I Am Really Beginning to Wonder About People Our Age

<p>I was pretty shocked to find the hundreds of new posts that apperaed because of the waitlisting epidemic that has surged out of the Wash U Admission Office. I have been reading and re-reading because I could not comprehand what had happened on multiple levels. First off, I couldn't believe that Wash U waitlisted that many people. Thousands of people on a list that only a handful will get off seems absurd. However, the resulting anger that apperaed due to the waitlisting also seemed quite absurd. </p>

<p>I can tell you right off the bat that I am biased, having been accepted into the Wash U class of 2009 during its ED program, but I still want to state my opinions on the whole subject. It seems like a select number of people are lashing out at the Wash U Admission Office because they feel they deserved an acceptance rather than an invitation to the waitlist. I can totally understand why they would be angry, I mean, no one likes the feeling of rejection. I have felt it a many of a time, and its not pleasant. However, I do not think that the first action should be to attack the source. Wash U is not looking for kids with 1600s and perfect grades or anything. Sure that might be a bonus, but really, wouldn't it be kind of boring if all those people were the same? Any college wants to diversify its class, and test scores are only one measurement of a person. But you have to understand that a whole person cannot be defined by a number. It seems many people think this, resulting in the belief that, hey, I got good test scores, I should have gotten in. However, you have to look at a student in comparison to how they will fit into the college. </p>

<p>I firmly believe that the admissions office at Wash U knows their job. They've been at it longer than we've been alive, so I do not think its our place to judge them in the least...(Once again, I am biased...) Anyway, people are saying that they know of people that were accepted at Harvard, but waitlisted at Wash U. Of course they begin to think, Oh, Wash U knows those students won't enroll so the university will just waitlist them. But guess what, the college doesn't! Why would Wash U risk losing such a high profile candidate by just assuming they wouldn't want to go there in the first place? In my opinion, it wouldn't. That just wouldn't be smart. Sure, their yield might rise because of this, but guess what might just decline? They're average SAT scores, another important factor in the US rankings. Why would a college underestimate itself? It seems like Wash U would just be selling itself short if it did what many people assume its doing. I can completely agree with the university's option of waitlisting people that showed no interest at all. I mean really, why would a college waste an acceptance on a person that would not want to go there if they could give it to a person that would? </p>

<p>It seems to me that a number of people here are just bitter that they didn't get in somewhere they assumed they would, but guess what? Nothing can be assumed in the game of college admissions, especially at a "top 15" school like Wash U. Part of me sympasizes with the people that were waitlisted (I mean my girlfriend was even waitlisted), but the other part just wants to tell the people that were waitlisted and now complaining about it to just stop *****ing. I think these people should just realize that they'll be accpeted somewhere else and that the world will not end. I wish everyone good luck in this game we all must play, and I hope it all works out in the end for everyone. But one final note, QUIT BASHING MY SCHOOL! (Joke, well, sort of, but seriously, quit doing it)</p>

<p>I hear what you're saying </p>

<p>but I disagree with you on this</p>

<p>", Oh, Wash U knows those students won't enroll so the university will just waitlist them. But guess what, the college doesn't! Why would Wash U risk losing such a high profile candidate by just assuming they wouldn't want to go there in the first place? "</p>

<p>although washu has risen in its rankings and has gotten a better applicant pool I would still not consider it a top tier school</p>

<p>Every admission office has their reasons for the admission policy. So though many of us get waitlisted, we may as well try to understand its way of taking applicants and share this information with '10 applicants. They may learn a lesson and surely next year Wustl wont have enough students to waitlist if they really want some in. That is ....a "dynamic balance" situation? :)</p>

<p>You really do not think Wash U is a top tier school? Why is that and as dumb as this may sound, what exactly defines a top tier school? I really do not know.</p>

<p>Yea, sempitern - I'm definatley going to have to disagree with you there. Although US News and other ranking sites aren't the definative sources for how great a school is, how can you justify that when every single rating source, the applicant pool, the size of the endowment- all those factors- qualify it as a top tier school? Come on...</p>

<p>maybe its not a top tier school because no one has ever heard of it outside the US?
u can say kellogg and ppl will say "oh northwestern"... or stern and NYU...or any of the ivy's... but wash u is still unheard of. i'm sure olin is great... but it just doesn't have the reputation yet.</p>

<p>I am international and I applied to Wash U because of US News. (France/ Mexico). I've talked to Latin Americans about the school and it is becoming very well known. They should develop more exchange programs with European schools and give it a few years, the school's reputation outside the US will grow.</p>

<p>Yeah, it really seems like Wash U's popularity is just starting to spark because from what it sounds like, no one knew about it fifteen years ago. But look at it now!</p>