<p>On the CDS form, it asks for waitlist info by defining it as follows: "Freshman waitlisted students (students who met admissions requirements but whose final admission was contingent on space availability)."</p>
<p>Do you think the ridiculously high number of people being put on the waiting lists of some schools is there way of saying - "Hey look how many applicants we had 'who met admissions requirements but we didn't have room for?" And what in the world are admission requirements if you can't in fact offer admission to so many who have it? Seems there must be other "requirements" to actually get admitted.</p>
<p>Well, after looking at the UChicago waitlist admit numbers for Fall 2004, it looks like my son picked one of the best waitlists around as far as chances of getting admitted. Lucky timing for him.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And what in the world are admission requirements if you can't in fact offer admission to so many who have it? Seems there must be other "requirements" to actually get admitted.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't think it's unusual (or irregular) to have a surplus of well-qualified students--at least not for colleges of the type being discussed here. The fact is, they're not just turning away kids who 'can't hack it' or "aren't up to snuff." They're also having to turn away students who are in many ways just as qualified as the students who were offered a place.</p>
<p>I think what you're getting at, of course, is that they lacked SOMETHING, didn't they, or they'd be in instead of out. But what they are lacking might not be a "requirement" but rather something else.</p>
<p>I can also tell you that at my institution, we have been in the position of having to go into a pool of roughly equivalent applicants and admit only the 300 or so who applied earliest. Thus, you could have one student in, one student out, and the only real difference between them (from the standpoint of preparation, desirability, etc) was that one applied on December 16 and the other one applied December 15th.</p>
<p>When that's the only real difference, some might argue that the waitlist is the fairer thing for Mr. December 16th (as opposed to a rejection), especially if there's a chance you'll go to the waitlist!</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>Ah, who knows what it means? One would have thought that schools with high yields (all those listed above qualify) wouldn't need large waiting lists. I don't think they're "gimmicking" with selectivity, though who knows? (Some schools do self-select for double XX chromosones....)</p>
<p>The thing is, while the schools could gimmick with their selectivity, from the waiting list they probably get as many turn-downs or more than acceptances. People like making plans, and having set them firmly in place, may be less willing to change them.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I can also tell you that at my institution, we have been in the position of having to go into a pool of roughly equivalent applicants and admit only the 300 or so who applied earliest.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>very interesting comment - there have been threads about whether it pays to get applications in early. many applicants seem to assume that it doesn't matter.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think what you're getting at, of course, is that they lacked SOMETHING, didn't they, or they'd be in instead of out. But what they are lacking might not be a "requirement" but rather something else.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>well of course that's exactly the point -- you frequently hear the comment about how there are so many "qualified" students applying that they all can't get in - clear enough. but what i am saying is that in my mind, at least, there is a difference between saying someone is "qualified" to be admitted to a school (ie, they could be quite successful and add to the school if they were there), and saying someone met the "requirements" to be admitted - because obviously, something more than being qualified is being "required" -- which may vary with the institutions needs that year, the applicant pool etc. Schools are clearly "requiring" more than what they are claiming they "require" in order for someone to be admitted.</p>
<p>Perhaps then we could think of it in terms of "necessary" and "sufficient" in the same way they are used for mathematical proofs. The waitlisted students have accomplished at least some of the necessary conditions but none of the sufficient conditions.</p>
<p>"Do bright "well-rounded" kids ever get admitted from wait lists?"</p>
<p>Anecdotally, I have a DD who was admitted off the waitlist at Swat five years ago, a VERY tough year, according to some stats provided earlier by Interesteddad. In her application she came off as a BWRK, though she definitely came to specialize while in college. In her case, I am convinced that the two additional letters of recommendation from her senior English teacher and the Head of School which were sent after the waitlisting, made a difference. Swat was a perfect fit for her, and somehow they managed to get that across, for which I will forever be grateful.</p>
<p>
[quote]
very interesting comment - there have been threads about whether it pays to get applications in early. many applicants seem to assume that it doesn't matter.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I can't speak for all institutions, of course. But we are a rolling admissions school. Furthermore, the admissions counselors make this point to prospective students--earlier is better, earlier apps will be favored if it comes down to that. We try to be upfront about it. We have found that early apps yield at a higher rate, but whether that's a cause or an effect I don't know (that is, is it the case that the most interested students get those apps in early no matter what our policy is? Or is it that we've caused it because the students most gung-ho to be here are more likely to care about and heed the warning?).</p>
<p>I am interested to know what the numbers for WashU are. It seems like they waitlist just about everybody that doesn't get admitted in the first round.</p>
<p>DD, I'll PM you. Just notice, in very delayed fashion, your earlier gracious apology, followed by someone else's very ungracious instruction to the contrary, so I'll retreat from public discussion. Sorry for the delay in noticing; have been hopping around. In bowing out from PF, I just wanted to express my thanks for your starting the thread. It has led to some interesting tangential discussions which I think have been helpful to many. Thanks for sharing.
