<p>In general, it just doesn't happen. There's a 99% chance you were simply rejected for being underqualified.</p>
<p>However, there are some very specific schools (such as Tufts) known for this.</p>
<p>A more likely situation would be being waitlisted for being over-qualified. The school definitely <em>wants</em> the over-qualified application to attend (bring up their academics) but also wants a good yield. Solution: waitlist.</p>
<p>Since you just got outright rejected, I'm pretty sure it's a simple case of rejection. Also, really don't pay much attention to the letter. It's mostly just fluff trying to make you feel better, bla bla bla.</p>
<p>xgreatescapex, would you mind to share your "Letter for your 1st year roommate" from the Babson supplement? I feel like that might have been what got you waitlisted. It is sort of a "Why Babson?" essay and they wanted you to show specific interest in Babson. If you want, you can PM it to me and I'd PM you mine (which got me accepted) for comparison.</p>
<p>
[quote]
No they don't. Schools with a traditionally low yield simply increase the number of students they accept. The concept of "over-qualified" does not exist in college admissions other than in cases of applicants being referring from one program to a more challenging one (like to an honors program). Kids, parents, and guidance counselors who believe otherwise are simply flattering themselves about the reason for their rejection.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think that analysis is a bit simplistic. Sure, the schools could respond by simply admitting more students to replace those supposedly overqualified students who were admitted yet probably aren't going to come. The problem is that they might come. They were admitted, after all. So they could choose to come. And so could those extra students who you admitted as 'backfill' because you thought that the others weren't coming, and now you have more students than your resources can handle. </p>
<p>The situation is akin to overbooking by hotels, airlines, and restaurants, all of which will take more reservations than they can actually handle under the assumption - backed by statistical modeling - that everybody is unlikely to show up. That strategy works fine except when everybody really does show up. </p>
<p>In short, admitting students who are unlikely to come serves to increase the volatility of your yield, and hence reduces your ability to accurately predict how many students are actually going to come - and by extension, whether your school has sufficient resources to handle that (stochastic) number. The safer thing to do is to indeed not admit those students who you really don't think are going to take the offer. Now, does this happen often? Probably not. But there is a solid logical case for in certain instances.</p>
<p>Sound logic, sakky. Still, it doesn't work that way. Schools are very aware of what their potential yield will be and the percentage of students who will reject them for various reasons (can't afford to attend, got in someplace else they preferred, etc.). Some years are harder to predict like this year with the big monkey wrench of a financial meltdown thrown into the equation.</p>
<p>Still, schools do not reject qualified applicants because they are afraid the accepted students will reject them. On the contrary, they jump to accept applicants that might raise the level of their student body. Again, see my post #39 for my qualifications in answering this question. Unlike most people on this DB, I'm neither guessing, wishing nor basing my answer on my lone experience as an applicant or parent of one.</p>
<p>So benny1, if I introduce you to someone who was accepted at H, P, & MIT and had the goods to merit it (perfect SATs, perfect GPA, tons of national awards, yadda-yadda) and that same kid in the same year was waitlisted by Muhlenburg, then got a phone call from M-burg on April 5 (long before May 1) saying, "If you agree to come, we will take you off the waitlist right now," you would conclude what? That this kid was sincerely unqualified for M-burg? Seriously? And if I got you 20 other kids where the exact same thing happened, albeit switching around the names of the colleges slightly, you would say they really were qualified for Ivies, but not for schools where the average stats were 50% lower? Seriously? And let's bear in mind, everybody recycles essays and recs, so again, it wouldn't be as if that would change either, in case you wanted to hang your hat on the "stats aren't everything" argument. </p>
<p>Say you worked for Harvard (I'll take your word for it). We know that no one would ever be "overqualified" for Harvard, so that tells us nothing. And perhaps at the school you are at now they do not utilize this method of "enrollment management" we are discussing. Great. But please, do not take those two experiences of yours and try to say that such things do not occur anywhere in the United States, because that would simply not be true. It would also explain why people keep asking about "Tufts Syndrome," so famous that everyone has heard of it, yet you never respond to questions about it. </p>
<p>I would conclude that no, I sincerely doubt that schools reject "overqualified" applicants. But some (not all, but some) do waitlist them to fiddle with their yield.</p>
<p>Hi 4th house.
