<p>Oh please--go read the Official Decisions thread and tell me you don't see a trend. You can't deny that there are a lot of low GPAs and lower test scores among the accepted students
Please note that I'm not at all trying to bring down the accepted students. Better SATs or grades don't make one student better than another--I'm the first to acknowledge that.</p>
<p>To me overqualified is like somebody calling a person an overachiever. I think there are underchievers and high achievers. Over qualified? For what? College? I see a lot of those same people being rejected by lots of top schools. These kids are all high achievers, period. At any given school they might or might not give in. Very tough to separate them because they are all very good and talented. But someone has to make a call. It is like trying to do the third round of layoffs at a company when the fat has been trimmed and everyone left is pretty good. It never seems fair because there is no cut and dried way to do it and no way will be fair to everybody and will by definition result in many unhappy people. It is too bad that folks really think there is such a such a big difference or any difference between school 1 and 20 on some list. That is the problem. They believe what some magazine says and in absolute ranks. The ability to separate school one from ten is like trying to separate the top chunk of students in any application pool from each other at these schools. It is the belief that some school is so inferior that actually causes the problems and creates false expectations. If it is so bad why does it seem like all the brilliant HYPS kids are applying to get in? Just to tell others they did? Posters are saying the school has been this way for years? If you knew that why even play their game? If you knew that, you should know the risks or maybe not? And if the school was so low on some of your lists why apply and why care care about the outcome? Let those who love the place and who are passionate about going, apply.</p>
<p>You can talk about how tough the competition is and how it's so hard to distinguish all you want, but if you take an honest look at the RD thread, you will be hard-pressed not to notice that two very different groups of applicants were waitlisted.</p>
<p>EDIT:</p>
<p>
[quote]
To me overqualified is like somebody calling a person an overachiever
[/quote]
Why is everyone having such a problem with vocabulary? In this context, overqualified means WashU waitlisted someone because he/she would have accepted an offer at a better school.</p>
<p>It's funny how parents can sometimes be less knowledgeable. Must be because of the time passed since they took the SATs...</p>
<p>Yeah, its fun to be a parent, to look at kids now and to be reminded how how it was when we we young and thought we knew everything.</p>
<p>Top students from our high school received many mailings from WUSTL. Two students applied. Student with higher test scores, higher GPA, many strong ECs was waitlisted. Student with lower test scores, lower GPA, fewer ECs was accepted. Second student did visit school and interview. Both are planning to attend other schools.</p>
<p>How about this: Wash U says that everyone with a 2100 or greater qualifies and from that point on, the SAT doesn,t matter. All with some standardized GPA above a certain point are also considered qualified. Then that group of people are accepted based on OTHER criteria and SAT/GPA no longer plays a role in the acceptance. There would be no difference in a 2400/4.0 and a 2150/3.8. They would be admitted based on passion, major, gender, race,essays,, EC, recs, etc . 2400 doesn't get you a better chance than a 2200.</p>
<p>i really hope i am one of those who they waitlisted because they thought i would go somewhere else....i got a early acceptance to vanderbilt with a 20,000 merit scholarship and a likely letter from cornell. i couldnt believe i was waitlisted until i read all about how they do it to protect their yield.</p>
<p>I have to admit that the WashU decisions were somewhat fishy at my school. </p>
<p>Here's how the decisions went for 5 of my friends, with some background info on each applicant.</p>
<p>Student 1 - Waitlisted; valedictorian of class, 35 ACT, several varsity letters, part-time job
Student 2 - Waitlisted; 3.9-4.0 GPA, 34 ACT, 22something SAT, 4 years allstate band, 4 years varsity weightlifting/golf, 2 years varsity volleyball, likely letter from Cornell
Student 3 - Accepted; 3.8-3.9 GPA, 22something SAT, 4 years student government/yearbook photographer/newspaper writer (editor this year), 2 years varsity soccer, also accepted to Amherst
Student 4 - Waitlisted; 3.6-3.7 GPA, 2390 SAT, 36 ACT, 4 years track/cross country, 2 years soccer, accepted to Amherst, accepted at Davidson and finalist for their big scholarship
Student 5 - Waitlisted; 3.9-4.0 GPA, 22something SAT, band, teaches drum lessons at Boys and Girls club, president of Hessed forum, DOUBLE LEGACY (both parents attended)</p>
<p>In the same week, all 6 MIT applicants were accepted from my school; similar statistics. The difference between the two? Perhaps MIT does not have to worry about yield, assuredly being near the top of most applicants' lists, and in the very top echelon of the collegiate strata.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Oh please--go read the Official Decisions thread and tell me you don't see a trend
