<p>"U of Chicago 18.3%
Miami of Ohio 10.5%
Washington U 9.2%
Carnegie Mellon 8.8%
Northwestern 8.1%
UNC-Chapel Hill 6.9%
Princeton 6.7%
Notre Dame 6.5%
Brown 6.1%
Cornell 5.6%
Duke 5.2%
Columbia 4.1%
NYU 3.5%
Penn 3.5%
Stanford 3.4%
Illinois 2.2%
UVa 1.2%
U of Washington 0.6%
Yale 0.6%</p>
<p>Some of these institutions had waitlists longer than 1000 students (I can also post the percentage of waitlisted students who were eventually accepted, if people have a hankering to see it) "</p>
<p>If you have that information handy, I'd love to see it.</p>
<p>Xiggi, I may have simply misunderstood your earlier post that the WL serves to keep hold of a small (or in my words, miniscule) handful of applicants that the college wants to admit if at all possible. To me, small would be a handful of students, and some of the nunbers seemed to me to be above that level. </p>
<p>But I think we agree on the basics -- most waitlists are at best deceptive and at worst cruel. FWIW, a relative applied to law schools a few years ago and got on some waitlists. Some of the waitlist letters were actually quite informative. How many are typically on the waitlist, the average number of waitlist admittees, etc. How hard can it be to provide such information and bring some reality to this situation?</p>
<p>Sure. I just pulled this off their CDS info; it was for something we were looking at here, so that's why the peer group is what it is (no liberal arts colleges, some Big Tens).</p>
<p>Some of the institutions listed in my earlier post did not provide numbers of people who ended up on the waiting list (or number admitted) so I dropped them.</p>
<p>Here there are listed:</p>
<p>Institution - Number on Waitlist for Fall 2004 (these are those who accepted an offer to be on it) - Number eventually admitted off Waitlist for Fall 2004 - Percentage eventually admitted off Wiatlist for Fall 2004.</p>
<p>Cornell 1988 171 8.6%
UVa 1809 37 2.0%
Columbia 1749 55 3.1%
U of Chicago 812 221 27.2%
Princeton 719 79 11.0%
U of Washington 701 30 4.3%
Northwestern 643 155 24.1%
Miami of Ohio 630 367 58.3%
Illinois 596 162 27.2%
Notre Dame 574 129 22.5%
Penn 451 84 18.6%
Brown 450 89 19.8%
OSU 88 4 4.5%</p>
<p>My first question concerns the profile of kids who get admitted off waitlists. I get the impression from reading CC that the only kids admitted off wait lists are those with exotic hooks that are needed to fill particular "holes" in the matriculation class. (As in ... oops our first choice oboist, tight-end, etc just decided to go somewhere else and we better fill those slots). I guess what I'm really asking is whether the very-bright, well-rounded applicant who was just a smidgen off in test scores, class-rank, piano-playing-but-not-Rachmaninoff, multi-sport-athlete-but-not-recruitable, etc has no chance at this juncture ...</p>
<p>My second question concerns the chances for admission for the applicant who declared undying love by going ED, but was let down gently by being deferred, then wait-listed. Probably an impossible question to answer in the abstract. But does anyone have any hard statistics regarding whether ED kids have a better chance of coming off wait lists than the RDs? Especially pertinent since, as you can imagine, the ED kids are the most love-struck, and least likely to recognize reality.</p>
<p>justaparent,
Someone "in the know" on CC, within the last several months, claimed that a slight "extra consideration" (or some phrase to that effect) is given to deferred ED'ers in the RD look. Whether that "extra consideration" carries over to the waitlist round, I wouldn't know. That was also, I think, a response to a question about a specific college.</p>
<p>As to the special categories matter, when it comes to waitlists, remember that many of these categories will have been filled in the Early Round anyway, further completed in the Regular Round. And not everybody matriculating elsewhere would be a unique category. Logic would indicate that the waitlist round is less niche-driven, therefore. And remember that the tight-end was likely a recruited athlete, & the process for him was started even prior to the Early Round. A long time ago, the college would want to make sure there was no "Whoops, he got away" for him.</p>
<p>I don't have any hard evidence overall but I do know that last year a young man applied ED to Dartmouth was deferred, waitlisted and ultimately accepted. He ended up deferring a year and will be part of the class of 2010.</p>
<p>I also wonder if waitlists are pre-ranked--so if there are 10 spots, the top 10 are admitted. Or does it depend on which fish got away for which replacement wait-fish will be chosen. I suspect the former, but no hard evidence.</p>
<p>I doubt they are pre-ranked (as filling "holes" is just so important for the benefit of the entire school; and regardless of what they have done up to now, holes will still exist.) It is also an ideal time (like ED) to fill up the rest of the class with full-paying customers, especially at so-called "need-blind" (doesn't exist) schools, this time under the label of "enrollment management". There are also schools which traditionally accept large numbers of students off the waiting list (UChicago comes to mind) where financial aid to accepted students might not have been competitive, applicants turned them down to go elsewhere, so the school can turn around and make the same or lesser offer to a student off the waiting list.</p>
<p>Interesting numbers for Fall 2004 but it is my understanding that the picture for Fall 2005 was very different with only very few making it in to these types of schools from the waitlist -- I remember a Wall Street Journal article to this effect...</p>
<p>
[quote]
Do bright "well-rounded" kids ever get admitted from wait lists?
