<p>the interview, the essays...if the student doesn't feel genuine, or is just not a good match for the school, that's how they can tell. Also if you've visited or not, etc.</p>
<p>First, I'm not ready to believe that WashU waitlisted all or even most of the people it would have rejected otherwise based on the accounts of the self-selected group of students on this message board. I will give you, however, that there seems to be more on the waitlist this year than previous years.</p>
<p>So, takeme2cali, your argument assumes that WashU waitlisted hordes of people that it knows are not qualified to attend the school. How do you know that WashU wouldn't gladly accept each and every person on the waitlist if it had the chance? Judging from posts on this board, WashU actually waitlists some pretty qualified people. A large group will obviously be rejected in the end, but WashU probably does not yet know which portion of the waitlist that will end up being. It's going to largely depend on the number of people that accept admission offers and on the makeup of that group that accepts. As you said before, WashU is keeping it's options open, and I still hold that this is a good thing.</p>
<p>As far as students knowing where they stand, if I'm a student that wants to go to WashU, I think that being on a waitlist is still better than the closure of a rejection. A bigger waitlist gives more students that want to attend the school that extra option. See my points about it being up to the student to determine whether he wants to go through the feelings of not knowing where he stands - if he wants closure so much, he has the option to not accept the invitation to the waitlist. Having a larger waitlist may not give an individual person as good of a chance at getting off of it, but to be honest, RD admissions was largely a crapshoot in the first place.</p>
<p>I will reiterate what has been said by Jeffwun (a current WashU student) on another thread:</p>
<p>Housing is a major issue on campus. Due to overenrollment last year (and I believe the year before) and the fact that WashU guarantees housing for freshman and does not want to keep forcing its current students off campus, it will keep a close eye on the number of students that matriculate to control the situation. The extreme use of the waitlist this year seems to be a result of the situation, though it will also help the school's ranking (yield), which could and probably is another motivator.</p>
<p>I seriously, truly mean no offense, eleph, but I feel like so much of that "school's personality" stuff is.... well, quite frankly, bull. Maybe it's just me who likes to believe an admissions committee isn't going to glean intimate details about my personality from a paper application, or that I'm not such a stiff-ass ***** to be uncomfortable in WashU's reported warm, friendly atmosphere... but I don't think these students were being passed over because WashU didn't want folks like 'em on campus. </p>
<p>If WashU or Harvard or whoever only accepted students they felt fit a certain mold (that coincided, naturally, with the school's alleged "personality"), they'd find that the school would inherit a rather bland atmosphere in the end. WashU is a diverse, fun institution -- as far as I can discern -- and I don't think they would try and restrict their admit pool to applicants with a certain personality. After all, part of college's allure is that you'll be mixed in with a bunch of different people.</p>
<p>In so many other places on the WUSTL forum, the argument has been made that, in fact, Wash U is just as good as those ancient, stuff Ivy Leagues (a point, btw, which I am perfectly willing to believe). Why then would they be so different in who they admitted? I really don't think a WashU student would be out of place at Stanford or w/e... and it works the other way around.</p>
<p>Basically, in my odd, convulted way... I'm trying to say, eleph, that you're discounting these HYPS admits waitlisted at WashU as pompous teenagers who lack "genuine compassion" and will not "contribute anything." In my opinion, a very unfair assumption.</p>
<p>brand_182,</p>
<p>Actually, they waitlisted tons of people last year also when there was no over-enrollment the year before. But now this practice apparently can be used to deal with over-enrollment also.</p>
<p>missuspeel - I can understand that point of view, but I do think there is a specific person for some universities. Sure there are general qualities that all schools want and they do look for diversity, but you must also remember that they are molding a class. It may simply be that the school already has admitted a number of students that are extremely similar to you (on paper at least) and they feel one of those coveted spots should go to a substantially different person. And in the case of WashU, I think there is a certain type of student: very smart, friendly, outgoing - though of course, many could argue that those traits should belong to any top school admit. I've actually only found a few schools where fit is such a big issue - among them, Wesleyan University. ;)</p>
<p>Sam Lee - Yes, I was aware of that and am sure that, like last year, there are certainly alterior motives.</p>
<p>What is tons. I guess it depends on the average weight per person. How many?</p>
<p>oldolddadd,</p>
<p>Look at last year's RD's thread; I am sure you can find it.</p>
<p>Sam::
<a href="http://www.admissions.caltech.edu/%5B/url%5D">http://www.admissions.caltech.edu/</a></p>
<p>"Caltech received a total of 3594 applications. We have made offers of admission to 576 students and have offered a place on our waiting list to 315 students."</p>
<p>Let's see if you scale that up it would be 2000 on a wait list for WashU. So is WashU so out of whack on wait list numbers even it they were 1000 as you speculate? Do you think the Caletch waitlist would be "underqualified" kids compared to the "over qualified" ones on the WashU list? I think not. The only difference is that they are part of HYPSMC which means it is okay for them right?</p>
<p>Oh yeah.Olin. 1056 Apps, 100 admits, 30 waitlisted. Scale that up and you are up to 650 or more which may be close to what Wash U is this year and that's at a school who has a 70% yield rate and a lot of crossovers with MIT and Cal Tech. I think cressmom also talked about the Cornell approach.</p>
<p>You might also want to go to the Michigan site where people are saying nobody gets rejected only deferred or are complaining about being rejected or deferred with outstanding stats compared to others who got in. I guess Michigan does not want to take those any top folks either.</p>
<p>The numbers from Rice reported on this messageboard are so clearly meaningless that I have to wonder why you posted them. 84% acceptance rate from those numbers, as opposed to 25% actually admitted in general. The numbers are skewed because people are a lot less likely to admit being rejected then they are to being admitted. </p>
<p>The bottom line is that no one would be offended by being rejected, and WashU isn't even their top choice. Why everyone feels entitled to acceptance at a school they don't even want to go to is beyond me.</p>
<p>Thank you confabulator for saying it so well. </p>
<p>When you read through these threads it does seem as if the ones who complain the most are the ones who just used WashU as a "back-up" and are upset that after having gotten accepted to other even more elite schools, they can't turn down WashU, because WashU didn't accept them! </p>
<p>The posts of the people who really did want to go to WashU are less bitter. These kids don't blame WashU for not accepting them, they are just dissapointed. Also,most of them prefer being waitlisted than rejected (even if the waitlist is huge) because it gives them some hope and opportunity to contact the school, send them more grades and accomplishments, and let WashU know how much they want to attend.</p>
<p>The point is not washu put many people on waitlist. The point is that many studnets on waitlist are much better than accepted ones. Wash U tries to compete with IVY schools, but does not show any confidence at all on itself. When many students who are clear candidates for Harvard or Stanford are waitlisted.</p>
<p>Wash U should make it clear to these top students, "if you are a clear candidate for Harvard or Stanford, you have to demonstrate to us you will matriuclate at Wash U once admitted, or you should not apply"</p>
<p>Is it possible that we are beginning to see the backlash from top tier kids applying to upwards of 15 colleges? Half of them they really aren't interested or knowledgable about anyway? A couple of thoughts on this -
Yes, I do think it seems as though WashU has put an outrageous number of kids on the waitlist - the next backlash may be on them. But let the numbers fall out a little so you can see the WHOLE picture. Not easy to do right now.