:-(</p>
<p>Thanks for the waitlist numbers. I must say that I am shocked at the size of some of the waitlists...and not much shocks me about the admissions game.</p>
<p>I definitely think there is some gamesmanship with the waitlists viz-a-viz selectivity. Stick a thousand names on the list and, within 10 days, you'll be able to identify 100 who will definitely enroll if offered a slot. The key to gaming the waitlist is that you never make an official offer of acceptance until you've already talked to the kid and gotten a commitment to accept. Thus, everyone you take off the waitlist boosts your yield and lowers your acceptance rate, just like Early Decision.</p>
<p>What's crazy is that the waitlist acceptances are all over the board from year to year.</p>
<p>The "threshhold" varies from college to college. Back when I was among the hyper-obsessed, I crunched a fair amount of numbers. I can tell you that the first bucket of cold water was that a 1400 SAT (old), which I assumed was sufficient for any school, was barely in the game for some, assuming we're talking about a student without an athletic/legacy/URM/development hook...in which case if you or your student is one of those, y'all can stop reading this thread now.</p>
<p>Bearing in mind that even perfect SAT's got admitted at a rate of 50 percent or less, and valedictorians at an even lesser rate, there seemed to be a major break point in chances at around 1540 and another at around 1450. </p>
<p>I know a couple of other Dads crunched the numbers even more intensively but I forget who was whom...only the Moms had more sense than to waste their time, LOL. Xiggi is the closest thing to a guru for all things SAT so he may have some finer input as well.</p>
<p>But the conclusion I finally got to has been stated in this thread: grades and scores buy you a ticket to the dance. The other parts of your app take over from there. After having read several dozen student essays here on CC and reading Harry Bauld's book on writing the college essay, I'm convinced that essays are more traps than opportunities. Also, having read a ton of the anecdotal material, I see the vagaries of how even one underwhelming rec <em>can</em>--not necessarily will--sabotage a student's chances at a particular school.</p>
<p>I came to the conclusion that, just as light exhibits properties of both particles and waves, admissions at the top schools is both deterministic and probabilistic in the same breath.</p>
<p>I've also come to the conclusion that, regardless of the crushing disappointment of not getting into Harvard, Yale, Dartmouth, Duke, Amherst, Swarthmore, whatever...the system <em>mostly</em> works and students who have engaged the process thoughtfully <em>mostly</em> wind up in a very good place for them...even if it's Vanderbilt instead of Yale. Of course, that "mostly" word is aggravating as all get out if you happen to be one of the unlucky ones.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Stick a thousand names on the list and, within 10 days, you'll be able to identify 100 who will definitely enroll if offered a slot
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's kind of the wrong terminology; you'll likely confuse people who don't know as much about the WL as you do. Standard practice for the waitlist is not to simply stick kids on it. You ask them if they would like a place on it. Some will say no because they prefer an admit offer they got elsewhere. So the WL is already somewhat filtered--the least interested kids aren't on it. (Or the ones that are sufficiently mad....the woman who eventually sued U-M over AA was offered the waitlist and turned it down. The irony is, that year U-M took EVERYONE off the waitlist. Had she not turned them down, she would have been a part of the class. Go figure.) As you'll recall, the CDS specifically asks about not offers, but acceptances of waitlist spots.</p>
<p>I'd wager that it's not just "gamesmanship" at work, if colleges admit only those waitlisted students that they believe are most likely to say yes. It's after May 1, they need the class "finished" so they can include everyone in mailings and programs about housing, orientation, roommate matching, registration, and so on. These students are already a little behind, so you want to make the offer and be done with it, not go through multiple rounds of making the offer. There is a delay because you have to give them time to think it over and make the deposit, possibly work out financial aid. So obviously, there is an incentive to just grab the WL students who are most likely to say "yes." </p>
<p>Gamesmanship there may be, but there are also other factors. Admissions is tired, the college needs numbers to start running budgets, and they've got to get the class together to start getting them ready for Fall. People want it done.</p>
<p>Hoedown, I believe that you work in Admissions? If so, I just wanted to thank you for the time you spend reading and posting on CC. For parents, it is so helpful to get an idea of how the process works from the otherside. Along those same lines, thanks to DudeDiligence for relating the substance of your conversation with the Admissions Rep at the wedding. This spirit of sharing information, when there is nothing to be gained by the poster, is why I continue to spend WAY too much time here even though I don't have a Junior or Senior!</p>
<p>To clarify, I used to work in admissions at a small liberal arts college (not a terribly selective one). Now I am at a large institution and don't work in admissions, but I do a lot of analysis on our admissions process and do significant support work for administrators working on enrollment management. I can't share everything, but when I can clear up misconceptions or provide a perspective from the institutional side, I try to. </p>
<p>My challenge is to not overstep my bounds, or to sound defensive. I meet the latter challenge with limited success. LOL</p>
<p>Epiphany, did I miss something? Are you leaving the Parents Forum? Surely not. While I may not always agree with you, and while your plainspoken ways are often jarring to my Southern-born manners (our family mantra: there are dozens of ways to call someone an idiot politely) :) , I have appreciated your contributions to this forum.</p>