<p>You ppl still havn’t answered the question: Is BC suffering from Tufts Syndrome/Yield Protection?</p>
<p>PS. Cornell and Penn are not less prestigious…</p>
<p>^^This thread is ~2 years old. But just know that ALL colleges care about yield. (Even Harvard which hates to lose students to Yale or Stanford or Princeton.) As a result, they are more likely to favor students who fit their admissions “profile” – however that is defined.</p>
<p>
Tufts Syndrome is way overblown on CC. You’d have to be way above the accepted pool for this to happen. Your academic stats from other threads, however, are right around the median for BC accepted students (you also have great ECs, but not enough to make you too good for BC imo).</p>
<p>Dear Iheartschool12, bluebayou, and dunbar : Something interesting to consider with respect to yield calculations - my sources inside admissions mentioned this year that with 33,000 applications (and increase of 10%) and the still fixed admissions target of 2,250 slots, acceptances figured to be between 6,500 and 7,500 applications. It would take hundreds of applications to change the yield percentages in any meaningful way - which is precisely why schools dealing with these types of numbers are not exercising “yield protection”.</p>
<p>bluebayou has this story pegged correctly; the discussion is about academic profile and academic/environmental fit rather than yield protection. Let’s offer this example : students who have 2250 on their three-way SAT exams, great GPAs, and such are being rejected or deferred; when you read their profiles, similar rejections/deferrals are being seen within the Boston College cohort schools. Surely not all of these schools are practicing yield protection in concert against a single candidate. The issue is related to the application himself/herself, not a university based yield protection attribute.</p>
<p>
I understand what you’re saying. I’ve posted in the University of Chicago board several times saying mostly the school is looking for fit and not intentionally wait-listing overqualified applicants. Being “way above the accepted pool” would mean having major hooks and/or (probably and) showing very little interest (plus the school in question would have to actually be in the practice of Tufts Syndrome). I’m not saying that everyone with SAT scores well above the 75th percentile is overqualified (I was accepted with a 2340), or even that everyone who gets rejected with these kinds of scores is “overqualified.” What I will say is that the concept of Tufts Syndrome, for some schools and some applicants, is entirely plausible. The number of people on CC claiming to be victims of Tufts Syndrome, however, is probably exaggerated by at least a factor of 10.</p>
<p>Thanks for the clarifications everyone! So are we agreeing that BC most likely doesn’t do Yield Protection, but rather makes its decisions based on fit?</p>
<p>How would they make decisions based on fit without a real supplement?</p>
<p>
I agree, other than the question about your religion and certain ECs, there really isn’t a whole lot for BC to go on in the “fit” category. That being said, can anyone come up with stats of someone who was waitlisted/rejected and seems to be out of BC’s league?</p>
<p>^Just ran through the thread myself. These applicants were the only ones I couldn’t comprehend the wait-list verdict.</p>
<p>
If the national awards on this one are good enough, and this user is telling the truth, this looks like Tufts Syndrome.</p>
<p>Then there was a pair of applicants wait-listed with 2200+ SATS:
<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/12254096-post94.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/12254096-post94.html</a>
<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/12255474-post102.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/12255474-post102.html</a></p>
<p>These latter two can’t be proven as “overqualified,” and in fact the chances of them having something else BC didn’t like in their application (formulaic recs, poorly written essay, didn’t meet recommended HS course load etc.) are much higher, unfortunately. </p>
<p>Though I still have no idea how the first applicant was wait-listed. Other than accidentally forgetting to send a key form or two, I really am at a loss to explain.</p>
<p>Well its interesting. At my school BC seems to accept only 10 each year, despite how many apply. Last year 21 applied, 10 accepted, 1 enrolled. I think this shows that people at my school were using BC as a backup. This year 37 applied, and 10 accepted again. And, from the people that were accepted, many of them weren’t from the top of the class. </p>
<p>Keep in mind my school is Jesuit, Catholic institution. So I don’t know if this is yield protection or not.</p>
<p>Bear in mind that every year there are always decisions that result in am “huh?”</p>
<p>Two years ago, UCLA rejected a kid who was accepted at Stanford. Berkeley rejected a Harvard WL, who received merit money from Hopkins. </p>
<p>“Stuff” happens. Why, I have not the faintest clue.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Scottj: IMO, “academic profile and academic/environmental fit” is in fact yield protection in another wrapper, in that a college will show some love to an applicant that reciprocates. The protection itself may not be for numerical reporting, but just common sense. Why offer a spot to someone that has already been accepted to Stanford SCEA? Or, a spot to someone with numbers that will most likely receive an Ivy offer, and thus 99% chance of turning you down without merit money?</p>