I’ve heard that WUSTL rejects or waitlists many applicants who they believe might get accepted at “better” schools and hurt their yield. I’m just curious, totally not asking because I think I’m overqualified. If it’s true, is there a kind of sweet spot in numbers where an applicant has a good chance of getting accepted but isn’t too good?
There is a sweet spot in interest shown for sure.
When you only accept 17% of a highly qualified applicant pool (and don’t collect up as many applications as say Harvard from everyone who thinks they need a shot at the lottery), I think many people who think they are overqualified, by SAT scores or GPA or high school rank or high school difficulty or being president of many clubs or a great athlete … well they are just average in this pool … so they are shocked if they don’t get in (and think they were not accepted because they were overqualified … rather than just not so special as to get one of the <2000 spots available for the entire US and a good size international applicant pool.
So … while it is an arms race, you have to apply to other schools, maybe a lot of other schools, and some matches and safeties.
Certainly, you can show more than modest interest in both your essays and visit, etc.
You also have to be somewhat honest with yourself, are you applying because it is in the top 20 or because it is somehow special to you (and then bring this to the table in your essays or in some targeted emails or visits). If you are applying to 10 of the top 20 schools and 6 times more people are applying than there are spaces, you could see this going wrong in both ways, either you will pick school #5 over #16 or they will pick a different student who plays say clarinet instead of flute or is from a different state or whatever.
My kid was accepted at WashU and at a top-10 Ivy and top-5 non-Ivy, so no. Kid chose WashU and is very happy.
There are studies supporting exactly what the OP is describing. But it is usually wait list not reject. It is a well known way to protect the yield and for schools to be able to predict the exact outcome. Search for the NBER Working paper series called "A revealed preference ranking of U.S. colleges and universities by Christopher Avery, Mark Glickman, Carolilne Hoxby and Andrew Metrick (http://www.nber.org/papers/w10803). This paper compares the credential patterns of accepted students for schools that don’t (MIT) play this game (protect the yield) to those that do practice “strategic admissions”. Often the schools practicing strategic admissions waitlist those that they don’t think they are likely to nab-either because their credentials are out of line with the usual students who accept their offers or because the student didn’t appear to show interest. They figure a waitlisted student who would accept an offer will make that very clear to them. Then they don’t waste a offer on someone unlikely to come.
Another relevant (less so) paper is Peter Nurnberg from the National Bureau of Economic Research entitled “Students choosing colleges:understanding …” same source.
My kid got in last year with a 3.99 and a 35. Multiple national awards and a varsity athlete. She showed tons of interest though. This was by far her first choice and she’s extremely happy there.
All these top 20 schools turn away thousands of perfect applicants. My D private counselor couldn’t even guarantee my D admittance to Wash U even if she had a 4.0 or a 2400 SAT score. Simply any school with admittance rates under 25% is automatically a far reach for everyone no matter what your stats are. It’s simply because there are way too many applicants and not enough spots.
Let me give you an example… The Dean of Admissions at ND said that out of 17,000 applicants,6,000 of them had at least a 1500 CR and Math score and were the top 1% of their class. They only have 2000 spots! So they have to turn away 4k perfect tippy top students. He did go one step further… He said how do they choose? The essays! He refused to accept anyone that is arrogant or greedy. Instead they want students that show that they GIVE back such as volunteering. So the essays ARE very important.
In WashU’s case, about 29,000 students apply and there are ony 1,700 spots! So YES, they have to turn down many students with perfect stats. All you can do is try and definitely have safeties.
These colleges look for what students fit their culture just like you look for schools that fit you.
I think WashU wait lists kids who they feel won’t be able to afford washU
@ClarinetDad16 that’s definitely incorrect. I’m a current student who was deferred and then accepted and I am getting ~$37,000 in scholarship and financial aid. I obviously needed help paying for school and they could have just as easily rejected me.
@srivapau that is great for you!
However one student doesn’t make a strong sample size.
A number of schools likely engage in some (or a lot) of this, but that article is interesting in the examples it uses by suggesting things such as the following: “If Princeton admits students just shy of getting into Harvard, Stanford, MIT, and Yale, then it would have less able students”…Uhm, no. That assumes that students at those places are only based on merit in the traditional sense which simply isn’t true. The fact is, schools view that differently. Today, for example, which is much later than that article, Stanford has lower stats than places like Yale, Harvard, MIT, and Princeton along with Chicago, WashU, and Vanderbilt for that matter. This appears to be by choice. Stanford could choose admissions schemes that mirror the other super high stats schools, but likely decides merit (or whatever by whatever criteria). Now admittedly, there is something to be said about schools like WashU and recently Vanderbilt whose admissions have become ultra stats. centric over time (as in, having stats rivaling or surpassing schools considered better than them or at least as having a better reputation). Vanderbilt is very open on Collegeboard and releases its waitlist stats and they are…quite interestings. One can only wonder if WashU uses the same scheme (if so, it used them first and Vandy has followed in their footsteps to raise stats quickly).
https://bigfuture.collegeboard.org/college-university-search/vanderbilt-university
1/5 of the applicant pool seems to be a bit much to me.
In lieu of what was suggested by a poster above, it kind of makes sense. They want the high stats folks, but naturally go after those that “fit” the Vanderbilt profile first (as in those that appear as if they are attracted to the school for reasons for the same reasons and academic strengths as those in the past or those who have fit a similar historical EC profile). Since it isn’t stats they are worried about (they are comfortable just taking in the highest scoring students), it is likely EC’s. They probably likely identify some students as fitting an EC profile more typical of other schools (and those students likely prefer those schools academically). Often you can see this pickiness when it comes to STEM and certain social sciences or humanities (as in, an international math, physics, chem, physics olympiad participant or medalist is likely to prefer elsewhere…somewhere notoriously strong in their area such as any school that offers very high honors or introductory level courses in their area of interest as those types are much different even from Seimens types and certainly on a different level in those areas than someone who may have simply earned AP/IB credit. An intensive politics or debate person would love a Georgetown, Hopkins, Northwestern, Yale, Harvard, Duke, Stanford, Tufts, Emory type of school).
So it may not be an issue of avoiding the “overqualified” students so much as taking in students who are more or less an “academic or social fit” to the place given its current strengths and reputations in certain areas. For example, if I am Vanderbilt, I would likely take the high stats. student interested in things such as music, education (or anything associated with their peabody school) than students that seem unusually skilled in areas that other schools are more known for. While schools typically don’t admit by major that much they can probably tell who is a more typical fit and who isn’t. Schools such as HYPS and some LAC’s can almost do what they want because many are so strong across the board.