<p>It's just the names that confuse people, since both are relatively unknown to the general public and they sound alike (compare UIC to UofC). People are stupid.</p>
<br>
<p>Schools that I think tend to accept all or almost all of the qualified students who apply include LAC's like Oberlin, Bryn Mawr, Colby, Bates, Bowdoin, Wesleyan, non-ivy elites like Emory, Vanderbilt, Tufts, Notre Dame and the flagship state schools like Berkeley/UCLA, UMich, UVA. I think one will find the admissions decisions at these schools much more predictable than at the very top schools.<</p>
<br>
<p>ROTFLMAO</p>
<p>I'm not sure what ROTF...means, but if it has something to do with rolling on the floor, I'm with you! Unalove usually gets it right, but this time....</p>
<p>ROTFLMAO=rolling on the floor laughing my a** off. :)</p>
<p>I thought that list was a little off, too. Certainly Tufts has developed a reputation (and named a syndrome) for rejecting qualified applicants, and I know that Bowdoin, Wesleyan, Oberlin, and UVa -- and probably lots of the others, too -- are perfectly capable of rejecting spiffy students.</p>
<p>However, in Unalove's defense, her basic idea -- "the admissions decisions at these schools [are] much more predictable than at the very top schools" -- is still generally pretty correct. There's a huge difference between accepting 9% of the applicants from a pool where the median application is probably indistinguishable in any meaningful way from the top 5% of applications and accepting 25% of the applicants from a pool that is a little more evenly distributed.</p>
<p>Point taken. Whenever I doubt unalove, it turns out she's thought it through. That's why I love her.</p>
<p>Tufts was the reason for my reaction. About 75% of the kids I interview for Tufts seem like they'd be "perfect fits," but only a quarter get in. (And it's not Tufts Syndrome, which I regard as an urban myth. But that's my bias.)</p>