<p>Well let's put it this way, I see a similar pattern all of the top schools such as Satnford. It always seems different if you are the student. Having said that, all of the students who I know with really top stats got into the top schools including Wash U . You are just seeing the issue of "stats only" rejection frustration. What I mean is tha ,like at MIT somebody says "I had a 2350 and got deferred so I got screwed." The first reaction is that since their stats were higher than somebidy elses they deserved to get in. However the schools ,just like HYPS, have said it is just not stats---even MIT says this. Also because a lot of both successful and non successful candidates do not post there is a distorted picture. You would need to see the actual applications and know more about the numbers to understand what is going on. Certainly there had to have been a big increase in top stat and overall apps with a lot of folks throwing in their package. When they try to put together their "best class" given the parameters they have , geography etc there are going to be a lot of good candidates that do make it. I would assume that the actual admitted and matriculated stats will be pretty high just at they are at those top schools who seem to "reject every kid who has a 2400". It just seems that way.</p>
<p>My D got waitlisted too, and we looked at each other and said, "it just wasn't meant to be." She was accepted to Georgetown, likely letter from Chapel Hill out of state, and a legacy at an Ivy (so we won't know until the 29th).</p>
<p>She won't be joining the real waitlist. For others who might, though, I have read on other threads from years past that those who join the official waitlist at WashU may get calls for a January admission. There is a small group (35-40) who join that admission from the waitlist. Keep it in mind if you can't let go of WashU.</p>
<p>Although last year no one got off the waitlist.</p>
<p>I don't think people are upset that they themselves were waitlisted, I think it has to do with how many people they waitlist instead of flat-out reject</p>
<p>"Given the large number of those with big stats who just think they can throw in an app and consider it some sort of automatic or a sfety it is obvious there will be many unhappy folks. ... You are just seeing the issue of "stats only" rejection frustration. "</p>
<p>My response to this is that most of these "high-stat" kids probably worked their rear-ends off to achieve those "high stats." I'd also be willing to guess that many of kids are not simply one-dimensional (great testers) as has been implied here, but also have spectacular ECs, recs, grades, etc. So, of course they have a right to be unhappy/disappointed/disillusioned/confused, and even temporarily bitter at being waitlisted. They'll all get over it, but give them a break for the time being, OK?</p>
<p>"WUSTL looks for students with the highest abilities to succeed and it does a good job finding them."
This was simply offensive.</p>
<p>"WUSTL looks for students with the highest abilities to succeed and it does a good job finding them."
This was simply offensive.</p>
<p>Very offensive if i might add.</p>
<p>Hindoo: Of course you are right in what you say. But being dissappointed is different than accusing a school of intentionally waitlisting all of the overachievers or of having no ethics. That is not really fair either. Those who post/read this site and who apply to lots of top schools should know that not getting in is a reality and does not mean a student is not great nor that there is something wrong with the school. It just happens. There are that many good kids out there and too few slots for them.</p>
<p>Hmm, I guess I don't have the highest abilities to succeed</p>
<p>Well.. I was put on the waitlist. I think WUSTL put the majority of applicants on the waitlist that were not admitted. That's ridiculous if you ask me! I am from a well-respected high school located in the St. Louis region and Wash U admits numerous students from here. We had about 10 or 12 individuals admitted ED, and 3 admitted RD that I know of. The Olin business school sent out early notification letters to individuals last week, and when I didn't receive one, I knew that my destiny was fixed. Wash U admitted this COMPLETE idiot from my school, who had a 27 ACT score, limited extracurricular activities, complete slacker etc. His father went to Wash U and donated a lot of money, so I guess that's how you can get in... buy an admission. They also know that he won't rely on financial aid and daddy will pay his way for 4 years. I think they have taken a business outlook on admissions rather than evaluating and extending a premier educational experience to the most qualified applicants.</p>
<p>I do not want this message to be taken in an ill manor; I respect the vast majority of individuals admitted to WUSTL, since many are at the top of their class. The few exceptions to this notion are what really irks me. It is incomprehensible how individuals who have never taken a business course in high school or apply themselves in any endeavor can be placed among the academic elite at Olin.
