<p>I’ve emailed my regional officer about twice asking for advice and his opinion. He was super nice about responding and also encouraged me to message him if I had any other questions, but Grad is right. Even emailing the regional officer too many times can be a bad thing and so I’ve constrained myself. No more emails or messages. I have a question however. It is already mid- May and in a week it will be about late May. If you do not receive any answer by than, is it safe to assume that they will most likely not take you?</p>
<p>For what it’s worth - I called, sent in another letter of rec, and wrote a letter of interest when I was deferred from EA a year ago.</p>
<p>SBE said: “I don’t understand, if the waiting list is unranked, then doesn’t that mean acceptances from the waiting list are all a game of chance?”</p>
<p>No, it’s random . . . big difference.</p>
<p>@Kei-o-lei</p>
<p>waitlist admission is not random at all.</p>
<p>Two comments</p>
<p>1- Models are powerful to the extent they predict. The outcome of the application process is not random; inputs like ECs, GPA, SAT scores influence admissions decisions.</p>
<p>But waitlist outcomes are better explained by randomness. That is, one can no longer rely upon the prospective student inputs mentioned above to predict waitlist results. Many other factors, both population wide and specific, influence waitlist decisions. Examples: overall yield, and # of HS graduates in a specific year will influence the number of slots available for waitlistees. The specific identities of the people who decline admissions and free up slots in also better modeled as random: oboe or viola players; Latina from New Mexico or Anglo from the Bronx; prospective economist or historian; from CA or MT; design expert or dancer; lacrosse or softball? </p>
<p>Add all these up and the predictive value of admissions criteria pale compared to the randomness that generates the slots to be filled.</p>
<p>2 - I assume - since your explanation was terse - that your point was that the individual decisions by the Ad Comms are not random. Agreed. The outcomes, however, even with intentional decisions by Ad Comms, are so heavily influenced by what came before the final decisions that - to the waitlistee - what occurs is random. </p>
<p>A sports analogy: you swing the bat at a specific pitch, but whether the ball lands for a hit or not is largely the result of randomness. The fact that you decided to swing doesn’t change the randomness of the outcome.</p>
<p>That means that new grades, recs, letters of interest etc will have less of an impact on the WL decisions…</p>
<p>^in previous years, it seems so , definitely. people on these boards have made posts that they genuinely think their letters made the difference…and even if that’s not so, many have expressed (in waitlist articles and such) that sending a letter with a statement that you will definitely attend if selected seem to be a pretty big factor considering that they dont want to go back to their waitlist in the event that you refuse to do so. </p>
<p>THIS year, it seems like this is not the case. people have gotten off the waitlist without sending letters (and before may 4th-with the exception of on eof the posters here)</p>