rankings - please give input

<p>While some of the owners may be affiliated with Harvard and Yale, actually, the editor of the rankings has ties to Princeton.</p>

<p>"I think you answered your own question with respects to WUSTL and Tufts.</p>

<ol>
<li>Massive advertisement</li>
<li>Feigned Interest in relatively poor students</li>
<li>Rejections or Waitlisting of over-qualified applicants</li>
<li>Refusal to show certain ED applicant data</li>
<li>Having relatively poor ED students compared to RD students"</li>
</ol>

<p>Umm, I can't speak for WUSTL, but Tufts does not massively advertise whatsoever. What exactly do you mean by refusal to show certain ED data? It publishes the Admit rate and relevant test score/class rank information for the students accepted ED. For instance, this year's ED accepted students had the same percentage in the top 10% of the class (80%) as last year's total incoming class, so I don't think its fair to say that the ED students are relatively poor compared to RD students. </p>

<p>Tufts also has committed itself to taking only 1/3 of its class ED despite an increase in ED apps, down from 45% in years past and unlike many other schools that continue to take nearly 50% of the class ED. Does this sound like the actions of a school thats trying to game the system? A quick glance at the Tufts Decision forum from last year shows very very little evidence that Tufts rejects "overqualified" applicants; many truly top notch students are accepted. I can't comment about Tufts admissions practices say, 5 years ago. Maybe they truly did play games back then, and hence got this reputation. But Tufts has a new Dean of Admissions as of two years ago and it seems clear that its time for all the rumors about their admissions practices to die.</p>

<p>Yea most of those points really just apply for WUSTL.</p>

<p>Tufts only has the problem of waitlisting or rejecting top applicants. If what you say is true, then I guess Tufts has started to change and should lose its past reputation and the term "Tufts Syndrome".</p>

<p>Thanks for clarifying that for me!</p>