[/quote]
I'd sure like to know the answer to this question, too. It is my impression that in admissions it is better to be one-dimentionally outstanding than to be a BWRK. As I understand it, colleges want to build a class with a certain profile and the students are all just one little piece of the whole. Thus, you should be the best at whatever little piece they want you to be. I'm not even sure that I would prefer a class full of one-dimentionally excellent people. Are there any types of colleges where it is better to be a BRWK?</p>
<p>What Mini says is probably true but I know a girl who got in at Smith off the waitlist and received almost full financial aid. </p>
<p>I suspect that for every generalization you can find exceptions and thus, you really don't know until the game is fully played out. If I were on a waitlist, I would "demonstrate interest out the wazoo." </p>
<p>Otoh, I would make plans from the beginning with the assumption that I wouldn't get off any waitlist. One orientation for action, another orientation for planning.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Interesting numbers for Fall 2004 but it is my understanding that the picture for Fall 2005 was very different with only very few making it in to these types of schools from the waitlist -- I remember a Wall Street Journal article to this effect...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>xiggi linked to it earlier.</p>
<p>And as was emphasized in that same post, things will change from year to year, especially for institutions with yield fluctuations. Unless all institutions are all trending the same way, it would be extremely hard to generalize about what will happen from one year to the next.</p>
<p>"What Mini says is probably true but I know a girl who got in at Smith off the waitlist and received almost full financial aid."</p>
<p>But the school doesn't claim to be "need-blind" to begin with, and is actually "need-aware" among other reasons to be sure that admissions aids in the school's mission to ensure matriculation by a substantial portion of economically disadvantaged students, a decision they made in the '70s.</p>
<p>mini, I have also seen it happen in the reverse (as in TheDad, post 131 here, I think). Once a school has secured a certain level of income, they can afford to be generous & open up the w/l to a desirable candidate who needs aid.</p>
<p>And TheDad, I also think that Split Strategy or Double Vision is the best "attack."</p>
<p>lkf, I don't know about "better to be a BWRK" colleges. But there are certainly colleges that welcome them -- such as Catholic U's other than G'town. But personally, I think there's some mythology or misunderstanding to this "one-dimensional" assumption. Actually, most of the very highly accomplished students I know are also well-rounded. (Yes, a few are quite lopsided, but they happen to be the exception of those I've met.) Not proof, just an observation.</p>
<p>mstee writes: "I could be wrong, but I got the impression from reading Stanford's literature that Stanford likes BWRK's." </p>
<p>I'm not a stanford adrep (note usage of the new word!) but their website implies they like focused ECs
[quote]
In addition to academic excellence and intellectual vitality, we are interested in students who have made significant contributions to the life of their school or community. We do not favor one type of activity over another; nor is it necessary to participate in a large number of activities. An exceptional experience in one or two activities demonstrates your passion more than minimal participation in five or six clubs. We want to see the impact your participation has had on that club, in your school, or in the larger community. With extracurricular activities, a sustained depth of commitment is more important than a long list of clubs you have joined.
<p>Here are a few additional data points -borrowed from the JBHE. The numbers are from 2004 and may be slighlty different from the official CDS numbers. </p>
<p>The first list shows the size of the wait list, the number accepted, and the percentage of admits from the WL. </p>
<p>The second lits is a bit different: it represents the the size of the wait list compared to final enrollment and the resulting percentage. For instance, Amherst WL is more than twice its expected enrollment. One issue to wonder about: what it is the impact of a huge waitlist on the April acceptance numbers? For instance, could Smith not accept fewer students and waitlist hundreds more a la Amherst or Middlebury. Would this not improve their admission rate without further penalties in rankings such as USNews? Ah, the webs they could weave! :)</p>
<p>Maybe I am assuming an unrealistically high level of accomplishment. My son has a few activities that he cares alot about and has achieved a reasonable level of accomplishment in them. It is right for him and I'm glad he has several pursuits. </p>
<p>But I had an admission officer once give me the rationale that it's nice to be in the top 1%, but it's not the valedictorian. It's nice to letter in one sport, but it's better to letter in three sports, it's nice to be an all-state musician, but it's better to win some competition, etc. Very few people can be "the best" in everything, especially when time is limited and we are mere humans! :)</p>
<p>lkf,
true....not realistic to be best at everything. What I meant is more that these students were quite high in a few activities (often more than one, btw), but then "involved" in several other categories with less prominence. For example, one that comes to mind immediately has been involved in 3 performing arts for many yrs, but superinvolved & mega-awarded in journalism & writing, & then has all the necessary high grades & test scores & rank. Someone else I know is the reverse: nat'l participation in 2 performing arts which she has done for 10+ yrs., + lower-level co-curricular involvement in diff. varieties of activity, + standout rank, grades, scores, academic awards. I consider both candidates well-rounded, but highly accomplished.</p>
<p>To the earlier question of whether or not ED applicants who wind uyp on the waitlist get special consideration-- I suspect they do. (1) All colleges want happy students who are elated to be there. (2) ED often = full pay. So, unless they just lost the bagpiper they had to get and are scrambing for another one, and as long as other qualifications are largely equal, I'd guess ED kids would have a slight advantage.</p>