Do schools waitlist "overqualified" candidates?

<p>
[quote]
WUStl probably did, in fact, waitlist you as a yield-protecting measure.

[/quote]

This is "probably" true, but not because you are "over-qualified" (whatever that means). Instead, they "probably" see you as clearly qualified, but with "red flags" in your app that indicate that they are not one of your very top choices, or that you are very unlikely to attend if admitted. Wash-U wants students who clearly want them. In many instances, they seem to waitlist students when they don't sense this. If they were wrong about a given highly qualified applicant -- if that applicant truly wanted to go to Wash-U (for 1,001 possible reasons) -- their own idiosyncratic admissions system allows for phone calls to be made (expressing undying love for Wash-U and all things Wash-U) and it's very likely that this kind of applicant finds his/her way off of the waitlist. And voila ... Wash-U enrolls another student who clearly wants them.</p>

<p>It's not the typical way admissions runs, but I really think people need to understand that this is THEIR way. They don't care about the flak. Between this type of strategy and their merit scholarship warchest, they get a very large percentage of the students they want ... secure or better their place in the "rankings" (I hate the whole concept of a quantifying ranking of colleges, but having said that, rankings are not only valuable to the publishers of USNWR, a high or rising ranking is an incredibly valuable asset to a school) ... and year after year have a campus overwhelmingly populated by students who truly want to be there. There is a huge difference in the feel of a campus where students want to be there versus campuses where students in some ways consider themselves "rejects," wishing they were some place else. And in typical circular fashion, this more positive atmosphere perpetuates more and more apps, more qualified students, and more frequent and larger alum donations.</p>

<p>People can feel free to hate Wash-U because of their oddball admissions practices, but hate them after understanding what they're doing and why they're doing it. Nobody is entitled to be admitted to any certain school. And just because the highly qualified college applicant community desperately wants to use Wash-U as a fallback and safety -- explaining much of the outrage when a given applicant is waitlisted or denied, yet admitted to so many supposedly "better" schools -- doesn't mean that Wash-U has to accept that role in the college universe. For better or worse, they clearly aspire to something different. And, in my opinion, a lot of the "head scratching" things they do in admissions start making sense when you look at their actions from their point-of-view, rather than from the point-of-view of an applicant or the admissions philosophies of colleges "A," "B," and "C."</p>

<p>I think the other benefits of the "WUSTL" system DudeDilligence listed are sound. </p>

<p>Another is yield prediction. Predicting yield is pretty important. It can also be quite tricky. If WUSTL has devised some system by which they can fairly accurately get the right number of the right kinds of students from year to year, then that's incredibly valuable to the institution. </p>

<p>It would be valuable even if U.S.News dropped off the face of the earth.</p>

<p>DudeDiligence nailed it.</p>

<p>There were several highly qualified candidates admitted RD to Wash U, as evidenced by the Official Decisions thread. One with a perfect SAT, several with 2300+s, several with 2200+s, and several lower than that. There were also several similar candidates who were rejected/waitlisted. Like a previous poster said, they probably saw several red flags that led to getting waitlisted.</p>

<p>This leads me to my next question: How many other colleges use the same system as Wash. U.?</p>

<p>Note after reading DudeDiligence's post: If other schools used this system, it might be a way to cut down on the number of applicants applying to ten+ schools. The applicant would have to show how interested he/she is to be accepted to the college, and the process of calling to admissions, visiting, and interviewing (more than is currently required) would take time and limit the number of schools you could seriously apply to.</p>

<p>Tufts.</p>

<p>Other top 25's do it too but not as much and not to the extent as WUSTL.</p>

<p>Michigan (last of the top 25!) does not.</p>

<p>Northwestern and Duke don't seem to do that either.</p>

<p>Emory...maybe a little bit but not too obvious.</p>

<p><a href="http://apps.amityregion5.org/colleges/CollegeApp%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://apps.amityregion5.org/colleges/CollegeApp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>As for WashU, I posted my findings on <a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=157867&page=4%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=157867&page=4&lt;/a>
Definitely strong sign there! ;)</p>

