<p>Let me ask a stupid question, what impact, if any, does a large waiting list have on the numbers that college reports for yield and other percentages? Can any college use the waiting list to manipulate their numbers to get a higher ranking in USNWR? Maybe this process has made me cynical.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>This kind of nonsense is why I told my kids and tell others that waitlists at selective schools are very close to being a waste of time and mental effort. A few kids do get off the waitlist every year, and a few people win the Powerball lottery every year too. </p>
<p>Stay on a waitlist if you want, but the odds are so long that you better focus on the acceptances you have in hand. You can think about the waitlist schools if and when lightning actually strikes.</p>
<p>BobbyCT - fascinating question. If a college accepts a relatvely lower number and waitlists more - and then goes to the WL as needed - wouldn’t that give them a higher yield? What I see with WL - is that the college calls and asks are you still interested? If the student says no - do they even have to count that rejection in their yield numbers? I think not. Very interesting.</p>
<p>I do not think that WL decisions are figured into yield at all. I could be wrong but I think yield is simply how many students pick the school that picks them in the first round of acceptances only. The schools can’t fudge that number much. If they accept less students and WL more that wouldn’t change the initial numbers. In fact, they might risk losing yield if they initially accept too few, no?</p>
<p>Post #21:</p>
<p>You are right to be cynical about this process. Having an extensive wait list ensures that they can add “admitted” students with favorable statistical information should their yield on the initial admitted group fall short. Lets say Duke has to go to the waitlist to fill 100 spots…they can probably go 500 or more deep on the waitlist with admission offers to get 100 who haven’t committed elsewhere (maybe more). Those 500 count as admits so the better higher their statistics the better.</p>
<p>I fault parents who let their kids apply to 15 schools, as they are the ones paying the application fees. I had a crazy friend (true - she’s bi-polar!) that applied to 10 schools 30 years ago when most of us were applying to a maximum of 5 (1 reach, 1-2 target, 1-2 safety). </p>
<p>I don’t understand why parents don’t make their kids narrow down to what handful of schools they really to apply to. My Ds a Junior and I’ve already told her she needs to pick 6 schools to apply to and that’s it. I’m happy to make the trips now, rather than live through her completing 6+ extra applications. </p>
<p>We had a neighbor that applied to 14 schools and got into 13 (her top choice, Penn, deferred her on ED, then rejected her at RD). These kids are just taking up spaces at schools they would likely never attend, which might be the 1st choice of another kid. </p>
<p>Another thought - is this a fall-out of the Common Ap?</p>
<p>I’d like to see NACAC get involved and put some kind of limit on the WL.</p>
<p>The insanity of the admissions process is what is causing the increased number of applications that students are submitting. If you can afford it and have the time to do it, why not apply to a large number of schools and increase your chances that the increasingly random process will yield a favorable outcome?</p>
<p>What I’ve seen with the current Seniors at our HS is they applied to 10+ with only 1-2 reaches. Most of these kids were accepted at 80+% of the schools they applied to. I can understand a few reaches, but 8 targets/safeties? The guidance department needed to do a better job of having them whittle down their list.</p>
<p>I don’t understand either why even some longtime CC parent contributors routinely suggest that students have 3 or more safeties and 4-5 match schools.</p>
<p>I can see having 2 safeties so one has a choice, but I don’t see any reason for having more. I also don’t see why students need to have 4 or more match schools.</p>
<p>Students can only go to one college after all.</p>
<p>I think that for virtually all students having 1-2 safeties, 2-3 match schools and 2-3 reaches is enough. My older S applied to 5 schools, and was rejected only by his distant reach school, an Ivy. Younger S applied to 2 schools (which basically were match schools) and was accepted to both.</p>
<p>Except when it isn’t. Working in a hs college counseling office - we live in fear of the rare situation where a student gets denials everywhere for some fluke reason. If they are applying to Ivy League - they typically apply to all plus Stanford, Amherst, Duke, etc. Even at the lower levels - we have students who apply to 8 lower level schools and get into 5. What if they had only applied to the 3 they did not get into? Had one student this year who applied to 20 top schools - ws accepted at one! He was happy - he is going to a top college - but what if we had whittled his list down and he did not get in anywhere but his state flagship safety school? It is just so random that it is hard to say apply to fewer schools. I have dozens of examples of students who applied to similar schools and got into one but not the other. If it was more logical, yes, less applications would be fine. But while it is so random and illogical - students will continue to apply to 10-12 colleges and up.</p>
<p>I’m with rockvillemom. This year D has MANY friends who feel stuck at their one safety where they did not have enough matches.</p>
