<p>I'm seeing a LOT of people waitlisted... I was waitlisted too. I'm relatively sure it was due at least in part to a snafu in my application regarding my transcript not getting there- they closed my application without letting me know it was missing, I raised a fuss, and they opened it again after I sent it in immediately, but this was even after kids had been notified of scholarships and stuff. Not surprised, and not worried about it either... for those of you who really want to go, good luck, and I won't take up a place on the list so you can get a better chance at it!</p>
<p>mwahaha, I was expecting a rejection
This is great</p>
<p>whoaa, my 1600/2360 valedictorian 4.0 gpa friend got waitlisted. what kind of ppl actually get in?</p>
<p>WUSTL is crazy. Period.</p>
<p>
[quote]
whoaa, my 1600/2360 valedictorian 4.0 gpa friend got waitlisted. what kind of ppl actually get in?
[/quote]
As WUStL parents have said, adcoms must think that kind of student wouldn't fit in at WUStL. Make of that what you will. ;)</p>
<p>warbler: parents have said kids like this have gotten in---but not all.</p>
<p>Warbler - many kids with excellent statistics like this have gotten in (my D for one!) What you don't describe is the "extra" element - which may be the very thing that differentiates the accepted students from the waitlisted. By this, I don't mean to imply that your friend doesn't have EC's or other qualifications, simply that they may not be the ones that Wash U is looking for this year. My D is so much more than her statistics. Given that most who apply have great stats, Wash U then undoubtedly looks for students who present a certain package (not necessarily a better one - just one that suits the school). This year, they were probably looking for girls from our part of the country who were active in my D's kinds of activities. The problem with all of the people who are complaining is that they just aren't looking at the total picture. The stats don't say it all.</p>
<p>I disagree to some extent. Perfect scorers have an admit rate around 40% at Princeton and 50% at MIT. Sure, colleges look for fit...but high numbers don't hurt. </p>
<p>As for the "total picture," that's true. In fact, I've said similar things when people complain on AA threads. Stanford's president put it best:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Few would argue for a formulaic admissions process, especially when the relationship between the elements of the formula and success at Stanford is unclear. So, how does the University make fair decisions about who gets in when such judgments must entail some amount of subjectivity? </p>
<p>In a general way, our goal seems quite simple: we look for students who have excelled academically. In this regard, to quote the Stanford Bulletin, we envision a student body "whose abilities, intellectual interests, and personal qualities will allow them to benefit from and contribute to the University's wide range of teaching and research programs in the humanities, sciences, and engineering." Further, to paraphrase Dean Mamlet, we are obligated to search for a student body that will, as a whole, use the University in its entirety, rather than engaging some disciplines while neglecting others. Likewise, we value students with a highly developed skill in one area, as well as students with a broad academic portfolio. </p>
<p>There are other factors, of course, including athletics, artistic or musical talent, legacy considerations and a desire for a broadly diverse student body. </p>
<p>The cornerstone of the selection process is individual consideration for each applicant. Objective data such as test scores and gpas, as well as less quantifiable achievements, are all part of the larger picture. The result is an admissions process that relies on an intense commitment of the admissions staff to read and analyze the strengths of every single applicant. Although I would not claim that this process is perfect, I believe it is about as good as an imperfect system gets. </p>
<p>In closing, I cite the story of a young man, the son of an alumna, who was denied admission to Stanford many years ago. He was disappointed, but he pursued undergraduate and master's study at a fine public institution. He then applied--and was admitted--to a PhD program at Stanford. He went on to become a highly respected teacher in his field and, eventually, a professor at Stanford. That young man, John Etchemendy, is now the provost of Stanford. </p>
<p>The college you attend does not determine the scope and possibility of your life's achievements. It will have some influence, no doubt. What is more important is the encouragement and support that we, as parents and friends, offer these prospective students as they explore their own educational trail. In the end, the experiences they encounter and the depth of character they build along the way will mean far more than the name of the institution on their diploma.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>i think my friend was overqualified. He is literally the president of every club. plays sports. nothing lower than a A all through highschool. the guidance counsellor is baffled as well. do you think washington univerisity found out that he applied to four top notch ivy league schools?</p>
