<p>I don't think there's any reason to be defensive about yield protection since it is only one of many factors that go into the admissions decisions at Washu. Let's repeat that since it seems such an elusive concept for some. One of many factors. </p>
<p>And yield protection is not unheard of at other top colleges, with the exception HYPSM and a few I may be leaving out. In the book Harvard Schmarvard, an anecdote is told about an absolutely stellar applicant to UPenn who was not admitted because she applied RD rather than ED and the admissions official she asked later about it acknowledged that they knew about her (feeder school) but took her RD as a lack of genuine interest. Having concluded that she would not matriculate, they passed on her. The Ivy Schmivy moral of the story is that she went to Tufts and got a spectacular education there. </p>
<p>The naivete of some you surprises me, but I guess it shouldn't. Do you really think you live in a perfect world where every college can act as though it were HYP? It's amazing that you can be shocked -- shocked!--- that a college would not automatically admit every single one of the candidates whose applications seem to levitate ever that much higher than some others. Boy, are you going to be truly shocked when you get out into the real world and see what really immoral cut-throat business practices are like. Yikes.</p>
<p>I know a subject is approaching dead-horse status for me when I start repeating what was said before, but nevertheless: Where Weasel and high-minded others see only yield protection and venal obsession with rankings, I see a tough decision made to both protect yield and to provide openings for many excellent candidates ---some Ivy caliber and some not --- who have made it clear they want to come to Washu. I don't see anything unethical about it. The admissions process is fraught with opportunities to make some mistakes and miscalculations. I don't deny that it's far from perfect. I think they make decisions to admit based on the best interests of the institution as a whole. </p>
<p>And I think it's ridiculous to make statements of fact about washu policies on the info extrapolated from the RD thread on cc and what you perceive as conventional wisdom or widespread assumptions. What you can make is opinionated observations that can be treated seriously by some or regarded as weak if not disingenuous by others. Unless you can review all these applications, you simply DO NOT KNOW if a lower-scoring, nonpresident-of-everything applicant truly did or did not bring something highly unusual and desirable to the table. </p>
<p>And, IMO, this debate has been all about sense of entitlement. The sense by some that Washu was match-safety for them and should have admitted them regardless of its own needs as an institution, but not just that. There is the clear sense that they should have been wooed (with money) and won or at least wooed so that they could refuse instead of being refused. Hell hath no fury and all that. It's human nature.</p>
<p>Just wondering, do all of you parents responding to this thread have kids going to washu?</p>
<p>Personally I never applied to washu although I have friends who did.</p>
<p>I really don't believe all this complaining stems from a sense of entitlement. I don't understand why people are bashing people who got waitlisted and I think it's a bit rude to say the least.</p>
<p>There’s several ways to fill a class with top notch students. I’m just stating that washu focuses too much on increasing the number of applications and yield protection. And if you think about it, percent acceptance and percent yield don't really give you that much information about the quality of the students attending the school.</p>
<p>Out of the top 25 schools on us news, I believe only washu and tufts have this issue discussed year after year.</p>
<p>Did I read correctly that some of the student posters here thought of Wash U as a safety school? That is either arrogance or ignorance. My son sports a 2380 SAT I, 780 or 800 on all of his SAT II, is a NM finalist, was a national AP scholar by 11th grade (all 5), has several semesters of post-calc BC and languages at university, is winner of a national writing award, e.c's both unusual and impressive and a job generally reserved for adults with college degrees. He did not consider Wash U a safety or even a match, because he knew plenty of great students turned down in the past. He was flattered by the acceptance. While he will probably not attend because of a full-tuiton and fees scholarship to another similar-ranked school, he did not expect to be admitted, and would not have been shocked to find himself waitlisted or rejected. If he'd been waitlisted, he would have declined the offer and moved on.</p>
<p>I'm sorry so many were waitlisted, I really am. This whole selective admissions game is very bruising to the ego. Those who feel strongly that the waitlist is abused should wait a couple of months to cool down and get their plans set, then compose a reasoned and well written letter to Wash U admissions.</p>
<p>I forgot to add in the note above this one that Wash U was by no means the winner in the unsolicited mail category at this house. It wasn't even close; the winners were colleges lesser known here in the midwest. I suspect Wash U, like other midwest universities, feels the need to get its name in front of students on the two coasts. Although I grew up in the midwest and now live here again, I spent most of my adult years on the east coast, and I know for a fact that most easterners have never heard of ANYTHING in the midwest and most don't care to learn. </p>
<p>When son got mail from west coast schools in which he was uninterested, he added the mail to the bonfire pile. He didn't feel obliged to apply. </p>