You're confusing several different concepts.<br>
1. The concept of "over-qualifiied" does not exist in college admissions. It doesn't. Sorry to burst the bubble of those are looking for solace for why they were rejected.
2. The case study of the Muhlenberg wait list. There could be many reasons why an applicant is rejected at a less competitive school. The most common reasons is that the applicant essentially blows off application to less competitive safety school, submits a crappy app (if the Common App is not used), the app may be filled with careless errors, and then they show up for an interview with a "I don't give a *****" attitude." We've all seen kids like that. They're the kind who get dragged to the interview by their parents and spend the whole time rolling their eyes with an "I'm better than this place" attitude. So despite good scores and test scores, they don't represent themselves as a mature and dedicated students and no schools wants to admit students like that no matter how good they look on paper. As we all know grades and scores are not everything.
3. Re: the Muhlenberg situation. The point of the wait list is to fill open spaces with people who really want to go there, so that's a logical question to ask. I'm puzzled why a kid who got into Harvard, Princeton and MIT would call Muhlenberg and ask to be admitted off the wait list, but if he/she did, it tends to confirm the suspicion that he/she is the type to act like a jerk (see scenario #2 above). I'm even more puzzled why 20 of your buddies would do the same.</p>
<p>OP - Do please let us know if you get a call from Babson in early April asking if you will commit to attending if they take you off the waitlist.</p>
<p>ohh this whole time i thought you were rejected.. you were waitlisted?? omg thats not a big deal at all and definitely not odd or confusing, if they say you're "over qualified" or whatever then they probably just don't want to give you a spot if you're gonna go somewhere else, if thats really where you want to go then just write them a letter saying if accepted you will attend that school for sure, and see what happens!</p>
<p>"I'm puzzled why a kid who got into Harvard, Princeton and MIT would call Muhlenberg and ask to be admitted off the wait list, but if he/she did, it tends to confirm the suspicion that he/she is the type to act like a jerk"</p>
<p>The kid didn't call Muhlenberg, they called him asking if he would be willing to definitely go to their school if they accepted him.</p>
<p>"The kid didn't call Muhlenberg, they called him asking if he would be willing to definitely go to their school if they accepted him."</p>
<p>Sorry I didn't understand. Schools don't want to offer admission off the waiting list unless they're sure the applicant will attend, so that scenario does not sound unusual. My guess again is the kid was rejected because, as is often the case in these situations and as I said above, he blew off the Muhlenberg app and/or in-person presentation and didn't make a good impression, regardless of his test scores and grades and that's why he was waitlisted. It happens a lot.</p>
<p>benny1: Yes, these kids used the Common App, so no, there was no way they could selectively "blow off" any part of that app for one school but do a better job for another. </p>
<p>Interviews? When they are given -- IF they are given -- it is early in the app season and the reason the student is applying to a safety school is because he or she truly does not know what the future holds and so he or she has selected some place where they would still be quite happy. I used Muhlenberg as an example (sorry, Muhlenberg), but I could have chosen numerous other schools, many of them privates and none of them "bad" per se. Did all 20 people I know go to these interviews and choose to act petulant at only the interview for their safety? What do you think? Do you really think so? I do not. I don't believe in 100% "selective maturity" or "selective immaturity." Again, I know these kids. Some of them, maybe. Most of them, no way. Furthermore, we all know how little the interview counts. Do you really see a Muhlenberg turning down a 2400, valedictorian, Intel finalist, et al, because some random alum or undergrad intern thought the applicant "appeared" detached at the interview? Come on! </p>
<p>Lastly, you can't read what I wrote and claim I said that these applicants called their safety school. I clearly said that their safety school called them. Only a hog would get into Princeton and call Muhlenberg to complain. </p>
<p>Perhaps instead of misreading my words or reaching out to the outrageous to draw a black and white conclusion that things like this never, ever, never, ever, never, ever happen, you could bend a little and acknowledge that Tufts Syndrome, which you again cannot even force yourself to say, does occur sometimes in some places, some times. </p>
<p>By the way ... I have no personal ax to grind. It has never happened to me or to any other member of my family. But I know people to whom it has most certainly happened.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The concept of "over-qualifiied" does not exist in college admissions. It doesn't. Sorry to burst the bubble of those are looking for solace for why they were rejected.
