Do the Ivies and Stanford/MIT share applicant lists (NOT acceptance lists)?

@gibby It’s not for me, but no they were rejected by stanford and deferred by mit, which is why I was asking. It looks suspicious.

^^ In that case, the student AND the guidance counselor both broke the rules. However, as the student was rejected from Stanford, I seriously doubt Stanford publishes a list of rejected SCEA students and distributes it to other colleges. So, it’s unlikely that Stanford or MIT are aware of the situation, so they don’t know it looks suspicious. The kid, and GC, got away with it (this time), but that kind of situation risks not only the GC’s job, but also risks a high school being placed on a college’s blacklist for a number of years – which is why most honorable GC’s don’t do it, as there is more at stake than just one kid’s acceptance.

FWIW: The other option – and it happens quite frequently on College Confidential every year about this time – is that kids lie, brag or tell alternate facts, which is usually what occurs in situations like this one. Without even knowing the people involved, I would place MORE trust in a GC to not let this happen, rather than what a kid says they did. I bet if you checked with this kid’s GC, you would find the story is false.

If MIT had been aware that a student applying EA had also applied SCEA to Stanford, the applicant would not have been deferred. The applicant would have been rejected.

MIT has an 8% admission rate EA, probably lower than Stanford’s SCEA acceptance rate. It isn’t surprising in the least if the same student is rejected by Stanford and deferred by MIT.

@Sepulchure It is most definitely possible–if not probable–that they will discover this fact.

When I worked in admissions, the Ivy Group universities along with MIT and Stanford most definitely DID exchange lists of students applying and admitted under Early Decision/EA. The Ivy Group admissions policy clearly states that violating a “early decision contract” is grounds for rescinding an offer or rejecting an applicant. To my knowledge, this is still enforced.

Rejected by S, deferred by M:
independent decisions.

Chances of outright collusion: rarer than rare.