<p>...and another inaccurate assumption on your part, I'dad:</p>
<p>"The high-stat applicants...waitlisted...are usually ones with cookie-cutter e.c.'s." </p>
<p>WRONG!</p>
<p>You use phrases often such as "I've seen a lot of evidence." Are you on the Swat admissions committee or something? Do you have access to all the files of the accepteds, rejecteds, & w/list applicants? I don't think people check in with you & offer you all of their background. </p>
<p>Anyone, I'll PM you.</p>
<p>Can I get a clarification:</p>
<p>A) Are you saying that Swat waitlists kids because they do not perceive any particular interest?</p>
<p>B) Or are you saying that they waitlist kids they absolutely love just because they think the kid will get accepted to Harvard, Princeton, or Yale?</p>
<p>The first is definitely true. The admissions director has all but said it in an interview talking about the importance of the "Why Swat?" essay in their review of applications. But, it's equally true for kids who would get into HYP and for those who wouldn't.</p>
<p>I think the second would be very hard to pull off because of the very narrow band of qualifications we are talking about in many cases. About the only time you could be really sure of cross-admits for a given kid would be Academic 8s and 9s with high class rank at very well established feeder schools (or a heads up from the guidance counselor, which probably happens more often than we like to think!)</p>
<p>PS: I did hear from a mother who's child was accepted to two of the schools in question and waitlisted by Swat.</p>
<p>"I don't know who you're "quoting" when you put quotation marks around phrases like "a little less qualified," "almost qualified," etc., but they wouldn't be me. "</p>
<p>The point I was making is rather simple: the adcoms are TELLING US, explicitly, that they are making admissions decisions on the basis of factors other than academic qualifications or talent (defined for moment as GPA and SATs - it begs the question whether these are good measures). They aren't hiding it, they aren't equivocating, and they want us to know it.</p>
<p>So, as I wrote, they would have multiple reasons to use waitlists:</p>
<p>"Waitlists can be used for many purposes: to let legacies down gently, to give the impression of great selectivity (and hence "high quality") by keeping lots of folks waiting, "Tufts syndrome", to ensure there are enough full-paying customers, or, yes, to ensure there will be a third trombone. I think collectively we all know of examples of it being used this way."</p>
<p>It is much more difficult, I imagine, for Swat to get a tall basketball center than a kid with 1600 SAT scores, so you'd probably want to pack the waiting list with the former.</p>
<p>Swat is among the top small LACs where it's well known at our high school that the college counselors need to make a "wink-wink" call if it's really your first choice. Actually put their reputations on the line by promising you'll come. I can see a lot of very qualifies kids ending up on the waitlist if they didn't have a strong counselor and didn't proclaim it as first choice in the application.</p>
<p>While there are certainly kids who want these schools over ivies, there are a lot more who look at them as second best. When US News was counting yield, many schools stepped up the game and I think it will continue.</p>
<p>mini,
none of the examples you give are convincing to me, because they do not differentiate reasons why Swat would W/L versus why Ivies or anyone else would W/L. The Ivies ALSO build classes using varieties of needs; everybody knows this, yet you keep repeating it. It would not explain why several diff. Ivies, each with diff. needs or vacuums, do not W/L the same applicants (have not this yr) that Swat does, & has. Zagat's comments ring more true to me; as they are more in accord with my similar experience/knowledge of particular applicants.</p>
<p>Epiphany:</p>
<p>HYPSM don't really care if they are your first choice. In the first place, they just assume (with good reason) that they are. In the second place, they are building a much larger class with a different expectation for the degree of "community" and an easier time satisfying the various needs (trombone, engineers, female math majors, etc.) from the larger enrollment. Even though the basic characteristics of a successful applicant are similar, the LACs have a very different challenge due to the nature and size of their campus communities. IMO, this is magnified at Swarthmore, where the self-governing and self-sustaining community is probably the school's most defining characteristic.</p>
<p>Zagat's observation doesn't surprise me one iota. It is my mantra to prospective Swat applicants: learn everything you can about the school and figure out a way to communicate that in your application. It is advice repeated time and time again by Swat students. Visit classes. Meet professors. Do an overnight. "Find out if it's the right school for you, because, if it's not, you shouldn't come here." </p>