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You are preaching to the choir. I've already agreed that WashU practices yield protection, quite obviously. However, I think oldolddad is correct. Answer me this: what is it about you or another individual that makes them overqualified for a school. Go ahead; pick out any one person you want that got waitlisted and then tell me what makes them overqualified. Then go to the Harvard thread, come RD time, and do the same. You will obviously have a tougher time arguing that one is "overqualified" for Harvard because it has so much recognition and respect. People don't realize that although WashU may not be Harvard (or even of that quality, IMO) it is a very selective and great school. </p>
<p>I've already agreed (even argued) that WashU waitlists many top applicants b/c it fears they will accept offers elsewhere. That may or may not be the truth, but the evidence seems to suggest it. Still, there is a difference between someone being "overqualified" and just being likely to receive admission at a better school and reject WashU's offer.</p>
<p>weasel, your post gave me a good chuckle. I'd be interested in knowing how you feel about that comment in 30 years! I agree with oldolddad --- but I probably would not have 30 years ago. Time and experience are interesting things. :)</p>
<p>I think there is some truth to this notion that WashU waitlists a lot of students who also apply to the ivies and get accepted. I've been on this site for several years and it's really the same issue every year. Even during my junior year in high school before I started looking at colleges, I remember getting a lot of mail from this school. What I think WashU suffers from is it's location as well as its lack of ivy status so the school is trying to manipulate admissions to minimize the acceptance rate and maximize the yield to a degree that it becomes blatantly apparent.</p>
<p>It sort of reminds me of an anecdote about Brown and how it become a popular school to apply to decades ago because the school decided to reject qualified applicants to build the school's reputation.</p>
<p>collegekidsmom and zspot:</p>
<pre><code>Your brief snapshots of who got in and who got waitlisted at washu are not very helpful without a far more complete picture of the total package presented by each applicant.
</code></pre>
<p>Do you know what they indicated as their potential major? The medical science-pre-med major that attracts thousands of applicants from all over the world or the less well-known Integrated Project in the Humanities or the unique Philosophy-Neuroscience-Psychology or perhaps the well-regarded German Studies program? That makes a difference, you know. </p>
<p>Do you know the family finances for each applicant --- who needed financial aid and who didn't? Do you know if one of the applicants had something in their family background or history that made them stand out to adcoms trying to distinguish among thousands of applicants? </p>
<p>Did you give any consideration to the students ethnic or religious background or whether they speak more than one language at home or whether they are male or female. Washu is one college that strives for gender balance and something as simple as male-female can make a difference. </p>
<p>Do you know whether the ECs that seem stellar are ones that serve the campus at Washu for this particular admission cycle? Do you know if they needed journalists or golfers, student debaters or science olympiad specialists this year or were they looking for the community service superstars instead? </p>
<p>I think the trenchant observation that someone with higher SATs and GPA got waitlisted and someone with lower stats got admitted might have more relevance if the entire application of those students were also scrutinized. </p>
<p>Here's an equally telling anecdote from my son's h.s. last year: the NMF scholar, salutorian, four-year varsity soccer player who is also a jazz trumpet player and president of the largest service club was waitlisted by Yale. The same year, at the same school, Yale admitted a student who was merely NMF "commended," in the top 10 of the class but not val or sal, had few ECs and no leadership positions and did not win any of the "book" awards. How could this happen? How could they fail to admit someone so highly qualified from this school and instead take a student who at first glance seems so much less worthy? Sounds pretty fishy, don't you think?</p>
<p>Well, the admitted student happened to be first generation American, first generation to college, low-middle income, had few ECs bec he had to work part-time to help support the family and also because he preferred to use his time after school to study another language at a cc, had wonderful teacher recommendations due to his work ethic and character. </p>
<p>The point I'm belaboring is that unless you sit in that committee, you don't know what all the various applicants are bringing to the table, particularly if you can only recite the bare bones of their "stats." Many are nodding and saying, well, sure Yale can pass over the uber-elite candidate because....well, because it's Yale. They can waitlist an amazing array of applicants without a murmur of dissent because they have nothing to prove, nothing to protect.
