<p>I think the “I’m not sure” part is what’s worth paying attention to here. A.E.'s qualifications as a Sorting Hat or diagnostician for who does and doesn’t exhibit signs of Tufts Syndrome aren’t convincing. </p>
<p>But it’s not just A.E.'s particular take on Swat. Given that Tufts Syndrome is at best a generally-agreed-upon concept (turning super-qualified applicants down because of a suspicion that they’re going to go to HYP anyway and thus muck up the yield - the name comes from the years when it was accepted wisdom that Tufts was tired of being used as a safety for the Ivies), not a practice or tool with unambiguous rules and defining characteristics, it would be guesswork for anybody. </p>
<p>Much more to the point - and it’s a point I and other posters have already made several times over in this thread - at very highly selective, small schools, where fit and building a class come into play so much, dissecting “stats” isn’t going to prove or disprove Tufts Syndrome.</p>
<p>I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine how one follows from the other.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you have a limited number of spots for white females, and you have two overqualified white females, one of whom applies to Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, and Swarthmore, and the other of whom applies to Swarthmore, Middlebury, Haverford, and Grinnell, if you were an admissions officer, you would do well to accept the latter applicant and turn down the former, if you were interested in keeping your admissions numbers looking good. Which, of course, every admissions officer is extremely interested in. Also, just as a counterpoint, ID already indicated that his own daughter had inferior stats to those posted by the OP, yet still got in. It’s possible she was ED, though, and that gave her an edge.</p>
<p>Some of this information may or may not be available to admissions personnel. Some inference and reading between the lines may be necessary. As has been pointed out, it’s not just about black and white stats such as SAT scores. One of the things the admissions officers look for when going over the essays and other materials is whether or not the person is likely to actually attend if accepted. It’s not just a bunch of nebulous mumbo-jumbo like “is this person well-rounded” or “is this person a good fit” so much as it is “if we accept this person, is she more likely to go to Harvard if they also accept her, and does she have the stats to get into Harvard in the first place.” If she can, and if she’s likely to accept, then she’s a better candidate to turn down than someone who either can’t get into Harvard or who probably wouldn’t go even if she did. That’s the real purpose of the essay IMO. Assessing writing skill is definitely secondary to that.</p>
<p>I don’t think this is all that nefarious. It’s just what college admissions people must do to be competitive and help their schools keep elite reputations. The OP didn’t apply ED, has great stats, got accepted to Stanford and also applied to some Ivies. There’s not much harm in rejecting her; she probably wouldn’t be matriculating anyway. The last person to start a thread like this had even better stats (flawless, really) and got rejected. Same deal. If either had applied ED they would have 100% gotten in, because at least the admissions people know they aren’t interested in the Stanfords and Ivies of the world and almost certainly will attend Swarthmore if accepted. It’s as simple as that.</p>
<p>A.E. Yes, if you have two equally qualified applicants and one showed a preference to small LAC’s, of course you would take the one who is more likely to matriculate if accepted. But, based on my sample size of 1, there is not enough evidence to show there is something other than picking he most qualified applicants. Yes, they have to show an interest in the school. Numerous admissions counselors warned us to not put another school in the essay about “Why I want to go to school x.” I suspect the OP, when compared to other equally and more qualified applicants, did not show enough interest in attending a small LAC. But, that is only possible because there are more than enough better and equally qualified white females to fill a limited number of spots. So, the OP’s question of whether she was arrogant to expect to be accepted, I would say yes, it was arrogant. Certainly in my household there was no such presumption of admission. Heck, she didn’t even get an early write.</p>
<p>I don’t think arrogance is the correct term to apply to the OP, a 17 year old, overachieving high school kid who has a high level of academic confidence on account of her performance to date. I think naivety or inexperience with how institutions really work would be more appropriate terms. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter, because she was probably going to go to Stanford anyway. Right?</p>
<p>She’s the one who brought up the term. But, many under estimate the rigor of admissions by the elite LAC’s. I think many, rather than admitting they weren’t as qualified as others, find it easier to say they are over-qualified. The OP expressed it in a much nicer way than I’ve seen from others, but it does demonstrate a bit of attitude. But I appreciate that she brought up an interesting topic to discuss.</p>