If you’re right, then what’s the harm in stating this policy clearly? The OP, at least, suggests that this information might have made a difference to that family.</p>
<p>Besides, I don’t agree with your logic. Stanford doesn’t defer very many people, so those they defer must be highly qualified. Why would you suppose that none of those people might be sensible choices for the waiting list vs. RD applicants? It’s one thing to say that deferred students rarely, if ever, get placed on the waiting list; it’s something else to say, as a matter of policy, that they never do.</p>
<p>Hunt, here is a link to the guidance counselor PDF that states that no deferred REA students will be placed on the waitlist. Scroll down to ‘When to apply? REA or RD?’</p>
<p>So why isn’t that fine print on the student info pages? Maybe I didn’t see it, or maybe it’s included in some other mailings. At least that makes it clear that it’s a policy.</p>
<p>I agree with phantasmagoric here – except, maybe, the word choice: ‘sufficient.’ (Lots of kids who are deferred and then rejected are plenty ‘sufficient.’ They simply didn’t make the cut amongst all the other ‘sufficient’ kids.) But I get the point.</p>
<p>It’s just a really silly argument, imo. As phantasmagoric pointed out, Stanford looks at kids over and over and over again before they reject. If you’re EA, you get reviewed, officially, ‘twice’ – during the EA cycle and then again during RD.</p>
<p>Why should Stanford keep reviewing you over and over again, just because you applied earlier than everybody else? What about applying earlier gives you the right to remain in the pool forever? They decided in the EA round that you didn’t quite make the cut – but you were close! You’re one of the lucky ones who gets to go on to round two - Deferred. Then amongst all the new candidates who are RD, they decide you didn’t quite make the cut a second time. Game over. </p>
<p>That’s fair. WHY should an EA applicant have any more right to a waitlist than a person who chose to apply a little later? It makes no sense. I can hardly believe this argument is still going on. It seems so simple to me!</p>
<p>The OP’s kid had her chance. She was carefully reviewed. She was effectively passed over twice in favor of other candidates. Some RD applicants were reviewed and passed over only ONCE – they were deferred to the waitlist to be reviewed again, should that opportunity present itself.</p>
<p>Idk, the way they do it makes perfect sense to me.</p>
<p>I have to agree with Phantas on this issue. The waitlist policy of a school should never be a factor in applying early to Stanford or any other college or university. You apply early because, if accepted, that would be your first choice. Stanford’s policy during the early round of admissions is sound because it gives most applicant’s a definitive answer by mid December. </p>
<p>After reading some of these posts, it seems as if some view being waitlisted as some sort of accomplishment. It’s not. The ultimate goal is to be admitted. In some ways being waitlisted is the worst of the three possible outcomes in the admission process. You are strung along for an additional 1 -1.5 months while simultaneously making a commitment both financially and emotionally to another school that really wanted you to come to their campus.
In general, your chance of getting off a waitlist is very small. For example, for the Class of 2015, Stanford placed 1078 applicants on its waitlist, and took only 13 off that list to fill out the class. That is why I am in favor of a policy that would require all colleges and universities to publish the percentage of applicants they took off the waitlist from the previous five years when informing an applicant that they have been waitlisted. Then the applicant can make an informed decision in deciding whether to remain on the list or not. However, I am sure that this is wishful thinking.</p>
<p>The REA fine print, referenced by fairlights, is a new addition to the admissions material. In my opinion, too little too late. But better than the non-disclosure of the past. . .</p>