I have been an active member in DECA, taken every business course my school offers, along with 8 AP's (3 between soph and junior years, scores of 4, 5, and 5). In addition, my ACT score was high, my recs were great, I have a 3.989 GPA (1 B+ in high school) and my essay was superb. In DECA, I have been the junior class president, the chapter president (over 153 members), and the MO DECA District 8 Vice-President (over 1,300 members). In DECA I also won at local, national, and international competitions in Financial Management, and coordinated a highly successful seatbelt and safety awareness campaign that raised over $4,000. If that can not get you into Wash U Olin Business School, then quite frankly I do not know what can. </p>
<p>I find it insulting that they put me on a wait list, because we all know that few will actually get in. Even if they do, financial assistance will be dried up by the call date. </p>
<p>I will NOT be filling out the wait list form, good luck to all the optimistists in this thread!</p>
<p>Yeah, you should have seen some of the kids I had in my classes who were accepted into Stanford versus those rejected. It often seemed inverse from what one thought it should be. Crap shoot?</p>
<p>not to discourage any of you guys who got waitlisted, but last year, WashU accepted almost no one from the wait list. We actually had over enrollment due to the fact that a large number of people accepted their acceptance. </p>
<p>That might change this year, i don't know. This is just a heads up that you can't bank on getting into WashU through the wait list.</p>
<p>Oldolddad--You are a voice of calm and reason. ... However, I'm willing to interpret angry rantings and not always rational accusations as a way of venting frustration--especially when the wound of being, basically, rejected is fresh and painful. (I would expect this to abate soon. If someone's still upset in a week or so, time to move on.) ... Most of the posters here probably understand the realities of admissions to very selective schools, but it still hurts to be perceived as "not good enough."</p>
<p>Okay guys let's think about this realistically. As I have said before, WashU is a brilliant marketer and they need to be. WashU is savvy to people like MallomarCookie who apply but are 110% sure that they will not attend. WashU knows that they are not HYPS..etc and that many top students throw an application into WashU because it's easy (common application) or they think it is a safety for them. Why should WashU waste a precious spot on these students who are most likely not going to attend? HYPS doesn't have that problem because they know that they get a very high yield from their acceptances because of their centuries old reputation and prestige. Top students don't get angry at HYPS when they don't get accepted, but somehow think that it is their "right" to get accepted to WashU because it is a notch below HYPS.</p>
<p>Of course WashU wants to keep up their rankings and statistics-- all schools do. And let's face it, WashU's ranking is the reason that most of these top students threw in their application to WashU in the first place. However, because of it's unique position in the marketplace (a top school which has only received its national recognition in the past two decades), WashU has to use different strategies to maintain it's rankings than HYPS..etc. WashU is smart, and they need to be.</p>
<p>As for waitlisting versus rejecting, why should people be so angry or insulted about that. Everyone knows that being on a waitlist for a top school is always a long shot and that you have to move on and plan accordingly. WashU waitlists more applicants than many schools because they are in this unique position of being second choice for many top students and therefore get a larger pool of "qualified,but not likely to attend "applicants than most.</p>
<p>RESPECT - that is what is lost with extreme marketing schemes. </p>
<p>Example (CC decision threads to date) -
WUSTL RD: 36 acceptances, 49 waitlists, 0 rejects
Rice ID: 43 acceptances, 4 deferred, 4 rejects</p>
<p>Both highly ranked schools, a step down from the big boys, both offer significant merit aid to attract top students. One seems to have more guts and less concern for the rankings in their decision process.</p>
<p>I personally will be watching RD's for other similar schools to see what their acceptance/WL/deny ratios are. It's legal and smart, but do other schools do it? The numbers will tell.</p>
<p>See how WashU fans (parents usually) get all defensive? It just underlies the insecurity they have (just like WashU showing its sense of insecurity in its waitlist practice).</p>
<p>oldolddad,</p>
<p>Where did I say it's not selective? I am just saying the practice they are employing is making them even more selective. Maybe they would still be more selective than Northwestern (thanks for bringing my school up for no relevant reason) even if they don't play this game (then maybe they don't need to even bother to play this game; they can be confident about themselves, can't they?). It's funny to argue with you because you really don't know what my point was and keep going off tangent.</p>