<p>I really don't get the complaints about the brochures.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Where Weasel and high-minded others see only yield protection and venal obsession with rankings, I see a tough decision made to both protect yield and to provide openings for many excellent candidates ---some Ivy caliber and some not --- who have made it clear they want to come to Washu.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think it is largely irrelevant why WashU chooses to follow certain admissions practices. They are within their rights to admit students using whatever methodology they want, and I have made no statements to the contrary. I just want future applicants to know about these practices so that they can make a more informed decision about applying to WashU. If they are pretty sure they will get into a better school and are using WashU as a match or backup, they will know not to apply because it will likely backfire. If they truly love WashU and have stats similar to the "overqualified" applicants, they will know that it is necessary to demonstrate a strong interest in the school through visits, interviews, etc.</p>
<p>runnersmom, let's use the lottery example, when you buy a lottery ticket, you expect to win. How to win? you match all the numbers. Now when you finally do match all the numbers, they tell you "I do not think you are really a lottery lover, or you have won other lotteries, or we think you are likely to win another lottery, so we are going to pick up a different set of numbers" What do you say? Or they can simply say "you have not played lottery long enough to show real interest in lottery, so we will not let you win". In that case, you will not just ask for your money back, and probably take other actions.</p>
<p>A standard is a standard, it should apply to everybody the same way. If the standard can change based on a person's judgement, there is no standard.</p>
<p>Well, if that were the case then any school would have to accept ALL candidates who met some objective standard. Since not all high schools are created equal you can't equate GPAs, so I guess a school would have to take all kids who scored a certain cutoff on the SAT or ACT. Now how realistic is that? There are most certainly more kids that meet that one, objective standard than any school can fit into a freshman class. And what a boring class that could potentially be. Maybe my lottery example wasn't the best, but it was initially intended to respond to a comment you made, then withdrew. I certainly understand being upset and disappointed when you believe that your (or your child's) numerical statistics qualified them for admission...but admissions, as so many have said so much more eloquently than I, is about so much more than numbers.</p>
<p>The lottery example just doesn't work, Wonder123, for several reasons.</p>
<p>First of all, unlike the lottery, no one ever said that anyone who matched all the numbers would win. </p>
<p>Secondly, there is a non-numerical component to admissions. Sure, you have to "match the numbers" but you also have to have something else that the school is looking for that year. Maybe it's a talent or skill they need or want to round out their class. (Other people may be equally talented or skilled in other things, but not the activities the college is looking for that year). Maybe it's an amazing essay. Maybe it's simply where you are from or what sex you are or whether you are the first one in your family to go to college. In any case, though, it's not a number.</p>
<p>Since everything can not be pared down to pure numbers, there is always going to be some use of discretion by the admissions office. That's a given. Too many qualified kids apply to accept them all - also a fact - so they have to look at other factors. There is no other way.</p>
<p>Cressmom: Try reading the actual MIT RD thread. Not even remotely like what happened at WashU.<br>
OLDOLDDAD: What an exceptional group at WashU. They managed to pick out those of low character to waitlist. MIT either has no applicants lacking in character or they accepted most of theirs.</p>
<p>Collegekidsmom, I personally know many exceptionally kids that were deferred, waitlisted and rejected by MIT, and that it’s just because all top 25 colleges have the same problem, too many good kids too few spots to accept all of them. Many kids feel worthless when they receive a rejection, so from my point of view, it is better to know that even if you are great, there isn’t room for everyone so many kids have to be waitlisted and maybe they still have a chance to be accepted. I guess many of you would like to have a rejection letter instead, for that reason you are so upset with Wash U. Remember, Wash U wants to have a friendly atmosphere; they are not looking to let you down.</p>
<p>Remember MIT said they will wait list 500. That would be proportional to the 1000that people have speculated WashU is waitlisting. WashU has about twice the applicants. I guess maybe it is more acceptable to be rejected by MIT or maybe most of the kids really wanted to go and are sad rather than mad or they are a different type of kidsor are to busy to sit around and complain or..or ( I have had top candidates both get in and get rejected by MIT and some not very impressive ones get in and get rejected, go figure)</p>
<p>I feel bad for any good kid who wants to go but does not get in (any school).</p>
<p>i think washu just lacks name recognition compared to the other top schools and it's location really isn't accessible to students. that may be why they admit students partly based on demonstrated interest. it may sound superficial, but if the school were located in new england and had a more waspy name...</p>
<p>Realtors always say: location, location, location; and that’s one of the Wash U’s problems, and the reason for many kids to not enroll. Flying to St. Louis it’s expensive and driving for many of us means a long day cruising the highways.</p>