<p>... is active! I just got off it! Going in Sep.! :)</p>
<p>Congratulations!!! Woo hoo!!</p>
<p>Congratulations!!!</p>
<p>Looks like Midd accepted less kids this year and will use their WL heavily…</p>
<p>[College</a> admissions: The annual guessing game | The Burlington Free Press | Burlington, Vermont](<a href=“http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20100502/NEWS02/5020305/College-admissions-The-annual-guessing-game]College”>http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20100502/NEWS02/5020305/College-admissions-The-annual-guessing-game)</p>
<p>I’m not sure how you infered from that article that Midd will be using its WL heavily. I guess we’ll see.</p>
<p>The article stated that Midd purposed accepted LESS kids this year and EXPANDED their waitlist. Did I misread? To me, that seems to suggest an intention to go the the WL (and protect yield?)</p>
<p>All it says is that they accepted fewer (yes, it’s fewer rather than less when talking about individual items - just a pet peeve of mine) students, and that they put more applicants on the waiting list. This doesn’t mean that more kids will come off the WL. As I said though, I guess we’ll see.</p>
<p>^Haha, I actually knew that. I must’ve been tired when I posted. It’s a pet peeve of mine too – except on internet forums where grammar is lax for many many reasons. (My biggest non-net peeve is nauseous versus nauseated – that gets misused all the time). </p>
<p>Back to the article, yes, of course, it’s all speculation, but my sense is Midd is trying to protect their yield. And I don’t blame them. It’s a weird year.</p>
<p>Actually, after following all of this stuff and going back and forth to the common data sets of past years, I think the intention of accepting fewer students was to protect/control the yield and not end up with too big a class for whom they would then be unable to provide housing. Of course, one could also guesstimate that accepting fewer students (and possibly increasing their yield as a result) also helps them in their selectivity ratings in other ways as well. But with kids applying to 15 schools - many elite institutions among them - it definitely seems to be a moving target that magnifies itself yearly.</p>
<p>Does using the waiting list actually protect the yield rate??? Don’t colleges meet a fair number of rejections as they extend offers to waiting list applicants?? After all, some applicants do leave their names on multiple waiting lists and others have made their peace with going to their fallback school and decide not to change their minds again.</p>
<p>It’s my understanding that the admissions rep calls first to see if the wait-listee is still interested before making the formal offer. It doesn’t mean the yield will be 100%, but it does mean the yield coming off the wait list will be much higher.</p>
<p>Right, but those individuals who are waitlisted are not used in the calculations for acceptance rate or selectivity of any particular school. That number, as I understand it, is calculated by number of applications, number of acceptances. Yield is then determined by the number of those people who accept a spot in the class. Waitlist is another process entirely. However, it will be interesting to see whether or not 1) the number of students offered waitlist was considerably higher this year 2)if that indeed changed the number of students accepting a place on the waitlist and 3)the number of those coming off the waitlist is higher than the previous average of about 50. Won’t know the answers to any of those until the 2010-11 common data set comes out in the fall… and honestly? Will we even remember the question?</p>
<p>I don’t see how students admitted via the wait list can be excluded in calculating the yield rate. Perhaps the yield on acceptances extended to WL admittees is 60% instead of 40% (or so) but there should be a yield rate associated with applicants who are ultimately admitted through the WL.</p>
<p>Maybe, but if that’s true, why bother pre-screening?</p>
<p>BTW, I used to think the wait list wasn’t included, then I was told it was. Now I’m unsure. But really, why pre-screen?</p>
<p>There’s a logic to pre-screening - they need to move fast and would not want to waste time with an applicant who was ambivalent or no longer interested. In other words, they would be wasting time by giving an applicant who is no longer interested in coming off the list by giving him/her 24 hours to consider the offer (or 48-72 hours as some schools allow).</p>
<p>Hey Caesar,</p>
<p>How were you informed of this decision. Email?</p>
<p>S came off wait list last year-personal phone call from head of admissions(Mr. Clagett) and given 24 hours to decide.The call came around 5 pm.</p>
<p>My daughter got off the waitlist yesterday and was given 24 hours to decide, but then the follow-up e-mail directed her to decide by Monday AM. Be ready to make a quick decision. Good luck everyone.</p>
<p>Have any internationals been accepted off the waitlist?</p>
<p>Please pay extra attention to Emils’ post! I am really anxious about the waitlist decisions…</p>