Too many applicants have all applied to too many of the same schools. A lot of overlap by both the schools and students. I noticed on a few threads that many of the schools accepted the same students.<br>
Nothing new in these musings, to be sure-but it's obvious that there are issues on both sides.<br>
Kids don't know where they'll get in, not even (and sometimes especially) the kids with the highest stats - so they apply everywhere, and feel so let down by a rejection or waitlist from a school they say was not even in their top 5!
The schools are more than likely hard pressed to predict which students are likely to attend. Even 'showing' interest has become part of the dog and pony show.<br>
This can all turn quickly into the scenario that is being debated above. Low admit and rejection rates, and huge waitlists. It's becoming a viscious circle, and IMHO, it's fueled by USNWR, schools and students. Yup, all three.</p>
<p>"The point is not washu put many people on waitlist. The point is that many studnets on waitlist are much better than accepted ones."</p>
<p>Wonder123, How do you know that? Do you have in hand all the applications?</p>
<p>Hmm a clear candidate for Harvard or Stanford? Places with out of ten acceptances? Sounds about like considering WashU a safety. You obviously do not know how many "clear candidates for HYPES" have been accepted by WashU. Any confidence in itself ? 22000 or more applicants. Lots of top one's. Seems they know what they are doing. Why is it when HYPS turns down a top candidates because they are "looking at the whole person and building a class" it is okay. But when that midwest school does it they have no self confidence. </p>
<p>I agree with the earlier poster. Any kid who works his/her butt off and applies to a school he/she really loves and wants to go to and then does not get in....that is who my heart goes out to.</p>
<p>I do not have a complete picture, but I do know very top students are waitlisted and students with lower quality are accepted, unless Harvard, Yale, Stanford and Duke admission offices are all stupid, or those schools do not get enough applicants so that they have to accepted students waitlisted by washu. Actually those schools have lower admission rates than washu.</p>
<p>Nikrud: Nice comments and I think spot on.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The point is that many students on waitlist are much better than accepted ones.
[/quote]
That doesn't make much sense. If the accepted students were indeed of a lower caliber, WUStL would likely be the most selective college to which they were admitted. According to studies, most of them would matriculate. WUStL's low yield (32%) says otherwise. Especially considering that the 32% includes the bound ED admits!</p>
<p>reiterating what was said above</p>
<p>i have a 2250, 33, siemens-westinghouse, JSHS, IMSA
i have been accepted to two straight medical programs
i know a kid who has a 2350, 35, intel, and was accepted into MIT</p>
<p>Me and him were waitlisted by wash U. I was wondering why... I found out from my CAC that</p>
<p>Wash U wait lists people who they feel won't go to their school because 1) the students have better schools on their list 2) the students stats are too good
Wash U fears rejection by students. </p>
<p>Wash U pays attention to race and financial status as well. If there is a rich white kid and a poor Asian kid with the same stats, the rich white kid will probably get in</p>
<p>You can't just cite SAT, ACT stats and ECs and say that every student with these high scores and accomplishments should be, must be, accepted into every school they apply to or something is wrong. You says? The colleges decide how to shape the freshman class based on the needs of its particular institution --- washu has an architecture school, an art school, a special humanities program, other unique programs also wishing the best students for its area and of course, there's the engineering program and the sought after medical and pre-med programs. There's a limit to the number of stellar students that are going to be accepted at any school and washu is no different.</p>
<p>My friend this.... someone in my school that.... You can't look at these applicants in a vacuum, looking only at stats. </p>
<p>What high school were they from? What state or part of the country? Male or female? What major programs were they expressing interest in? How much interest did they show in attending washu (yes, that is a legitimate consideration for an adcom)? What is the family background for diversity reasons (first to go to college, etc.) What ethnic background (private colleges can pick and choose on this basis)? What ECs does the student have and seem likely to pursue and contribute to the campus? Did the univ want to admit more international students this year? More athletes? More musicians or more literature buffs? </p>
<p>I don't believe that washu is obligated to give every highly qualified student a yes-award to put in their trophy case when it might be quite clear that the college is not that student's first or even second choice.</p>