<p>yea tufts still does this and they probably always will because they are know as "IVY rejects"</p>
<p>I think that this practice is more or less dead, at least at highly selective colleges, for a couple of reasons. </p>
<p>First, all schools reject superbly qualified applicants, among the reasons are bad fit (like indicating a major that the college doesn't have), obvious lack of interest, high financial need (at non need-blind schools), international status particularly from a country that produces lots of applicants, disciplinary or other non-academic red flags, recs or essays that turn off a particular reader, et al. So it's no surprise that there are lots of anecdotes about students with superb academic records being rejected.</p>
<p>Second, the USNews methodology has been revised to remove almost any incentive to yield manage for the purpose of rankings. Average SAT scores and class rank--like the ones you get from yielding a high-end academic student--are worth 9x more in USNews's formula than admit rates. Yield was eliminated from their formula years ago.</p>
<p>No, SFSU doesn't do this- I know, I used to work in admissions. It's first-come, first served. They did cut off the applicant pool extra early this year because of budget problems and being overcrowded.</p>
<p>But there's a certain marketing and reputational value to be gained by lowering your acceptance rate and having future Ivy League students walk around saying "I'm glad I got into Yale because Tufts turned me down." On the Harvard board, there's a thread about H students who were rejected at lower-selectivity schools; one H student says s/he was turned down at American. That's got to be pure yield-protection.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
high financial need (at non need-blind schools)
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>thank you!!</p>
<p>for people accusing WUSTL of tufts syndrome because they got waitlisted,</p>
<p>first, ask yourself how much money were you asking from them?? they are need-aware!</p>
<p>
[quote]
There's a certain marketing and reputational value to be gained by lowering your acceptance rate and having future Ivy League students walk around saying "I'm glad I got into Yale because Tufts turned me down."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But there's also a reputational cost, which is even more concrete: the risk of losing strong future applicants because they or their teachers and guidance counselors conclude, "they rejected last year's valedictorian, no sense applying."</p>
<p>@Duncan-
[quote]
Actually, its coincidental you posted this. It is true. My friend was a very strong applicant who was rejected flat out by Tufts and accepted by Harvard. When I asked my other friend how on earth this could have happened, they explained that exact concept which the wiki article describes. haha ironic you posted that
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Do you conclude that everything that your friends say is true is true? Big deal that a friend was denied by Tufts and then accepted by Harvard. Do you realize the selectivity of each of them. It is very possible for a very qualified student to appeal to one school and not the other. Have you looked at the Tufts application? It is heck! My daughter refused to apply to Tufts because of its application and applied to Harvard instead because the application was so easy. I would expect to see different acceptance results for the same student when comparing Tufts' application and Harvard's. </p>
<p>@collegebound9 -
[quote]
yea tufts still does this and they probably always will because they are know as "IVY rejects"
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Wow a whole 11 posts. I'm glad that we have you around to share your knowledge. </p>
<p>I am just so tired of rumor perpetuation and this one being one that offends me the most. Have you all ever read the posts from Dan @ Tufts admissions? He vehemently denies that this goes on at Tufts. So now I am sure that you are going to say that he is lying and that your friend, who told a friend, who told a friend is more accurate.</p>
<p>Geez. Accept that selective schools are selective period and whom they accept is difficult to predict and move on!</p>
<p>smoda61- yes, I know highly selective colleges are almost unpredictable with who they choose to accept or not--perfect 2400 SATs or not. Its just that I meant to say, I've heard of this as well. Although its just another rumer that spreads klike fire around the spring each year</p>
<p>Duncan - My reaction was due to the statement "It is true". Everyone can speculate but it is really wrong for people to bash a school, Tufts or any, for their acceptance decisions.</p>
<p>I heard that many of the UC's on California do.</p>
<p>Namely UC Davis, the admissions counselors assume that these students will get into UCLA, UCSB, UCSD, or UC Berekley so they reject them.</p>
<p>^Definitely not true. Where have you "heard" this?</p>
<p>Actually that is true about UC Davis, and UC Irvine also.</p>
<p>If a school has either a high % accepted under ED or waitlist admits (or yee gads both), it says to me that school may be trying to manage the yield.</p>
<p>What state u's are missing the boat on is that yield isnt the only relevant stat. They should be concerned with keeping taxpayers happy -- and be generous with qualified admits. IMHO.</p>
<p>* Actually that is true about UC Davis, and UC Irvine also. *</p>
<p>It's easy to say stuff without having any proof. Do you have any data to back this up? I'll present my findings:</p>
<p>If Davis and Irvine are discarding high caliber candidates, why are they accepting 96% of people with GPAs of 4.20 or higher? I mean, their yield rate is very low as the chart shows.</p>
<p>LOL @ UC Davis using yield protection tactics.</p>
<p>Just LOL. Nothing more.</p>
<p>I'm not saying that I am overqualified for Wes... just trying to make myself feel better???</p>
<p>trying to find reasons for what happened...</p>
<p>it's hard to see someone from your school who's never been on honor roll to get into Wes, whereas I (not to brag) have always been on high honors and got waitlisted.</p>
<p>finding reasons because i've lost all hope for the other schools im waiting upon</p>
<p>Please don't feel bad. You'll have some great college choices! </p>
<p>I know it doesn't seem fair, but college admissions is not a process where they simply work top-to-bottom, admitting the most academically qualified students. If colleges did that, everyone's experience would be diminished. You'd wind up with things like (to make up some extreme examples): a great tennis player having no one to compete against; superb violinists in an orchestra with a beginning oboe player; a college with few students of color or those who come from under-resourced schools. And, of course, few American students would get into a hypothetical meritocracy-based college, because of the large number of better qualified foreign applicants.</p>
<p>The process of building a class seems hard to fathom, but know that you'll be admitted to colleges where the admissions office thought that you'd make wonderful, important contributions to their class.</p>
<p>I'm pretty sure WUSTL rejected me due to financial reasons (I would need a full ride) or yield protection.</p>
<p>LOL @ you trying to act like you know anything. Just LOL.</p>
<p>*LOL @ UC Davis using yield protection tactics.</p>
<p>Just LOL. Nothing more. *</p>
<p>Exactly. I think half of the things I read on CC are just made up out of thin air.</p>