<p>Other top schools do reject good students, but they actively recruit the best ones.</p>
<p>Washu also recruits some of its most outstanding students by using its merit aid scholarships. Maybe they didn't pick your personal favorite "best one" to recruit, but that doesn't mean that recruiting of the best and brightest does not happen.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Aardvark,</p>
<p>WashU never make waitlist data for last year or the year before..etc available. How does "waiting a week or so" help? </p>
<p>If published data are available, there obviously wouldn't be any "discussion" here. But thanks to WashU, they aren't. We are therefore making an educated guess based on these limited data. And the "logical guess" is WashU's waitilist pool is unusually large. To guess otherwise is to completely disregard the data, albeit limited, we've seen.</p>
<p>I am not "making accusations against the University". I have said WashU's strategy (which is not proven beyond any doubt for WashU fans but for others, it's already proven beyond "reasonable doubt". LOL) is smart and different. I haven't made any moral judgement on this. So why are you so sensitive about it? Looks like you are one of those that think no school should play the game in such way. Is that why you keep telling people to remain neutral (sorry, with such kind of partial data--no reject and bunch of waitlists so far; it's hard not to make a guess) until we have all data?</p>
<p>Sam Lee: I don't think you understand. We don't have limited data we have very badly skewed data. Bad data . 22,000 applicants and nobody is rejected? I think after some of the rhetoric dies down and people start posting their rejections we might have a better picture. How can you calculate a rejection rate if the numerator is zero?</p>
<p>I also posted elsewhere that I think it is fine for them to play the game any way they want. I stated that if students can manipulate their statistics to look good to the school then the school certainly can play the same game without of protectong their yield also</p>
<p>
[quote]
22,000 applicants and nobody is rejected? I think after some of the rhetoric dies down and people start posting their rejections we might have a better picture. How can you calculate a rejection rate if the numerator is zero?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Avardvark,</p>
<p>I don't know what you are trying to say. I didn't calculate anything. I just said WashU waitlists unusually much larger numbers than others. I also didn't say they don't reject anyone. That so few (it doesn't really matter if it's 0 or 1 or 2) people got rejected and bunch of people are waitlisted just "proves" my point. That we had zero rejection on CC only means our data is more skewed; but it's so bad that you can turn around and say WashU's data is no different from others. I am sure there will be SOME rejections posted here soon. This is no different from last year or the year before for WashU; it stood out while other schools boards had more <em>normal</em> distribution of rejects/waitlists/admits.</p>