<p>It's named after Tufts but many schools, particularly those ivy caliber students use at safeties, practice this. Vandy and Emory are said not to accept this level of student if they have not shown demonstrated interest (visited at the very least).</p>
<p>This year I think we'll see lots of qualified kids who need a lot of financial aid rejected and waitlisted at non need blind colleges and a lot of admit/deny scenarios--the student is accepted with no aid.</p>
<p>I guess I am a little surprised that there is so much controversy over whether or not the "overqualified" are rejected. A friend of mine does alumni interviews for Harvard and while she looks very kindly,she has not accomplished what she has without a very intense and serious focus. She told me specifically that she cares little about applicant's numbers and their scores, but usually arrogance is revealed in many ways in an application and that very well might be the reason why you aren't accepted. Having done this for nearly 20 years, she is quite confident in her ability to spot a jerk. </p>
<p>Based on this thread, I am disappointed to think that my son might be rejected from certain schools because he lives halfway across the country and visiting schools junior year/senior fall for "official" tours etc were hard to do. And too, there were a few schools (Johns Hopkins among them) that he definitely saw, but did not officially visit because to schedule an interview would have necessitated his knowing if his team was going to win or lose (and is how we often combined visits to schools). </p>
<p>I read about the "qualifications" on CC and think my kid has been a complete slacker comparatively! Despite his going to a really rigorous high school and whatever else is on his resume, he doesn't have perfect scores or a perfect GPA, but he has always taken the hardest curriculum and been a great student. But his personality is very reserved, private and humble. It bugs me to be honest. I am hopeful that his GC and other recommendations speak loudly to who he is as a student and as a person with a great deal of integrity and promise.</p>
<p>If they don't, yes he will be really sad and disappointed. We all will. Frankly, I dread his trying to hide feeling bad when he gets bad news. Regardless of his imperfections, he has worked incredibly hard these past five years and I sincerely hope none of the schools he applied to would consider in their deliberations that he would probably choose to go somewhere else. We have been really pushing him NOT to rank order his schools and so I can honestly say that even if he got into all 8 of the schools, I have no idea where he would ultimately chose. But I definitely am hoping they ALL choose him!! And even though he might be well above the 75% for a school or two and is well prepared to handle the rigors of all of them, I would never ever assume he was "overqualified" for any of them.</p>
<p>Seriously, I am just hopeful that Benny1 will speak up more often on off-base comments or things that are just plain wrong on CC. Sometimes I think that my repeating that schools really look at an entire application with a thoughtful outlook is really just touting some party line that doesn't apply in the least!</p>
<p>I'm surprised to see the controversy surrounding this topic; perhaps it is rare in college admissions. I've already been accepted to better schools than Babson College, so I'm sure that I'm not unqualified, but maybe my expressed interest wasn't there in my supplement? And even though Babson was a mere safety for me, I'm going to call them tomorrow and convince them that I would attend their school just to see if they would accept me thereafter.</p>
<p>^^I wouldn't do this. I think it's borderline unethical to say that you will accept Babson College's offer if you are sure are going to take one of your other offers. </p>
<p>I think when you are originally applying, it's ok to act like every school is your first choice because you don't have any offers yet. However, once you're on the waitlist and you are 100% sure you won't go to that school, you shouldn't tell them that you would take their offer.</p>
<p>the op's sat reading scores are low 550 - 560 - 600. Since
the math and writing scores are very high that's probably a
concern. What's going on with the reading? How about EC's
Babson is really big on that stuff. They're sending him a nice
letter but he probably just didn't make the cut.</p>
<p>"...She told me specifically that she cares little about applicant's numbers and their scores, but usually arrogance is revealed in many ways in an application and that very well might be the reason why you aren't accepted. Having done this for nearly 20 years, she is quite confident in her ability to spot a jerk."</p>
<p>Bingo!</p>
<p>"Seriously, I am just hopeful that Benny1 will speak up more often on off-base comments or things that are just plain wrong on CC. Sometimes I think that my repeating that schools really look at an entire application with a thoughtful outlook is really just touting some party line that doesn't apply in the least! "</p>
<p>I've been trying. People here are quite wed to the idea that applicant data is converted to some quantifiable data based on grades, scores, ECs, and admissions decisions are based solely on ranking those data points. Not so and probably more not so at the most competitive schools than anywhere else.</p>