<p>It is also an explicitly stated theme of the Director of Admissions as can be seen in this lengthy article from a few years ago:</p>
<p>And from this short interview stressing the Why Swarthmore essay. Curiously, this interview appeared in November '03, right in the middle of reading the Early Decision apps (when first choice and 100% yield was a given). He still singled out the Why Swarthmore answer in response to a question about what the adcoms are looking for.</p>
<p>If this is "Tufts Syndrome", so be it. I think it has more to do with sustaining a particular campus culture and less to do with yield. If it were just about yield, all of the high-stat "Tufts Syndrome" kids on the waitlist would get calls on May 1st at least asking if they would accept an offer. They already have a heavy binding ED program to stabilize yield (and probably the financial aid budget as well).</p>
<p>I have no idea how Swat uses its waiting list, except to say that they use it to fill up the class if too many of the regular admits choose to go elsewhere. Like everyone else, all I have are anecdotes. There is no reason to believe they use their waiting list any differently than the Ivies (though, as you suggest, they might occasionally "Tufts Syndrome" a candidate, which would not make much logical sense for Harvard! ;)); nor is there any reason to believe their admissions office operates any differently - President sets direction, financial aid budget is set, athletic coaches and music department puts out its need, engineering department has a minimum number of students needed, etc. Then the applications come in. They call wired GCs at feeder schools (to see if kids would actually attend), look out for the developmental admits, or important alumni kids. They read interesting essays (at Swat it might be "Why Swarthmore", but ALL of the colleges are reading essays as well); the regional or other reps look at the applications, throw away x percent as "academically unqualified", score the rest and pass 'em on. </p>
<p>Then they go about building a class. There are a few things we know - the schools (and this is true for all of them) don't like to tip the scales at over 55% female. Doesn't matter in the least if the best 75% of "Why Swat" essays, plus top SAT scores and GPAs, came from females. The percentage who receive financial aid doesn't change much year over year; nor do the Pell Grant recipients, unless that's something they are pushing. Top 5%ers will be way overrepresented, as will certain private schools. SAT scores will be relatively similar year over year. Percentage of internationals tends not to change much either, except after events like 9/11. The number of athletic tips and tags doesn't change much. The engineering department will get its students; the orchestra the third trombone. </p>
<p>Then, sometime after May 1, they see what they've got.</p>
<p>Mini:</p>
<p>Excellent, concise description. The only biggie you left out is the priority placed on achieving diversity goals.</p>
<p>The way I sum up Mini's post is that many games are played at Swat and most other schools. </p>
<p>I'll have to disagree Interesteddad on your point that yield isn't the issue. Yield matters. If Swat doesn't maintain a yield close to it's competitions, it's popularity will go down. Period. There is not a lot of individual thinking in college admissions.</p>
<p>Yield matters for a lot of reasons. Not the least of which getting caught with a big-time housing crunch as Swat did two years ago.</p>
<p>Every college would like to stabilize yield as much as possible. It makes admissions much easier when you can predict yield to a decimal place or two from year to year.</p>
<p>But, yields since the echo-boom kicked in a few years ago are also at historical highs not seen since the early 1980s. Yields, at least at Swarthmore, seem to be inversely proportional to acceptance rates, which are at historical low levels not seen since the end of the baby-boom in early 1970s. These trends seem to be pretty universal across the elite colleges and are more the result of demographics than micromanagement, IMO. It's easy to get myopic, but looking at long-term charts of acceptance rates and yield cures that in a hurry. </p>
<p>For example, everybody thinks admissions are more selective than ever. But, Swat's current acceptance rate is the same as it was in the late 1960's and 1970. The acceptance rate increased dramatically through the 1970s as the number of high-school aged kids plummeted. It drifted slowly downward from 1980 on until 1995, when the echo-boom started kicking in and has now dropped to the 1970 level. That will reverse course again in about five years.</p>
<p>What's a little unpredictable looking forward is the rapidly increasing percentage of Latinos in the college-age population demographics. Colleges that can successfully cater to this customer base won't feel the pinch from the end of the echo-boom as badly as those who are late to the party. The same may be true of marketing to the Asian-American customer-base as well -- the percentages of the general population are small, but high in the elite college applicant pool.</p>