<p>Did I even say it's unethical? I said it's "playing smart"! So I just explained the rationale behind the Wash"s unusual practice. What's wrong with that?</p>
<p>Why is a flat out rejection better than a waitlist? If you get rejected, you have no chance of going; if you get waitlisted, you at least have a chance (even if it's small). For any student who actually WANTS to attend the school, being on the waitlist should be better than being rejected even if it takes longer to ultimately receive closure. With many of the posters here, it seems like a rejection would somehow better stroke one's ego than being put on the waitlist. This makes absolutely no sense.</p>
<p>Another word on the waitlist: whether WashU is just using the waitlist as a means to increase its yield and by proxy its ranking has been debated to death on here. I don't necessarily think they do that, but let's put that aside for a second. WashU has very real and legitimate reasons to use the waitlist the way that it does. Case in point: way too many freshmen enrolled for the 2006-2007 school year, and it's probably because WashU admitted more students than usual and/or there was a slightly better yield. As a result, there was a big housing problem. Being a current sophomore here, I know first hand because several of the people that I was going to potentially room with this year had to be split up and were ultimately screwed in one way or another. They turned a whole dorm building that was before reserved for upperclassmen into freshman housing, many other people were ultimately given "incentives" to move off campus, and I've even heard (unconfirmed) stories of Residential Life putting three people in double rooms.</p>
<p>WashU needs the flexibility that comes with liberal use of the waitlist to prevent things like this from happening. In this case, they weren't all that successful (in my opinion, an even larger waitlist would have helped curb this disaster), but the other extreme where the yield is lower one year for some reason could have certainly happened. In that case, it's easy to see the advantage of the waitlist. It's hard to predict these situations, and the waitlist is just another tool that the school can use to deal with unforeseen circumstances. Indeed, we don't "all know that few will actually get in" from the waitlist - these things could vary from year to year.</p>
<p>its smart of them to do, it just ****es a lot of people off - are they gonna fill their class? yeah... but along the way, are a lot of the top applicants who got ticked off by Wash U not going to accept theri admission of the waitlist... probably...</p>
<p>
RESPECT - that is what is lost with extreme marketing schemes. </p>
<p>Example (CC decision threads to date) - WUSTL RD: 36 acceptances, 49 waitlists, 0 rejects Rice ID: 43 acceptances, 4 deferred, 4 rejects
These numbers don't mean anything. You can't just pull numbers out of a thread on one forum and say, "this is how it is everywhere." I mean, Rice only has 4 rejections there? and 4 deferred? Obviously these statistics are meaningless.</p>
<p>
[quote]
As for waitlisting versus rejecting, why should people be so angry or insulted about that. Everyone knows that being on a waitlist for a top school is always a long shot and that you have to move on and plan accordingly.
[/quote]
There is nothing wrong with a waitlist, provided it is used correctly. A small waitlist can fill in the gaps. As the Philadelphia Inquirer put it, We could rank them based on trying to diversify our freshman class. We could rank them based on trying to fill undersubscribed majors," said Edwin Wright, a director of admissions. "There's a lot of ways we can really manipulate a wait list." Other possible factors include gender balance, an ability to pay tuition with minimal financial aid from the school, and personal connections to professors, trustees, or other influential campus denizens. Perhaps the only variable wait-listed students can control is demonstrating their continued interest in the school.</p>
<p>Such a waitlist is reasonable and fulfills its function of filling spaces. MIT admitted 30 students off the waitlist last year by May 9, quickly notifying the others that they would not be given a place at MIT. WUStL, on the other hand, can wait to make decisions as late as the end of June.
<a href="http://www.studlife.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticlePrinterFriendly&uStory_id=d8db3bf7-6601-4d2c-8edd-e70f7f04c9fb%5B/url%5D">http://www.studlife.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticlePrinterFriendly&uStory_id=d8db3bf7-6601-4d2c-8edd-e70f7f04c9fb</a></p>
<p>The problem is when a college waitlists hundreds of applicants knowing that it admitted no students off the waitlist the year before and a maximum of 23 in the last 10 years. Considering the zeal with which WUStL protects its admissions data, how many waitlisted applicants have an accurate idea of their virtually nil chances?</p>
<p>Confabulator, you have to admit that over half of the decisions being waitlists (zero rejections) means something. Sure, it isn't a representative random sample or whatever, but there's obviously something going on.</p>