wash U archives from the last few years on CC and see how many were wait listed, while obviously somewhat anecdotal, last year in particular seemed extraordinarily high."</p>
<p>Information is always welcome on CC, if it is based on facts. Rumors or “personal opinion” add little to the posts.</p>