<p>I can't see that it matters. In the eyes of admissions department, if you didn't get in, you weren't "as good" - for them - using whatever measure they decide to use, as those that did.</p>

<p>Okay, this might seem like a dumb question, but let's say that Tufts does do things this way (like WUSTL). And let's say Tufts really liked you and decided to admit you. Does that mean that a) you were not "overqualified" for Tufts and b) you might not have as great a shot at the Ivies, since Tufts did not think you would be accepted there (leading to their offer of admission)?</p>

<p>mini,</p>

<p>It may not matter but the point for the OP is he/she cannot use the admission result for a school that has Tufts Syndrome (if that's the case) as a measuring stick for all others since the result didn't necessarily correlate with his/her credentials "in the conventional sense".</p>

<p>yea, it seems like emory, tufts, and wustl all are trying to increase their prestige by increasing their stats in anyway possible. living in atlanta, i've visited emory several times, and I know for a fact that they take demonstrated interest into account more than almost any other school out there. luckily, I showed enough interest and got in :)</p>

<p>I don't know too much about tufts since I didn't apply, but I do know that my wustl interview totally decimated my chances of getting in. I mentioned how wustl was a great school and how, even though it is not the most well known school for undegrad, it provides an ivy-league quality education. something snapped in my interviewer and I could tell that...yea... if I had remembered his name, I would have filled out that interview evaluation sheet they sent out and told them how horrible my interview was. I did not think mentioning other schools would change my acceptance into waitlist. i mean come on! my harvard and dartmouth interviewers, both doctors, agreed that wustl's grad school for medicine is much better than its med school. i also have two friends whose dads admitted that the med school was among the best. so whatever, wustl's overinflated ego won't hurt mine</p>

<p>My son who is currently doing great at Pomona was waitlisted at Wash U, got in to Rice, Emory, Claremont McKenna , Pomona . Most kids in his class were waitlisted and some of those are at Northwestern, Wesleyan, Macalister, U Chicago etc. I would not worry about it.</p>

<p>According to the Amity data I posted earlier, they waitlisted a person that got into Yale/Princeton/Stanford but accepted four that weren't Ivy-caliber. The sample size is probably too small to conclude anything. But you may be just like that waitlisted person and get into Yale. :)</p>

<p>i was waitlisted and accepted at an ivy league school, so i didn't really think much of it. </p>

<p>however, i did express a lot of interest- i applied for their overly long scholarship and i did get a letter saying i wasn't a finalist for that either...</p>

<p>four of my good friends got accepted, and we're all about on the same level, with the same straight A's and good test scores...they just didn't apply for financial aid...don't know how much that factors in.</p>

<p>i was a bit disappointed and puzzled because a few people with "qualifications" supposedly "worse" than mine [though i'm not really sure how you can judge that] got in. and a lot of definitely underqualified kids got waitlisted too..so i felt a bit confused.</p>

<p>all in all, i really don't care b/c honestly i wasn't going to go there unless they gave me a full scholarship. besides, college admissions is all a crapshoot anyway. there is no set formula or anything.</p>

<p>"It may not matter but the point for the OP is he/she cannot use the admission result for a school that has Tufts Syndrome (if that's the case) as a measuring stick for all others since the result didn't necessarily correlate with his/her credentials "in the conventional sense"</p>

<p>It just means what it means: they had plenty of candidates they liked better, and put the OP into a category of students they liked less.</p>

<p>College admissions at individual schools is and will remain a mystery. My S was wait listed or rejected from all his matches, and accepted at all his reaches. I don't know what to make of it, one can speculate about demonstrated interest, etc., but in the end, it is what it is, speculation.</p>

<p>Guys, this discussion is making me feel a lot less stressed. Sometimes I have the tendency to overanalyze. I hope that Wash. U. is just a fluke, and I'm keeping my fingers crossed and hoping that I get into all the rest of the colleges I applied to. All I need is to be accepted by the right college for me and all the rest don't matter, right? Unfortunately, I don't know which college is the right one for me. :)</p>

<p>I'm going to Emory, too! Congrats on your acceptance!</p>