<p>2010</a> Admissions Tally - The Choice Blog - NYTimes.com</p>
<p>Some schools are obviously gaming USNews to improve their ranking. </p>
<p>Offered Spot on Wait List</p>
<p>Amherst (Mass.) - 1,098
Carnegie Mellon (Pa.) - 4,463
Cornell (N.Y.) - 2,561
Dartmouth (N.H.) - 1,800
Duke (N.C.) - 3,381
Emory (Ga.) - 3,113
U. of Pennsylvania - 3,000
Johns Hopkins (Md.) - 3,727
Northwestern (Ill.) - 3,188
Princeton (N.J.) - 1,451
Rice (Tex.) - 2,521
Stanford (Calif.) - 999
Yale (Conn.) - 932</p>
<p>pathetic!</p>
<p>how surprising, washu doesn’t seem to have waitlist numbers…hmmm</p>
<p>Why is there someone that always has to bash washu, just let it be…</p>
<p>UDel: 593 admitted from a waitlist of 767? I guess if one is waitlisted they have a very good chance of being admitted…haha…</p>
<p>^ Because, honestly, WashU does not deserve its place in USNews ranking.</p>
<p>sstewart, how exactly was i bashing washu? i was only wondering why such a selective school like washu did not provide waitlist numbers. so does your comment suggest that there is something wrong with washu not having waitlist numbers?</p>
<p>
Since yield does not matter in USNWR ranking, schools try to get the best applicants by lowering their yields. </p>
<p>Only Harvard and Stanford still care about the yield, maybe Yale too. Yield/Admit ratio is a better measure.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>RML is on the right track in the opinion of Jon Reider who is the director of college counseling at San Francisco University High School, which is one of the top high schools on the west coast. Here is Reider’s take on Washington University’s notorious practice of gaming the system by excessive and egregious wait listing:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Working</a> the system at Washu](<a href=“http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-03-30/dirty-secrets-of-college-waitlists/2/]Working”>The Daily Beast: The Latest in Politics, Media & Entertainment News)</p>
<p>The waitlist numbers are quite shocking. Some of the schools seem to be unnecessarily putting applicants on waitlists. I don’t think any school should waitlist more than 1000 students (or perhaps a better formula could be devised using yield/entering class size). It’s insane when there are enough students on some waitlists to make up ANOTHER freshman class.</p>
<p>I was wondering if anyone knows how many MIT put on their waitlist this year. Anyone?</p>
<p>
MIT waitlisted 722, and accepted 65 from the waitlist for class of 2014.</p>
<p>RML,</p>
<p>Schools aren’t using waitlist to game as long as they are not doing the following two steps in sequence:</p>
<ol>
<li>purposely underadmit, </li>
<li>then release acceptance offers to those that accepted spots on waitlist but only count the ones that accept the acceptance offer as “admits” (hence nearly 100% yield). This is what one of the counselors was accusing WashU doing:
</li>
</ol>
<p>A large waitlist pool alone doesn’t automatically mean the school is doing those 2 steps mentioned. That said, if the waitlist pool is almost as large or larger than the admit pool, it obviously would be a red flag.</p>
<p>Something which really stands out is Pepperdine’s lowering of the acceptance rate from 41% to 30%.</p>
<p>Anyone have any thoughts on why this drastic change occurred?</p>
<p>haha wow, the waitlist numbers are kind of ridiculous. i got waitlisted at elon this year, and this says that over 3,000 kids got waitlisted. Elon’s class size is only like 1,300 or something like that…Kinda ridiculous how they waitlist basically everyone. Like honestly, what’s the point of waitlisting that high of a number</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The large waiting lists are mostly a “feel good” gestures for GC and parents who do not like outright rejections. </p>
<p>Throw in a heavy reliance on the ED crutch, and you’'ll be getting a clearer picture of how gaming the “system” works. If still fuzzy, just check how Duke operates, especially in the “releasing early numbers department.” Speaking about releasing numbers, WashU is more known for … not releasing anything meaningful.</p>
<p>xiggi, I can’t believe you just did it again.</p>
<p>why did you bring up dook again?</p>
<p>you are now going to get all the crazed out dookies splatter this thread with dozens upon dozens of posted messages.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, it might be amusing to see them attempt to twist the undeniable facts. It’s easier to argue in April and May when the objective is to ignore the impact of … hundreds of waitlist admissions. </p>
<p>And, of course, we all are so thankful for Duke’s eager willingness to share its Common Data Set. ;)</p>
<p>xiggi, I never did understand why a first class institution would refuse to release the common data set figures to the public.</p>
<p>Interesting how the list of sub-20% admissions is shaping up:</p>
<p>
Institution Applic Admits Admit Rate</p>
<p>Harvard (Mass.) 30,489 2,184 7%
Stanford (Calif.) 32,022 2,340 7%
Yale (Conn.) 25,869 1,940 7%
Cooper Union 3,354 279 8%
Juilliard (N.Y.) 2,467 187 8%
Princeton (N.J.) 26,247 2,148 8%
Brown (R.I.) 30,135 2,820 9%
Columbia (N.Y.) 26,178 2,472 9%
M.I.T. (Mass.) 16,632 1,676 10%
Dartmouth (N.H.) 18,778 2,165 12%
CalTech. .... 4,859 610 13%
Penn ........ 26,939 3,847 14%
Amherst (Mass.) 8,099 1,239 15%
Pomona (Calif.) 6,765 990 15%
Duke (N.C.) 26,770 4,207 16%
Swarthmore (Pa.) 6,040 974 16%
ClaremontMcKenna 4,264 732 17%
Middlebury (Vt.) 7,984 1,375 17%
Cornell (N.Y.) 36,338 6,673 18%
Vanderbilt 21,827 3,906 18%
U. of Chicago 19,353 3,623 19%
Washington & Lee 6,624 1,255 19%
Williams (Mass.) 6,636 1,236 19%
Bowdoin (Me.) 6,018 1,185 20%
Georgetown (D.C.) 18,077 3,619 20%</p>
<p>
</p>