<p>i don't think that makes much of a difference if he applied to the ivies since i initially applied to four as well and i got in to washu.</p>
<p>Having read this thread after being accepted, I have a few thoughts:</p>
<p>1) I understand how those on the waitlist feel slighted, but, at the same time, don't slight those who were accepted. Every year, Yale accepts students that Harvard rejects, Princeton waitlists applicants that Stanford admitted early, etc. The point is that all of this plays into a terrible truth in college admissions: the process is not objective. </p>
<p>2) Stellar test scores do not guarantee admission, nor does a demonstrated interest (although both certainly help). And let's face it, who would want to attend a college where the only requirement was a perfect SAT score? Not a very interesting place. </p>
<p>3) And I really really really don't understand why people can assume they were waitlisted because they were overqualified/the admission committee thought they wouldn't matriculate. I told my interviewer from Wash U that I was also considering Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Brown, but that if I was admitted to Wash U, I would consider it along with all my other options because I don't put stock in magazine rankings. For me, that was the truth, and my interviewer actually seemed impressed by it.</p>
<p>clap, clap, clap, clap...like the commercial.lol </p>
<p>-But i agree with the points you made.</p>
<p>Taking about college admissions, everybody was surprised that the valedictorian, 2400 SAT, perfects math scores, violin virtuoso, with many national and international awards was waitlisted by MIT and deferred by Yale. This very intelligent kid said to them that he wasn?t surprised at all, he perfectly knew that he was applying to top schools and he never sub estimated the other applicants. He said: ? Everybody knows the process of the 21st century college admission, for that reason we are applying to many colleges aiming to the top ones. There is no surprise at all, surprise it?s knowing that Sanjaya Malakar is still running for the best American Idol!?</p>
<p>Let me give y'all some advice: Chill. I am a professional. I went to an "average" private college and did extremely well. I got into a prestigious law school and never looked back. My undergrad days were "wonderful beyond belief" in terms of quality of professors and quality of life. Too many focus on "status" and then measure their own self worth by the status of their undergraduate school. Dont forget, grad school looms for most of you.</p>
<p>Second, WashU is no different from any other school. Its a game no matter where you apply and its so because of the sheer numbers involved. Admissions officers arent evil, they are just overwhelmed and have to make big decisions. WashU is one of the most friendly places on the planet. I know of stories from my kid's friends who say a dork got into an Ivy and a brilliant kid got wait listed at Chapel Hill or Duke or UVa. I personally know dorks who got into and graduated Harvard Law and Stanford Law. Idiots. Fools.</p>
<p>Most CEO's come from state schools. Fact. So get over yourselves and be glad you have had the results in high school, the grades, SAT/ACT, rank and all of life's blessings. MILLIONS never get that chance.</p>
<p>Colleges dont want clones of Johnny and Suzie A student. They want a healthy environment full of diversity of race, culture, religion, socio-economics, cultural interests etc. Its their school and their money and they can do what they want, within the law. Its not personal, its just business.</p>
<p>It is painful to get rejected or waitlisted at your favorite schools. But you will get over it. And this time next year, if you are a mature person as you application to college suggested you are, you will have moved on and have assimilated at the college you ultimately attend.</p>
<p>WashU is a phenomenal school. Mistakes or quirks are made in EVERY admissions office of EVERY school in the USA EVERY year. </p>
<p>If you dont want to be on the wait list, politely decline (you dont know if your siblings want to apply there or if you will apply to their grad school..so THINK before run your smart mouth...they have a long memory.)</p>
<p>I wish you all the best. I went to "average" private college and I would NOT trade those days for ANY money in the world. I can still do an incredible impersonation of some of my favorite professors...some of whom are STILL THERE 30 years later.</p>
<p>God Bless. Gone fishin'</p>
<p>Catfishin' that's very good advice, except for those of us who are in unusual situations in which we don't get to choose where we go.
It just hurts a lot when everyone around you is making choices and you're left in the dust. You see?
I agree it won't matter in 20 years, but it matters now, especially since college seems like the thing on everybody's mind at this age. When people, adults, students, hairdressers...EVERYONE, asks you about your plans for the future or whatever...it just plain hurts that you're not going to be partaking in the joy a lot of other students are able to have. It just seems like four years wasted, esp. when a lot of other students who frankly didn't work as hard as you, (aka partied all weekend, showed up to school w/o their homework, etc.) are ending up in the same place you are.</p>