<p>for me it's more of the problem that they decided to keep everyone as backup... to keep them hanging on...
and there is no distinction between those who would be outright rejects at these top schools or who's borderline, or even mostly in.
They shouldn't "lead so many people on" so to speak for their own selfish benefit.
It's inconsiderate to their applicants.</p>
<p>I can't agree more with you on this. It is very offensive!!!!</p>
<p>Thanks, Warblersrule86, for the interesting citation from the Philadelphia Inquirer. It makes the whole waitlist thing somewhat easier to understand (at least for me). Someone can be very accomplished and extremely smart, but with so many similarly high-achieving applicants to a top-level school, if one's demographics are not quite right, one can easily find oneself waitlisted. It's not necessarily a slap in the face or an indication that you are somehow inferior or unwanted. Gender, ethnicity, academic interests, geographic location, etc., all apparently play a part in this. Too many girl applicants--you're waitlisted. From an over-represented geographic location--waitlisted. Too many English majors--waitlisted. As somebody said earlier on this thread, it's kind of a crapshoot as to who gets in and who gets waitlisted. Doesn't seem entirely fair, but there it is. I believe a relatively small number of Wash U. admissions officers review some 22,000-plus applications in a relatively short period of time, most of those applications being from very good-to-superb students. It's got to be a tough job, and inconsistent, sometimes questionable decisions are undoubtedly made. ... On the positive side, I'm absolutely certain that most of the brilliant, disappointed waitlisters on this thread will end up next fall at a school they love--and that will love them back.</p>
<p>Confab,
Nice how you conveintly left out the rest of my post which stated that I'll be looking at RD's coming up in the next couple of weeks to see what the WL ratio looks like for other schools. I also like how you state that I say: "this is how it is everywhere", (your quotes) when I never said those words or anything like them. Makes me wonder about YOUR ethics.</p>
<p>As far as taking numbers from threads, I'm not declairing a statistical analysis, just showing the numbers. I'll also look at the Common Data Set and see what the numbers like there.</p>
<p>The idea that WashU is leading anyone on "for their own selfish benefit" is pretty ridiculous to me. I've never seen a waitlist letter, but unless WashU is deliberately making it seem like the person has a very good chance of being admitted from the waitlist, I don't think there is a huge problem. A valid criticism may be that WashU isn't doing enough to give students a realistic picture of their chances (i.e. they should say "Historically, we've only admitted [blank] number of people from the waitlist."), but most people here seem to be entirely decrying the use of the waitlist itself. </p>
<p>In any case, if you feel led on by being on the waitlist, that's not because of anything WashU is doing; that is because of you. WashU doesn't keep anyone "hanging on," but rather the students that choose to go on the waitlist do that to themselves. Only the potential student can decide what being on the waitlist at one school means for their overall personal school selection process. If you want to interpret it as an outright reject for the purposes of moving on and choosing a different school, that is your choice. If you want to interpret it as an invitation to fight for admission at that school by sending letters and making phone calls professing your love for that school, that is also your choice. By inviting you to be on the waitlist, WashU is only giving you another option and another thing to think about. However, they are not forcing you to add this complicating factor to your school selection process. You have the choice to reject your spot on the waitlist, so you are always in control.</p>
<p>"If you want to interpret it as an invitation to fight for admission at that school by sending letters and making phone calls professing your love for that school, that is also your choice."</p>
<p>Thank you for saying that. I am more than grateful to be put on the waitlist. I'd would much rather hang on and fight for my admission than be flat out rejected. I'm not at all offended because I was put on the waitlist.</p>
<p>I find it personally offensive to be deemed of lower academic value than a student who does nothing impressive during their high school career, short of getting plastered every weekend! In the end, everything will work out. I plan on attending Saint Louis University, on a full-ride scholarship, in the fall. While Wash U may have the better environment, SLU has a more communal feel, bringing with it the true college experience. I would rather have fun while learning than be stressed. I only feel sorry that I wasted $55.00 on such an institution. This may sound scornful, but I do not think my reasoning is unjustified. Good luck to everyone in college!</p>
<p>Great attitude, cowtipper1! </p>
<p>TMD--You'll make what you will of your education, whether it's at Wash U. or Saint Louis University. (To me it would be a no-brainer: full ride at one, debt through the nose at the other!) The stress factor is also a very important consideration that I haven't seen mentioned here before.</p>
<p>Like Brown, Duke (as reported by Dan Golden's book) and other private elite schools, WashU gives a small number of borderline "developmental" admits whose parents donate a substantial amount of money. The large sum of money will benefit all students on campus, keeping WashU in the highly competitive game.</p>
<p>Sorry, the above comments were directed to TMD. :)</p>
<p>soulturtle...
