<p>I feel like this argument is never going to end. I don't think students who bash this school have "sense of entitlement" because it's apparent that WashU waitlists a lot of its applicants who are accepted to ivies. I don't think that WashU is actually choosing applicants based solely on qualification but also on their intentions, whether they really want to go to the school. I think what people are frustrated off about this school is their mass marketing to increase application numbers and the school's practice of yield protection, which really artificially increases selectivity to increase the school's US News ranking.</p>
<p>Yes fudgemaster that is an issue...but that is mostly centered in a different thread, so I'm not going to comment about that really, other than--I think it's crazy! It's just mail! Oops I commented...</p>
<p>K the yield protection ya got me on. I really won't go there. Again different thread, kinda.</p>
<p>I don't think yield protection belongs in a different thread. I believe that WashU waitlisted those who it thought would accept offers at better schools to protect their yield.</p>
<p>k well it's been discussed......on oh 8 different ones or so, so far.</p>
<p>It's funny how much outrage this has caused--especially considering the fact that most waitlistees considered Wash U a match or safety and not a first choice. I'd chalk it up to stress--several people on the decisions thread were shocked that a perceived "lower tier" school waitlisted them and worried that it boded ill for their upcoming Ivy decisions. Wash U lovers, don't take it personally; Ivy hopefuls, chill out!</p>
<p>This "mass marketing" has been going on for years and according to folks here has been complained about in the past. So why do so many well read and bright kids fall for it, especially if they are "overqualified"? I know in our district there is one western school who has had a history of such odd acceptances of seemingly less than stellar applicants and rejection of superastars that our counselors just roll there eyes. WashU has had a logical acceptance pattern by comaparison. But after a while kids said ****em if that is the type of kids they take and the way they do it we won't apply. So they didn't and don't.
I feel for the kids that really wanted to go here or anyone who longs to go to a particular school and does not get in. However, I can't decide if those that are whining are more upset about the kids with apparently lower stats who got in or the kids with equal too or better stats (overqualifed ) that got in. See I know that very top kids did get in so the generalization cannot be made. You will never know why they did and you did not.</p>
<p>One thing, in all seriousness, this does point out is how strange the college game has become. Really, if you apply to several schools ,hopefully all of which you like, you should do be doing so to imporve your chances of success. If you like them all, how many do you need to get into? Only one. Anybody who gets into one of their choices should be happy. The rest is an ego trip.(I know trying to get merit money is another reason to go for more too). I know a lot of kids who would kill to just be able to get into just one of the places that the nattering nabobs of negativity are listing as their to-date acceptances. Sometimes we forget how lucky we are to even be in the game at all. I think if the vast majority of college bound kids could read these posts they would shake theirs heads in disbelief at the spoiled attitudes of many of the posters. IMHO.</p>
<p>I agree with oldolddad!</p>
<p>
[quote]
But after a while kids said ****em if that is the type of kids they take and the way they do it we won't apply.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That is precisely why the "overqualified" issue should be discussed. The more information applicants have going into the college process, the better off they will be (and less disappointed when they too get waitlisted).</p>
<p>i also agree with weasel. stop denying what they did, it's so obvious. some schools even admit it. i read an article where a head guy of admissions (cant remember which college) said they knock out the top 150 kids every year cuz they know they wont come. its called "tufts syndrome" and wash u def. has it.</p>
<p>WashU was a first choice for me, at least. No Ivy apps here, either. Wish they would have known I'd go in a heartbeat.</p>
<p>I think WashU would be wise to add a supplement so that they could better guage student interest. The acceptance rate would increase, but in all likelihood so would the yield.</p>
<p>You do not know if they knocked out the top 150 or the next 150. I bet they took some real top ones but like the conjecture about most else on the board nobody knows. It is fun to argue without data.
I love that people are so into believing rankings they are amost saying it would be an honor to be rejected as long is it is by HYPS because they only take the best of the best. What is this world coming to.</p>
<p>It does kind of sound like a lot of folks are mad because in many cases WUSTL beat them at their own game??</p>
<p>Haha, that's an interesting way of putting it, oldolddad... I like it!</p>
<p>
[quote]
It does kind of sound like a lot of folks are mad because in many cases WUSTL beat them at their own game??
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So are you finally convinced that WashU played the "overqualified" game?</p>
<p>Just compare this school with UChicago. UChicago has this uncommon application to filter out people who really don't want to go to the school. WashU on the other hand sends out massive amounts of mail to increase its application numbers but imo it doesn't increase the quality of the typical applicant. Every school does try to increase its number of applications every year, but there is just something wrong and immoral about how the school chooses its applicants. I'm sure a lot of people will be furious that I used the word "immoral" to describe the admissions process but there must be some better way to select students other than waitlisting a whole bunch of students.</p>
<p>Actually, showing kids who had no interest in them that they had no interest in you. Level of qualification does not matter. Top kids, some better than any of the complainers, did get in. Maybe they know more about the application process than you did? Perhaps, that, makes them more qualifed too.</p>
<p>Unfortunately UChicago is seriously considering switching to the Common App. Filling out the UnCommon Application was my favorite part of the college process.</p>
<p>fudge: They could just reject them all. Also remember no one has to take the waitlist offer do they?</p>
<p>You got it oldolddad! By the way, I read the MIT's RD and I can't believe it is just like this one, lower scores were accepted, higher scores were rejected or waitlisted and everything in between.</p>
<p>I agree. But in defense of any kid, at any level, at any school, rejection is a b****h. Fortunately, it seems that those who are the most upset have the most choices. It is the other ones who I hope get into good places where they can be happy and thrive.</p>