<p>It seems like everyone is getting waitlisted at schools they wouldnt normally get waitlisted at. Do you think colleges believe that with such high numbers applying this year and next year, and with so many applications sent out by the average individual, that colleges are simply trying to protect their yield and instead of accepting/rejecting candidates, they are putting them on the waitlist to see if they really like the school. Admissions officers might be thinking that if a kid is willing to give up his $500 deposit to another school in order to go to their school after being taken off the waiting list, then they really like the school and deserve to go there. And if kids don't go to a school after being accepted from the waitlist, the school that waitlisted everyone just has lower numbers/seems more selective. Its a win win situation for them.</p>
<p>I don't know.. All I know is that I got waitlisted at Grinnell, Bard, Knox, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Annoying. VERY annoying. I got into NYU, though!!! x)</p>
<p>Good point, bananaphone. I wouldn't be surprised if this was the case... it actually makes a lot of sense, especially with the increasing number of applicants.</p>
<p>if it is true, we're powerless to fight against it.</p>
<p>MIT projects taking 10 people off their waitlist this year, which would run their 5 year total to 40 people: 10 this year, 30 last year, 0 for 3 years before.</p>
<p>But most schools use the waitlist in order to ensure not too many get enrolled (beyond capacity), they'll let a certain number in, see the yield, let in a certain amount of the waitlist, and then if they can let some more off a second waitlist. There is no test, it is just used to make sure they get a proper amount of students. If colleges think they can do it well, like MIT, few will be let in after the initial acceptance, if they don't know their potential yield they'll be more conservative. With increased applicants, some schools aren't sure year by year what the yield will be.</p>
<p>I have a feeling that with more kids applying to colleges at this moment, and each kid applying to college applies to so many schools, the wait list is more important right now. My personal results:</p>
<p>accepted: dartmouth, U Chicago
waitlisted: Princeton, Harvard, Columbia, Williams, Johns Hopkins</p>
<p>If only you could trade 5 wait lists for 1 acceptance!</p>
<p>I think the waitlist serves two purposes. One is that colleges know how invested a lot of students are in the college application process. Getting waitlisted can kind of cushion the blow of getting rejected. Some people feel better knowing that they were good enough to get in but there wasn't enough room rather than getting rejected outright. I call this the "courtesy waitlist". Schools that do this often waitlist as many students as the accept demonstrating that it is highly unlikely you will be accepted.</p>
<p>Also, by putting large numbers of students on the waitlist the schools have much more flexibility to form the class they want. If they have a certain number of kids from a particular area of the country that they want and don't get the yield they want, they can go to the waitlist and pick kids from the area they want. Likewise, they can pick athletes, specific majors, minorities, etc. Having a large list to pick from allows them to craft the class they want. </p>
<p>I think at large state schools, it really is a size management issue. They deal with such large quantities of applications that it is really hard to predict yield. They need to make sure they hit their target numbers. They are more likely to just pull kids off without consideration of demographics or anything else. I have many more students getting admitted off of state school waitlists than the exclusive private ones.</p>
<p>Aaahhh waitlists...why would my D get accepted to every west coast school-top tier--with honors...and every east coast school she is waitlisted?..hum..</p>
<p>I got waitlisted at my three matches. However, I got accepted to my number one choice reach, so I guess I'm fine with that provided I get enough finanical aid.</p>
<p>I think a lot of people think Cal and UCLA are as hard to get into as the ivy league--in CA anyway. Fact is they are much easier to get into. To me, top tier in CA is Stanford and Pomona.</p>
<p>I was waitlisted at Amherst, Middlebury, Swarthmore, and Williams, but I doubt I'll keep my place on any of them since I was accepted to Dartmouth, Wellesley, and Bryn Mawr. I'm positive that the fact that I had to apply as an international student (despite having lived in the United States for six years) influenced my admissions outcome, especially since I was outright rejected by the University of Chicago when my counselor was certain I'd get in; still, I have three excellent schools to choose from, which is more than I could really ever have hoped for.</p>
<p>(And yes, I was upset about Princeton, but I'm recovering -- can you tell? ;))</p>