But for Washu to turn away some dazzlingly qualified candidates in favor of other qualified, but on paper not so blindingly brilliant as others, than surely that is highly suspicious behavior. What a lot of hooey.</p>
<p>Some of the waitlisted candidates very likely are there because washu is protecting yield. So what? They can't accept every single top-notch candidate without having a lopsided student body that fails to meet the needs of all the various departments and programs. They may as well use some criteria, one that benefits the college, to narrow that list. It makes sense.</p>
<p>Zspot9, you just found out how to distinguish one candidate from another. Everyone at your school are between the range accepted by Wash U, and only the one that has something that Wash U was looking for got in. If you read Student Life (the oldest college paper), they are looking for writers and editors for the school paper. The kid that has been working in journalism during high school had the better chance to be accepted. With more than 22,000 applicants and only 1350 openings for the new class, they accept the student who fits better no matter if he got a little lower SAT.</p>
<p>There are two lessons in this discussion that I see. One, there would be fewer hard feelings if Wash U instituted a supplement to the Common App that focused on "why Wash U?". The application pool is larger, of course, if the school forgoes a supplement, but the yield might be more legitimately increased if they limited applications to those able to articulate an interest on paper. This is particularly true because this school cares about demonstrated interest. The FAQs are as clear as they can be that a visit to the school will increase your chances of acceptance, and anecdotally this seems to be true.</p>
<p>Second, I do not understand why anyone, no matter how wonderful his or her stats are, would be shocked over being waitlisted or rejected at any highly selective school, Wash U included. 22,000 applications for 1350 spots is 6%. Even if the acceptance rate is higher than an Ivy to yield 1350 enrollments, it's no one's safety. To me, if a student is surprised at not getting into any school that is ranked way up the list in the USNWR (however bogus you may believe the rankings are), his plan of applications may have been flawed. </p>
<p>There are two boys in my daughter's class who are very similarly accomplished, but one does a bit better in everything academically. Let's say they are numbers 2 and 5 in their class. Number 5 applied to a range of schools in the top 50, concentrating in the top 30, with just one or two reaching into the top 10. Number 2 applied to everything in the top ten and considers UCLA to be his safety. Guess which one is getting in everywhere, with merit scholarships to about half the schools he applied to? And guess which one is starting to receive rejections and is worried about where he's going to go? Guess which one is less stressed about what's going to happen when he hears from the reaches, because he already has fantastic choices? </p>
<p>It's awful to see #2, such an accomplished kid, feeling upset because he limited his options without taking harsh reality into account, and sad to think that he screwed himself out of being wanted at a school that would pay him to go there.</p>
<p>Words of wisdom, J-Ro.</p>
<p>Wash U actually accepts about 4000 (not 1350 claimed in many posts) students and yield 1350. Admission rate is about 18%, not more selective than the better schools.</p>
<p>Washu actively promotes its merit scholarships to attract more students to apply for the merit scholarships. I am not sure how many students applied for the scholarships, it is likely 5000 or more (Emory does not promotely its merit scholarship nearly as much as Wash u did, Emory received 2500 applications for its merit scholarships). Most of the scholarship applicants meet the admission standards. Had all those who qualify are accepted, Wash's yield will be lower than 20% (wash u certainly does not want to see that). If the 5000 scholarship applicants did not apply to wash u, its applicants will drop to 17000 and its admission rate will increase to 25%. Clearly wash u reduce its admission rate by getting more students to apply for its scholarship, and increases its yield by waitlisting those scholarship applicants. While this may be legal, I do not think it is ethical.</p>
<p>Yes, wash u waitlists many students over-qualified for wash u.</p>
<p>You're making this up as you go along, eh? Never let the lack of facts get in the way of a good vent.</p>
<p>Given they accept kids with the same credentials, the waitlisted kids are not overqualfied. Just too many highly qualified kids to accept. Can't end up with a class that is too big. What do you think of MIT basically telling kids of any quailty to apply and getting kids hopes up and then rejecting high stats candadates along with a ton of others, many of whom have fallen in love with the place. Should they go out and say: "Do not apply because we will reject most of you" or "We only will accept high stats kids." Good schools all market in different ways. They all want every good kid to apply so they can build what they think is the best class from the applicant pool. Wouldn't you? I am sure it is more art than science.</p>
<p>I don't know where you came up with the 5,000 figure. My understanding is that at the most they may receive 4,000 total applications. Considering that most kids apply for more than one scholarship, I would guess that at the most they have 2,000 to 2,500 unique students applying for scholarships. As for promoting, outside of normal literature and a listing on their website, I am not aware of heavy promotion for the merit awards. In fact many people are not even aware of the Danforth. Considering that they award between 150 - 200 half or full tuition merit awards to every freshman class - I think they are quite generous awarding more than comparable schools.</p>