<p>I'll get back with you on Tufts and Emory. :D My son has applications in at both those schools. He also has a 2260 SAT. I'll let you know if his apps end up in waitlist limbo.....</p>
<p>
[quote]
My best friends little bro was waitlisted at WashU and got into Princeton, Penn, and Williams. Don't be shocked. Tufts, Emory, rice, and a few others play the same game.
[/quote]
Sad to say, I bet WUSTL would call this a "win" in their book. They were able to screen out a kid who wasn't going to enroll anyway.</p>
<p>Those who wouldn't attend if admitted aren't "qualified". It's as simple as that. Why would you want to admit a student who would put out a vibe that attending your institution made her feel "second-rate"? It's not a matter of "over-qualified", but of "not qualified".</p>
<p>mini, I think that's a rather black-and-white view of things ;) What I was referring to by "wasn't going to enroll anyway" is a student who had other schools they'd prefer to WUSTL and got into one or more of them. Surely it's no surprise that a kid who got into Princeton or Penn would usually choose to enroll at one of those over WUSTL. But had they not got into those schools they would have happily enrolled at WUSTL. I guess I just don't see why that makes them "unqualified".</p>
<p>At issue here is WUSTL and similar schools (Tufts, Emory, etc) actively screening out great kids who have a shot at other prestigious schools.</p>
<p>There are tons of great kids. Doesn't make them qualified. </p>
<p>Much of what makes a school great is having students who really know what they want, why they want it, and worked their tails off to get it. A student with (for example) a lower SAT score may be MORE qualified than one with a higher one if they are more likely to contribute greatly to the campus community.</p>
<p>Why would anyone want to go to school with a bunch of kids moping about being Princeton rejects and banished to St. Louis?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why would anyone want to go to school with a bunch of kids moping about being Princeton rejects?
[/quote]
Well, they wouldn't. And BTW you might be interested in an article a few years back in the Atlantic Monthly touching on just this subject. The overall article was about ED, but it opened by describing the situation at UPenn a decade or more ago. Although it was (and is) a great school, they had exactly the problem you mention. A lot of the kids at Penn were turned down by HYPS and enrolled at UPenn to go to an Ivy, leaving many of them bitter and resentful. The admissions office resolved to change this, and change it they did. For starters, they opened the ED gates; after all, if a kid promises to enroll if accepted that's a strong indication they want to be there :) Second, they announced that for kids counting on a legacy boost there was now a quid-pro-quo; legacy only helped in the ED round. They did other things, too, and in the end were able to attract students happier about being at Penn.</p>
<p>But to return to your post -- I hope this isn't how you're advising your own kids or those you influence. These days virtually nobody, not even Olympic gold medalists apparently, are locks at the top colleges. Any student thinking of one of those ought to also make a list of matches and safeties. And in that list may be WUSTL, no?</p>
<p>
[quote]
If the OP mentioned those top schools when the interviewer asked where else he was applying that would have been a BIG red flag. Same if he honestly answered a question about his top choice.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I've always heard that one shouldn't answer either question! Not lie, just decline to answer. Of course, if something really is one's top choice, go for it.</p>
<p>Some schools don't care what your top choice is. They are confident enough to admit you. You might change your mind after they offer you a sweet deal.</p>
<p>"But to return to your post -- I hope this isn't how you're advising your own kids or those you influence."</p>
<p>Mine was admitted at the so-called "top LAC" and turned it down for a "lower-ranked" one (both of them with - ah-hem - "peer assessments" - cough, cough - higher than WUSTL) because she was sure she'd get a better education - more opportunities, better advising, better academics in the area in which she was interested, better campus environment. And it has turned out just as she expected.</p>
<p>I have a step-nephew, double legacy with rich alum (and contributing) parents, who applied ED at Penn and was rejected. I think he had his school counselor tip them off - he really didn't want to go to Penn, he wanted to go to Duke. He is now a very happy camper.</p>
