<p>Your guess is as good as mine. </p>
<p>OTOH, it’s pretty clear that this group of schools share more than a few attributes.</p>
<p>I understand many colleges use waitlists to keep alumni parents happy. If a child of an alumni has little chance of being admitted, the college may still put them on the wait list so the child and the parent can feel good. The parent can then go around telling everyone that their child was “almost admitted” and hopefully keeps writing checks to the college. A flat out rejection, studies shows, causes most donations from the parent to stop. </p>
<p>The only problem arises if the student has an unrealistic belief they will be admitted to that school from the enormous wait list, and don’t seriously consider alternatives until it is too late.</p>
<p>Thats known as “courtesy waitlist”^</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yield DOES matter in US News ranking, albeit indirectly. Admit rate counts, and admit rate is inversely proportional to yield: the higher the yield, the lower admit rate you’ll need to fill your entering class. That’s why US News dropped yield from its ranking formula: by counting both admit rate and yield separately, it was in effect double-counting. Schools engage in yield management in part to manage their admit rate, which contributes to their US News ranking; and a low admit rate also makes them appear more selective, which many gullible people equate with desirability or prestige, further boosting their applicant pool and further lowering their admit rate.</p>
<p>
</li>
</ol>
<p>I agree on step 1, not on step 2. A less dishonest way to use a large waitlist as a yield management technique is to waitlist a bunch of highly qualified applicants you fear you’ll lose as cross-admits to higher-ranked competitors. Then you can wait and see who drops off as they opt for other schools, and have your pick of those still on the waitlist. You’ll get a higher yield, a lower admit rate, and still get most of the students you’d have landed had you made offers to all of them. To my mind, that’s “gaming” the rankings—as well as playing a nasty, manipulative game with some kids’ futures. </p>
<p>I’ve even hear of some waitlisted kids getting a phone call from the admissions office, asking if they’d accept a place in the entering class if offered. If the answer is “yes,” they’re offered admission. If “no,” “not now,” “not sure,” “need some time to decide,” “need to compare offers,” or “maybe,” they’re terminally waitlisted. Virtually 100% yield (and a very low admit rate) that way. </p>
<p>As xiggi suggests, you need to look at both ED and waitlisting practices. A school that accepts a large fraction of its class ED and fills another significant fraction off the waitlist is almost certainly manipulating its yield. A large waitlist from which few are admitted is probably just a “courtesy” waitlist, likely mostly legacies who weren’t going to be admitted anyway, but for whom waitlisting is a palliative to soothe their parents’ wounded pride.</p>
<p>“Yield DOES matter in US News ranking, albeit indirectly.”</p>
<p>Don’t be too sure about that. </p>
<p>[Ranking</a> Categories May Change in the Upcoming College Rankings - Morse Code: Inside the College Rankings (usnews.com)](<a href=“http://www.usnews.com/blogs/college-rankings-blog/2010/06/17/ranking-categories-may-change-in-the-upcoming-college-rankings.html]Ranking”>http://www.usnews.com/blogs/college-rankings-blog/2010/06/17/ranking-categories-may-change-in-the-upcoming-college-rankings.html)</p>
<p>bclintonk,</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s what I had in mind when I wrote the step 2.</p>
<p>I second your step 2. That’s another way to do it.</p>
<p>bclint, I forget which colleges, but students posted on CC of this behavior this year, where THEY were specifically asked this by the admissions people at the college.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>IMO, folks love conspiracy theories, but this leads them to overrate the influence that USNWR plays in this. Admit rates only constitute 1.5% of the total ranking. It’s not a big deal and will not “move the needle” for most schools. Things like Top 10% ranking (6%), faculty salary (7%), 6-yr grad rates (16%) have a lot more impact. </p>
<p>I don’t have a problem with most wait lists and so will offer a kind word to the Adcomms. If I were in that chair, I would definitely play it safe with the last 10% of admits and use the wait list as the way to fill out a class, eg, for things like certain minorities, gender, geography, individual talent, etc. I don’t see what’s so wrong about this. The Adcomms have a responsibility to their institution first and that does not mean that every qualified applicant should be admitted.</p>
<p>^ If a particular school has a target slots of 1,500 a year and will accept 3,500 students a year, then that looks just alright. But when that school sends off a letter to another 3,500 students as wait-list, then that doesn’t look normal to me anymore. </p>
<p>Let’s take a look at Duke. </p>
<p>Applicants: 26,770
Admitted: 4,207
Admit Rate: 16%
Wait List: 3,381 </p>
<p>Something is really wrong with their system.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hawkette, I believe you are the one who is overrating the influence of the USNews when it comes to disclosing ADMISSION data. There are a lot of people who get their “news” from other sources than from the annual rankings. Just look at the OP’s source! In addition, the USNews rankings are a bit late to the party as they will “unveil” the admissions’ rates of the Fall of 2009 in their 2011 editions. Old news, by now! On the other hand, the preliminary releases of ED/EA numbers in January and the RD numbers in April/May are BIG news and attract plenty of attention. </p>
<p>I also think you’re underestimating the “value” of reaching marks such as below 20% admit rates, or even reaching the single digits. Bragging rights ARE important, and absolutely among the members of the Wannabe League.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The use of extremely large waiting lists does have a questionable aspect. However, inasmuch as it extends the agony for many students, it also seems to please all parties involved. </p>
<ol>
<li><p>The schools love it because it allows them to pick and choose from a VERY deep reservoir. For instance, if they happen to lose all their candidates who play the flute AND football at the same time, the deeper the waitlist is, the better their chance will be to find another gem.</p></li>
<li><p>The GCs love it because it does offer yet another tool to hide their ineptitude, and pretend they did well. Enough said about that group of people.</p></li>
<li><p>The recruiters and interviewers love it because they can use the wait list to pretend they actually play a role in admission, or were told by the admissions’ people about the reasons behind the waitlist. Or another set of entirely fabricated information.</p></li>
<li><p>The parents love it because they can use the line “My kid was not … rejected” and he or she could not go, but only because they lacked the space this year. Or, similar, feel good stories.</p></li>
<li><p>The students love it because it saves a bit of the lost self-esteem. In fact, that is the only group one should be sorry for!</p></li>
</ol>