<p>it has been discussed elsewhere on CC in past years: Students taken off of waitlists are included in yield numbers for the university; that is why offers are usually made over the phone with responses needed within a certain amount of time…so, yes, a school like Duke could easily manipulate the numbers to increase yield…</p>
<p>and QM…not sure what a “true match” is for a student at the top of the class…if the colleges are only admitting below 30% and can fool around with this waitlist stuff, a match may be hard to find…a match with stats maybe, but not in terms of admissions…hey, even kids with stats ABOVE the 75% have gotten waitlisted at schools like GWU, Lehigh and Tulane…</p>
<p>"f they are applying to Ivy League - they typically apply to all plus Stanford, Amherst, Duke, etc. Even at the lower levels - we have students who apply to 8 lower level schools and get into 5. What if they had only applied to the 3 they did not get into? Had one student this year who applied to 20 top schools - ws accepted at one! "</p>
<p>I personally think that anyone who applies to, for instance, all of the Ivies or all of the top 20 schools can not do a good job on every app because each of those schools is very different and looks for a different type of student. Someone who would be delighted to attend Columbia or U Penn with their big city environments probably wouldn’t be pleased to be stuck in the middle of nowhere at Williams even though Williams is usually the #1 ranked LAC.</p>
<p>I think that the student who carefully applies to, for instance, 3 top schools that the student has carefully chosen, and then tailors their application to those schools is more likely to get acceptances than will the student who applies to 15 top schools.</p>
<p>There is no way that any student has the time to do careful applications for 15 schools. And even schools using the common application require supplements, and it’s wise to spend time on the supplements thinking about what to highlight that the school may most care about.</p>
<p>In addition, students who have lots of interviews tend to burn out on interviews. Scheduling interviews becomes burdensome and the students get tired of answering the same questions over and over. After a while, the students act like they are doing the interviewers favors to show up.</p>
<p>One stellar student whom I interviewed answered my questions as if by rote – brief answers, no emotion, and then, before I had finished the interview, she got up, thanked me, shook my hand and left. Apparently she had experienced other interviewers who ended the interview with the kind of question I had asked, but I wasn’t finished.</p>
<p>She ended up being waitlisted by my college. I later learned that she had applied to at least 10 schools, so my best guess is that by March when I interviewed her, she was exhausted by the whole process.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, as we see on CC, there are many students who apply to many top schools and are rejected by all. Applying to many reach schools doesn’t guarantee an acceptance. It can guarantee even more disappointment on April 1.</p>
<p>As for students being “stuck” in safeties, many of us here suggest that students pick their safety school (I suggest 2 safety schools) first and make sure that those schools are places that the students can afford and would be happy to attend.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Fortunately they’re advertising a lot of drugs these days that help.</p>
<p>I agree with you Northstarmom. What I see happening is that kids who apply to only 2 or 3 matches/reaches are getting wait listed or rejected because so many others are applying to 10-15 and filling up those spots.</p>
<p>I would love it if colleges were more direct/blunt in what their criteria is. Example “If you don’t meet criteria x,y and z then you only have a ‘blank %’ chance of being admitted.” </p>
<p>I guess another option would be for colleges to dramatically increase their app fee with the understanding that it will be returned if you are accepted. At some point colleges need to decide if improving their stats through increased apps is really worth it in the end.</p>
<p>" would love it if colleges were more direct/blunt in what their criteria is. Example “If you don’t meet criteria x,y and z then you only have a ‘blank %’ chance of being admitted.” </p>
<p>I don’t think that would work. After all, 30,000 students applied to Harvard even though Havard’s acceptance rate is in the single digits.</p>
<p>Some students assume that it really is a lottery and the more apps you submit, the greater your chances of admission even if your stats are on the low side…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I know that it’s important for the student to get their apps in early for rolling admissions, and, if at all possible, for EA. But for RD, does the order in which apps are received really make a difference in when they are read by the adcoms? If a kid gets an app in, say, a month early, will that really lead to a greater likelihood of it being read earlier on than an app that arrives right on the deadline?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sounds like nothing to me. Why should a college care in the least that a student has wanted to attend it ever since they were little? I’m always amused by the “but I reaaaaaalllly want to go here!” routine. It’s what you can do for the school, not what the school can do for you!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Students from wealthy families would still put in lots of apps. Students from families that are poor enough to get fee waivers would still put in lots of apps. Middle-class kids would be out of luck. :(</p>