<p>Was waitlisted by George Washington for being overqualified. They sent her a personal letter and told her they did not admit her because they thought it was a "safety" for her and she wouldn't attend anyway. They thought she would be taking the spot of someone who would want to attend. But they told her if she wanted to go, respond to the letter. But she ended up at NYU.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Without sounding too harsh to those got waitlisted, WUSTL would offer merit scholarships to attract those "over-qualified" candidates. It wants to have those high achievers!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If you filled out the overly long scholarship application, you might be considered for a merit scholarship.</p>
<p>Everything WUSTL does seems geared to raising their US News ranking rather than making WUSTL a better school. IMO, their admissions and marketing policies are giving it a bad name among those who know something about colleges.</p>
<p>If you apply to a school and your WAY above their standards, they assume you won't enroll. Since UNIs care more about enrollment (for rankings) there have been cases of overqualified students being rejected or waitlisted...</p>
<p>Not to be arrogant but i felt that i was overqualified for Babson college and I was wait-listed, I was accepted to Brandeis Rochester and Case (w/ some nice scholarships) but NOT babson...I think it was because I didn't show interest</p>
<p>The rejection letters do not usually distinguish between "over" and "under" qualified. In either case, the admission departments found you (and hundreds or thousands like you) "not" qualified, and that's all that matters.</p>
<p>You have stats to be proud of, but if you look at WashU you'll find 93% were from top tenth of class, avg SAT is about 1440, or 2160 new SAT, and they reject nearly 4 out of 5 who apply. So I agree with you, you weren't overqualified, that's probably not why you were rejected....you'll never know why. Could you get into the others? Yes, who knows (H and Y huge stretch of course).</p>
<p>btw why are you worried about going to state school as you say, when you're in Grinnell etc??</p>
<p>
[quote]
In either case, the admission departments found you (and hundreds or thousands like you) "not" qualified, and that's all that matters.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I just find this angle curious. I'd be surprised if these schools would frame it that way. They'd be kidding themselves if they called all their denies "not qualified." Some are, yes, but there's little question the applicant pool has an overabundance of well-qualified applicants. They make some number of their admit decisions based on something other than "how qualified" someone was (or wasn't)--wouldn't they admit as much? I've heard somewhat-less-selective schools say so (for what that's worth).</p>
<p>The word "qualified" is the problem here.</p>
<p>Two things:</p>
<p>First, if I went to Wash. U. I would not mope about not going to Princeton. I would go because I wanted to. I do not feel that Wash. U. is 2nd best. I just want to have lots of options. I would have seriously considered Wash. U. even if I got accepted to Harvard, Yale.</p>
<p>Second, to clear up the confusion on my statement that I will have to go to a state school, I was exaggerating. I know I got accepted to Grinnell and Macalester. It just worries me that I got waitlisted at Wash. U. I hope that I get accepted to more colleges even though those other schools would be good too. Like I said, I want options.</p>
<p>I would also like to say that I agree a vast amount of applicants are "qualified" or would do well at any college that they went to. I think the committee does look at who shows the most interest and maybe I showed less interest than others. I don't envy the committee members' jobs who must choose such a small percentage to accept from so many excellent applicants and possibly hurt the feelings of those they weren't able to accept and make them paranoid at their chances of being accepted by other schools.</p>
<p>why do you have to make yourself feel better by saying that you're overqualified for wustl? you simply are not! just admit that you're not good enough for those schools. go to grinnell or mc and stop whining.</p>
<p>I never said I was overqualified for Wash. U. In my 1st sentence I said, in fact, I wasn't. I had just heard that Wash. U. waitlisted people they thought would go to Ivys. I wanted to know if there was some truth to that as it seemed an odd practice.</p>
<p>But I disagree very much when you said that I am not good enough for "those schools," whichever schools you meant. I think that I could do well at any school and that I am good enough for any school as thousands of other people also are that apply. I am not whining. I am just anxious and worried. I wanted others to help possibly ease my fears for these next 10 days. I also wanted other people's opinions (given in a positive manner) on my chances for other schools that I applied to. </p>
<p>Thank you to all those who have given words of hope, consolation, advice, or constructive criticism.</p>
<p>WUStl probably did, in fact, waitlist you as a yield-protecting measure. Consider it a compliment.</p>