<p>PierreMarie, good to know. However, it's obviously a matter of degree. The YDN article acknowledges that some applicants get in, it is nonetheless discouraging that they say it's rare.</p>
<p>My only hope is that the slant of the article is skewed. I know reporters sometimes approach their writing with an angle that doesn't necessarily pan out, and it looks like Chow couldn't really back up her points with any explicit quotes.</p>
<p>For example:</p>
<ol>
<li>"Eli transfer students questioned whether the trend applies to Yale, where administrators try to avoid accepting transfers who were previously rejected."</li>
</ol>
<p>Which administrators? She doesn't really quote any.</p>
<ol>
<li>"Yale College Dean of Admissions Jeffrey Brenzel said Yales policy does not encourage students who were previously rejected to reapply for admission. He said limited housing availability in the residential colleges is one of the main reasons why Yales acceptance rate for transfer students is one of the lowest in the Ivy League."</li>
</ol>
<p>Again, no direct quote. Limited housing availability makes transferring hard for EVERYONE, not just those who were previously rejected, so I'm left in the dark about what he really said or what his arguments really were.</p>
<p>So this is the one that worries me:
3. "Alexandra Charrow 07, who transferred to Yale from the University of Maryland after her freshman year, said it is rare for Yale to accept transfer applicants who have already applied. She said Yales transfer students largely come from other Ivy League universities, community colleges, and Deep Springs, a selective two-year college."</p>
<p>If she is talking about the transfer class and saying that a tiny proportion of that class is comprised of previously rejected applicants, then I'm unambiguously screwed. If she is saying that most people who were previously rejected get rejected again, then that isn't newsworthy or insightful. The most reasonable interpretation seems to be the former, unfortunately.</p>
<p>donjuan78, no, I don't think it's at all fair for Yale to approach your application with an antecedent bias just because you couldn't make the cut in your senior year. This is presumably the case for most transfer applicants. And if Yale is more reluctant to admit previously rejected students, they should have advertised that fact on their website.</p>
<p>What disturbed me about the article was the paternalistic notion that, by accepting discontented transfers, good colleges are encouraging students not to stay rooted or invested in their current schools (in all fairness the article took this suggestion from someone unaffiliated with Yale). Undergraduates aren't the property or domain of the first school they attend. So I think Yale should admit the most qualified candidates with something to contribute to the life of their institution. I have a hard time believing that previously rejected applicants automatically fall outside of that category in almost every instance.</p>