notice that the point of my previous post was not to criticize the use of the waitlist, but rather the fact that washU decided to keep pretty much everyone who wasn't accepted on the waitlist. It is the fact that they want to have all those options for the back up group that they will draw from which bothers me, to ensure that whatever happens, they will have eager people wanting to matriculate.</p>
<p>and for the record, I do intend to take myself off the waitlist so I won't be competing with someone who is thrilled at the idea that s/he is backup for WashU.</p>
<p>takeme2cali, the point of that post still seems to be that WashU shouldn't lead anyone on, and that's what my previous post was about. But you do raise another important issue in your next post. </p>
<p>Why does WashU having these "options" bother you? And if you're not criticizing the idea of a waitlist itself, why should how big the waitlist is really matter? In fact, if being on the waitlist is better than an outright rejection (as I claim), a bigger waitlist might even be better because it gives more students the chance to appeal to WashU to admit them. More students that really want to go to WashU might get a second chance (even if it is a very small chance) and WashU gets more flexibility in creating the best and most enthusiastic class it possibly can. As a student here, I will have a much better experience if surrounded by excellent students that want to attend this school, so I'm all for WashU exercising all of these "options." Seems like a win-win to me.</p>
<p>I agree that this waitlist is definitely a plus for those who really really really want this acceptance. Yet, isn't the point of a waitlist to let some applicants know that they are good enough to be part of the class, but there is simply not enough room? My problem is that the fact that EVERYONE who wasn't accepted was waitlisted diminishes this idea. It is clear that in the end, a large group of people will be rejected. Why not just reject those who aren't quite as qualified to begin with, so that those who truly were the "waitlisted" can feel like they are fighting a battle that they have a chance at, and those who are rejected will obtain the closure they need to move on. Right now, nobody quite knows where they stand in the applicant pool because the range of waitlisted varies so much.</p>
<p>Being waitlisted by Wash U can be either good or bad. You either do not meet Wash U's standard, or you may have high chance to be accepted by an IVY or other top schools.</p>
<p>Wonder123 - but here's the puzzling thing to me... how does one know if he/she does not meet WashU's standard or if he/she has a high change to be accepted by other top schools?</p>
<p>I guess what i'm trying to say is... I don't know if this is either good or bad...</p>
<p>Well, this is difficult to judge. If you talk to Wash U, they are likely to tell you your assay is not good or your recommendation letter is not good enough. those two are subjective things.</p>
<p>If you guys haven't figured it out yet, it's not wholly based on your SAT scores or GPA. Sure, you could be valedictorian of your extremely competitive high school. But if it comes across that you are going to be someone who's not going to contribute to the vibrance of the WashU community (and/or you don't even want to go to WashU or consider it "sub-standard"), they're not going to accept you. Sure, you have good studying skills and test-taking skills, but when compared to another student of similar stats, but who also has a genuine compassion for the ideas of the school, and will get involved in the wide range and breadth of the extracurriculars of the school, they're going to take the latter student every time.</p>
<p>eleph, are you saying that Stanford admission is stupid or they do not have enough applicants to chose from? Or the applicant pool is so poor that they have to give an early notification to someone who is waitlisted by Wash U?</p>
<p>no, I'm just saying that each admissions committee is different, and views applicants differently. Also the "personality" of Stanford, and what makes the candidate a good fit (regardless of stats) is quite different from say the "personality" of WashU, and that's what it boils down to. The student probably is a better fit at Stanford, Stanford recognized it, and very smartly admitted them, whereas WashU realized that the student would probably be happier elsewhere (as they did not perhaps fit the WashU "personality" (or whatever, the word escapes me)), and did not....or something like that.</p>
<p>The question is, even though these students can get into Stanford, Harvard or any other school they may choose to apply to, how does Wash U know these students do not put Wash U on top of the list? My child was denied merit scholarship by Wash U, that was a surprise to me, but I felt there is a chance that my child is not good enough. However, waitlist is not reasonable. If Wash U does not accept this kind of students, I wonder why Wash wastes its money and student's precious time to apply to it. Simply to increase its applicant number and increase its yield? it is outragous!</p>