<p>Yield is not considered in rankings any more (that article is outdated), so it is not the reason to waitlist "overqualified" students... Plus, WUSTL uses merit scholarships to lure in its top candidates instead of waitlisting/rejecting them...</p>
<p>First of all, yield is tied to acceptance rate. If a schools has a high yield, it will have to accept less students and will thus have a lower acceptance rate. And acceptance rate is used in rankings. Secondly, WashU can only give out scholorships to people that applied for them. A lot of the top candidates don't feel like taking the time to write those extra essays because they know it is highly unlilely they will attend the school in the first place.</p>
<p>"A lot of the top candidates don't feel like taking the time to write those extra essays because they know it is highly unlilely they will attend the school in the first place."</p>
<p>I am pretty sure WUSTL does waitlist people who appear to be using them as a safety. Not applying for scholarships could be a sign for them, I guess. Although I personally know at least several "top candidates" who did not apply for the scholarships because they knew it was highly unlikely they will attend who were accepted. Some ended up attending.</p>
<p>Cressmom,</p>
<p>Well, you've seen the same thing as I have: waitlist vs admit vs reject = 70% vs 30% vs 0%?</p>
<p>Normally the waitlist group should be the smallest and rejects should be the largest. But here, we see things totally upside down. Given this, I can't help if some people still insist that's because people coming to this board are EXTREMELY skewed and WashU's admission is consistent with others.</p>
<p>Sam</p>
<p>Do you really believe that of 22,000 applicants for 1350 spots that none of them were rejected? Or maybe we just don't have all the data and are making erroneous conclusions from a very small and very skewed sampling.</p>
<p>Nobody assumes that no students were rejected as that would be illogical. Given the data here on CC, as Sam Lee has said, unless the data is heavily skewed (and other school forums are not) then WashU is waitlisting a higher percentage of applicants than other top schools.</p>
<p>Talk is cheap. Need real data to make valid conclusions. Rather than make accusations against the University, just wait a week or so, get some real numbers and substantiate (or refute) the assumptions.</p>
<p>This is not merely talk, however, since data for the previous years has been released; this looks like it will be last year all over again, but possibly to a higher degree.</p>
<p>Well if I've learned anything from reading all of this, it's that to my friends applying to Wash U next year I will give very precise advice:
* Demonstrate intrest by visiting campus, attending meetings, doing interview, etc.
* Write your essays about your passionate love and desire to attend Wash U; even if they look at you as "overqualified" , this can convey the sense that you're likely to attend.</p>
<p>hey, if they're going to end up playing you, there's no problem playing the game to benefit yourself.</p>
<p>oh man.. it's as if wash u and stanford were two different schools with two different sets of admissions staff. so weird.. different decisions at different schools...wow?</p>
<p>^Lol I agree. Wash U has different criteria. Suck it up!</p>
<p>seriously I was just glancing over USNews Selectivity index (b/c I'm so cool like that) and WashU is #6 while Stanford is #8. From where did people get the idea that an acceptance at Stanford (or any other top school) merits one from WashU? Just because you get into MIT, do you get into Columbia as well? hell no.</p>
<p>It may be interesting enough for a media such as US and World News Report to investigate how many wash u waitlisted applicants are better than the accepted pool other than those scholarship finalists.</p>
<p>And you think the media knows better than Wash U? Does the media know better than you why you rather have a Coke than a Pepsi? We know what we want for us, nobody else.
A student is more than stats, it’s a human being with many abilities, some kids show them in their essays and choosing well the teachers to write recommendations, some kids don’t. Not every school follows the same rule about grading, not every teacher does, and do you think that all As are the same? Sometimes a B means more than an A, and the admission officers have a lot of experience with that. I’m sure if Wash U could accommodate infinite number of students in its campus, all the ones in the waitlist would be accepted. If Wash U didn’t reject you, it’s because you are very good for them, just it isn’t enough spots for everybody.</p>
<p>If Wash U declares some of these waitlisted students are not at least as good as the average of the top 25% of its accepted pool, I am willing to prove it to them.</p>
<p>^It's not about being "as good as" accepted students. Clearly, the students who were accepted had DIFFERENT things in their application that appealed to Wash U. The fact that many waitlistees had higher grades/test scores is irrelevant and meaningless. That evidently isn't how Wash U measures "good"ness</p>
<p>you can't call good scores "meaningless." Otherwise those people would already be rejected for their "meaninglessness."</p>
<p>
[quote]
That isn't how Washu measures "good"ness.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And it isn't how a lot of other top colleges, including the Ivy pantheon, define "good"ness either. If you were able to peruse the piles of accepted, rejected, waitlisted applications from Yale, Stanford, Harvard, MIT, Brown, etc., you would find something very similar. Students who were waitlisted despite stellar grades, scores, accomplishments and personal characteristics. They don't have enough spots in the freshman class to take everyone who is qualified to be there so they look for other ways to make the selection among equally wonderful candidates. </p>
<p>Wonder123: Is Washu obligated in your mind to accept every one of the stellar candidates that apply, unlike the other top colleges who we all know turn away valedictorians and perfect SAT scorers left and right? </p>
<p>Why is Washu the one college that should be admitting every single one of the most outstanding candidates it receives? Even if two-thirds of them are applying for one particular career track....and even if that means the college would reject many other applicants it needs for its art school, its architecture school, it's humanities and languages programs, etc. In your mind, Washu and Washu alone is obligated to admit every one of the top students on its waitlist or else it is doing something wrong that needs to be investigated. Why?</p>
<p>And if you'll concede that the college isn't actually obligated to admit every single one of the outstanding applicants that apply, what criteria would you find acceptable for them to use to narrow the list. When is it okay by you for Washu to deny admittance to one of these stellar candidates? Or do they really have to admit every single one for Washu to be "right" with you?</p>
<p>
Perhaps they're confused about selectivity because WUStL doesn't release any useful admissions data. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>lol right...I've yet to see a CDS, which always looks funny to me.</p>