<p>page 14 (in the magazine, not the pdf).</p>
<p>They flat out admit that they choose people to admit based on yield rate formulas. And what is honestly so wrong about that? Is it really so wrong for a school to want to make sure they end up with the correct number of students in the incoming class? Even last years class was overbooked in the bme department (we'll have to wait a few more months to find out about the class of 2012).</p>
<p>There is no yield protection here. JHU has one of THE strongest applicant pools in the world: 16,000+ applicants, 1200 places, 3,500 admits and a low yield (~25%). Further, based on SAT ranges, 1530 (CR+M) is the 75&ile so really nobody is over-qualified in this from what I can tell. </p>
<p>Tufts I believe, WashU I believe.</p>
<p>JHU I don't buy it.</p>
<p>With such a large number of qualified applicants a selective acceptance rate, all of this "Tufts Syndrome" talk seems to be a cop-out. I understand that you were all qualified to get in; but a LOT more people are qualified than they can accept. It's frustrating, but it's a fact. Maybe they needed a tuba player and you don't play the tuba. Or maybe they need to rebuild the soccer team and you don't play soccer. Or <em>maybe</em>, because admissions was so competitive (particularly this year), it's possible that they just didn't see something in you (which is not to say that an equally selective school wouldn't accept you; it's a school-by-school thing).</p>
<p>College, at the top schools, is a crapshoot among the highly qualified applicants. It's not all about GPA and SATs, which is how Naviance assesses applicants. By that logic, everyone with those scores should have gotten in, and JHU would have a horrifically large class. There are other factors that come into play (essays, teacher recs, ECs) and the fact is that at the end of the day, they can only accept so many amazing applicants.</p>
<p>All of this "I didn't get in because of Tufts Syndrome" talk just seems like a way of saying "I deserved to get in but the school thought I was too good and this is so unfair blah blah blah." Statistically, maybe you COULD have gotten in, but admissions doesn't just go for the highest numbers. And maybe they DID know you were good, but for other factors, chose not to take you. And that's not to say you're not a great applicant; but when there are more applicants than spaces, someone has to get rejected. It's as simple as that.</p>
<p>I'm trying not to sound cynical or bitter. It's just that all of this Tufts Syndrome talk (nonsense, in my opinion) is extremely frustrating and counterproductive. It's not that complicated. They just can't admit everyone. There are going to be a LOT of qualified people who come on here, got waitlisted, and cry "Tufts Syndrome" instead of just accepting that not everyone can get in everywhere.</p>
<p>^amen.......</p>
<p>1) JHU is need blind for American citizen applicants. It is NOT need blind for internationals and when going to the wait list. </p>
<p>2) If JHU were to really utilize "Tufts Syndrome" (quite the misnomer) it would pull heavily from the waitlist--it does not.</p>
<p>3) JHU practices holistic admissions. The admissions office prides itself on that. Hopkins could do things to up its yield, but chooses not to to create the best class for the school.</p>
<p>4) Complaining that you were waitlisted because the admissions officers felt you were "too good for the school" makes you sound conceited. Maybe that came across in the application, and thus you were waitlisted.</p>
<p>There are other, exogenous reasons for being waitlisted and rejected. At this point, however, no top schools have to yield protect because of the wealth of great applicants. Some still choose to, but JHU is not one of them.</p>