<p>yeah, i've heard of top students being rejected at safety schools, because the schools 'knew' they wouldn't attend anyway, so it didn't 'take' someone else's spot.</p>
<p>Yes, but when you sit down (after being accepted to both) and compare UF Honors Program: $3,700/ year tuition vs BC: 34,000 tuition, is it 10 times better? And you need to multiply that by 4 years.</p>
<p>We are about to have that very same dilemma. Because we are Florida residents, New College/UF Honors College will be a free ride, while say Davidson/Reed/St Johns College will be pricey. My figuring is that there is not much way around grad schol tuition, and if you are going to grad school, most people will concentrate on which one and which program once all is said and done, and undergrad won't mean very much. Plus, neither UF Honors or New College could be considered shabby...still, I can totally understand the allure of a place like Reed and you only go to college once...</p>
<p>Yes, you might be "scarred" for life (either way).</p>
<p>LOL...are you being facetious? I do realize that in the scheme of things this is a very good problem to have....:)</p>
<p>
[quote]
My figuring is that there is not much way around grad schol tuition
[/quote]
</p>
<p>A lot of graduate students are fully funded. All of the graduate students at the top graduate schools are, and almost all graduate students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines are. But perhaps you mean "professional school" rather than graduate school. Yes, usually someone studying for an M.D. degree or J.D. degree or an M.B.A. has to consider how much it costs to study for that degree.</p>
<p>Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of a PhD in cultural anthropology or the classics. Do tell me there's lots of funding! I'm still getting over the fact that art schools give scholarships (my daughter's niche).</p>
<p>S was told that for at least for Physics, post-graduate would not only be free but that he would get a stipend to live on. However a friend's daughter that is working on her PhD in English Lit told me that funds are starting to dry up.</p>
<p>Btw, MattsMomFl, yes I was. The choice after admission is eventually going to be between FS and ES (financially scarred or emotionally scarred). But kids today are a hardy bunch, they can take it and thrive nonetheless.</p>
<p><<a lot="" of="" graduate="" students="" are="" fully="" funded.="" all="" the="" at="" top="" schools="">></a></p><a lot="" of="" graduate="" students="" are="" fully="" funded.="" all="" the="" at="" top="" schools="">
<p>I do not think that is true. Certainly not in the humanities. People enrolled in grad programs in the sciences tend to be able to get funding as a part of some professor's research grant. But many others are on their own unless or until they can get teaching assistantships. And some top programs do not have them.</p>
</a>
<p>"Posts: 449
Obviously; if they are top 0.1% of their class; near perfect GPA; extraordinary EC/awards, etc...WashU does tend to waitlist those kids."</p>
<p>You answered my question about how WUSTL knows that students have applied elsewhere. I believe you are correct, but it only answers why WUSTL assumes that an applicant has applied elsewhere. And even if they have applied elsewhere, applicants might sill want WUSTL for reasons such as geography, merit money and/or their program that admits a student into medical or law school. Also, we all know that the top .01 percent of kids can be and are rejected by higher ranked schools routinely. The whole thing seems silly. WUSTL has spent an absolute fortune and felled forests of trees to improve their ranking but then they turn away what might arguably be the strongest candidates in the country. It's counterintuitive.</p>
<p>Princeton and Yale seem to fund all their graduate students, according to what I've heard from graduates of each graduate school, but check how often this rare situation is found in disciplines such as anthropology. Anthropology is a discipline I looked into myself for graduate study, but the funding is sparse.</p>
<p>It's not so counter-intuitive when you remember that part of improving ranking is improving both selectivity (%) and yield (argh, mind-games). My assumption, and it's nothing more than a guess, is that if a truly stellar student were waitlisted at WUSTL, and then made it clear to the school that (s)he really did want to attend, (s)he'd be accepted with no trouble.</p>
<p>WUSTL is an odd case anyway. Students' opinions tend to be rather polarized.</p>
<p>Yield has not been used by U.S. News for several years in its rankings, because of the perverse incentives for "strategic admissions" that yield as a factor in rankings sets up. But maybe some colleges still like to get the word out that they are hard to get, even while they court other students.</p>
<p>Washu does not counterintuitively turn away all the strongest candidates among it's applicants. </p>
<p>It accepts some, it waitlists some, it may even reject some. My S for example, had Ivy-caliber ECs (accepted at one Ivy, waitlisted at one), was in the two 2 percent of his class, was a NMF winner (2310) and 35 ACT; he applied RD and he was accepted. His GF, another stellar student, was accepted as well but chose to go to MIT instead. </p>
<p>Every top college turns away stellar students because there simply aren't enough spots or because that particular student didn't fit the college's particular need as well as another candidate. Every top college practices "holistic admissions" to pick and choose among many deserving applicants, to build a balanced freshman class and to meet institutional needs (architecture majors, art majors, engineering, the pre-med hopefuls, and yes, the "hidden gem" humanities programs want students too.) It is unrealistic to expect that Washu, any more than Stanford, Brown, or Yale, is going to admit automatically every single one of the tippy top stellar students who apply there. </p>
<p>Picking and choosing among highly qualified applicants means that admission committees are going to weigh lots of intangible factors in addition to stats, ECs, grades, etc. Intended major matters, gender matters, and to a certain extent, a determination as to whether the student really wants to be there would matter too. Sometimes an adcom will get that right --- admitting students who are thrilled to come and waitlisting or declining students who didn't want to be there anyway. Sometimes they get it wrong and fail to admit top students who'd really like to be there while admitting some who later turn down the acceptance to go elsewhere. It's far from a perfect process at all the top colleges, not just at Washu.</p>
<p>I know of one (rather special) case where a guy got rejected by numerous state schools, but got into Stanford.</p>
<p>The caveat is that he got into Stanford because he was specifically recruited for the Stanford football team. Stanford football isn't very good, whereas those state schools he applied to may not have been highly ranked academically, but had far better football teams. </p>
<p>But in any case, it worked out well for him. He got a full Stanford football scholarship. Hence he got paid to get a Stanford degree. Granted, that money wasn't free - he had to play ball to get it - but he enjoys playing ball. Sounds like a pretty sweet deal to me.</p>
<p>at my school someone got rejected from UCR but got in at UCI and UCSD
and i hear similar things happen at cal states</p>
<p>Ok I had to share this one, this is hard to beat. Waitlisted at Indiana-Bloomington but got into Michgan!! HUH??
This must be the classic case of Indiana feeling that they were a real safety and it was likely the kid wouldn't go there? Its gotta be, right? This is my sons classmate, and this particular situation was the talk of the class yesterday, that is unreal to me!</p>
<p>Well there you go, ctmomof3! I really don't think this is a case of "Tufts' syndrome". I believe this is a case of not anticipating the heavy volume of applications. Based on our high school, they accepted kids with lower stats who applied early and now are having to waitlist or deny better applicants. Hasn't this happened at a couple other schools in the past? Poor planning!</p>
<p>ctmomof3: It depends on which school at Michigan this person applied to: If it's Kinesiology or Art and Design, completely different admissions process....Even so, the other half of the story is weird unless there was a state or school quota thing going on at Indiana (I'm assuming you live in Connecticut)</p>
<p>I know a guy last year who got rejected by UC Berkeley but got into UCLA and Duke. And another girl who got rejected by Harvard, Brown, and MIT, but got into Caltech. </p>
<p>I'm not sure if Caltech is a better school just because it's ranked higher though</p>