<p>D2 got off the waitlist at CalTech last year, though she wound up going to WUSTL.</p>
<p>It would be more honest if Stanford included the number of applicants who would be offered a place on the wl. Informing someone that a particular number was selected in previous years is meaningless unless it can be referenced to the entire number who were offered a place on the wl.</p>
<p>eskimo,
there is a thread on waitlists and their statistics on the college admission thread:</p>
<p>i got WL at two schools, Tulane and Kenyon. I removed myself from Tulane's WL because it is not my number one choice and I got in other schools. Kenyon is my 1st choice and I am going to remain on that list. They do not rank the WL by stats but rather by interest in the school. They said that the waitlist is around 200 selective students. I am choosing to stay on the list not only because it is my favorite school, but because I feel I have a good shot with a list that small. Previous figures showed that they WLed 580, 220 accepted a spot on the WL, and ultimately they accepted 59 off where 50 enrolled. Last year they only 12 enrolled off the WL. The thing is, I think if the school is looking at interest and you really want it, you may just get in. I know that there are probably many kids that used Kenyon as a match/reach and got WL and it is not their first choice like mine. Many people will probably send in that card and say they dont want to wait or forget to send it and get automatically removed after May 1st. Or better yet, I am sure ppl will stay on the list, but not send in extra materials/letters as needed and also not get looked at. Many kids seem to stay on WLs just so if they get off, they can say Hey I got accepted to so and so college. I guess what I am trying to say is, in my situation where the stats are more in my favor then against me, that I still have hope and I prefer a WL versus a Rejection. I Don't think I would have handled a rejection well at all. I keep having the feeling that Kenyon was an overlap this year with many other competitive schools like Oberlin, Brown, Williams, Hamiliton, etc. and that although they accepted more and had a more qualified pool, that the yield wont be as good since it was a "match" school for many "ivy material" candidates. Of course, this is all speculation and I may be wrong, but it makes me feel hopeful to think like that. I have sent 2 recommendations, a personal letter, and good contact with my rep. I dont think I can do much more than that. If they tell me in May that I still do not get a spot, I will already be enrolled at my state school for around 11,000 a year. Not bad either way. But I think in my case, a WL is not dishonest since the letter stated the stats, the # of WListees this year, and how ppl are removed. Even if you wait until June to see other kids that enroll at Kenyon leave because they were taken from somebody else's WL, you have a good chance. How many ppl are really going to stick it out until late June? Of course...only the people that really want Kenyon. Those people, in my hopeful thinking, will get the spot they deserve....Wow look at all my rambling lol</p>
<p>ohio_mom, I was just responding to the previous post quoting the wl letter from Stanford. If it in fact omits the total number of waitlisted students from its letter, any statistic reflecting admitted students is meaningless.
This is critical information that should be included in the letter. I truly believe that omitting this info. is disingenious. Asking an applicant to go do research on their own is unnecessary and improper.</p>
<p>Caps are unfair because they are selectively used by some schools and not others. The kids who most need a lot of choices are those who have to get X dollars of aid to go to school. Many times they have to cast a wide net as they have no idea where they will get the money. And I have seen many kids rewarded who do this from the most unlikely school. My son's friend who is an orphan and pretty much taken care of at his prep school for the last several years (admitted to the school through an outreach program) needs a full ride, and to take much in loans would not be doing him a favor at all. Out of the 18 school where he applied (a number were his state schools), he was accepted to 8 and got good aid offers at 4. Full rides with low loans came down to 2. My son who was an athlete applied to 17 schools and thing ranged from outright denial to full ride plus. My son this year applied to school that were audition based and because those outcomes are so unpredictable his school recommended that he apply to at least 8 with auditions and 3 non audition school that were academic match, reach, safeties for him that had good performing arts programs. He ended up applying to 20 schools, but a number were true lottery tickets. So it there are valid reasons for applying to a large number of schools. Though I do agree that the number of apps leading to unpredictability of who will show up is partly responsible for the large waitlist, I also feel alot of schools are aggresively pursuing this method to make themselves more selective and control their yield.</p>
<p>eskimo,
Yes, well, "disingenious" sums it up pretty well. From a practical standpoint, the competitive uni's and colleges probably have to run a wait list. <em>How</em> the list is managed - and how close to full disclosure the WL letter is - is a different matter. As valuable1212 has described, Kenyon is being decent about it.</p>
<p>valuable1212,
good luck to you - sounds like you've given it a great shot. Hope the numbers roll your way!</p>
<p>Of course, the only reason to omit the total number of wl students is to mislead the applicants. If the wl student knew upfront that in the previous year 35 out of 1200 were taken off of the list, he or she would most probably emotionally divest themself from the institution and move on with their life. It really irks me that some schools see no problem in leading kids on like this.
If any adcoms are perusing this thread can you please explain how one can justify this conduct.</p>
<p>I got waitlisted at three schools... and I am sure some of them came with waitlist statistics, thus indicating the (lack of) likelihood of getting off.</p>
<p>But I don't remember clearly because I've already sent in the card rejecting the waitlist - for all three. I have enough issues to deal with choosing between the four colleges that I did get into. I don't need to deal with waitlist stuff... :-P</p>
<p>Four comments. . .</p>
<ol>
<li><p>With kids applying to as many schools as they do today I think colleges need to utilize waitlists in a liberal fashion. </p></li>
<li><p>The Stanford letter would be perfect if they added the range of waitlist numbers along with the range of waitlist offers, and every school should communicate like that.</p></li>
<li><p>Last year, my nephew was waitlisted by two of his reach schools and one reach/match. He would not have gotten in at the reach schools, but I'm quite sure he would have gotten an offer at the reach/match school. The latter option was moot as he liked both a match and two safeties better than the reach/match anyway.</p></li>
<li><p>And then there is the aid question. . .there is a pretty wide range of aid policies for the last admits at any school, particularly small and medium-sized ones. Anyone staying on a waitlist and planning on taking a late offer should be willing to accept just about any package. Alternatively, you might check to see what the school says about aid for waitlist offers before you take a place on the list.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>What do folks actually want from the school? Something like,</p>
<p>"Dear So-in-So: </p>
<p>We put you on the waiting list. We had lots of applicants who served our needs better than you did. Your parents didn't donate a building. Your application suggests you are middle class, and that doesn't help our prestige any. First in Colorado in the National Swordswallowing Competition didn't cut it with us. Your essay, horror of horrors, was clearly written by a teenager! You only got a B+ in pottery in 9th grade. We already have 3 female tuba players. We've run through our financial aid budget, though there are still some athletic non-scholarship funds around.</p>
<p>Which is why we put you on the waiting list. We need another synchronized swimmer. Frankly, we watched your tape, and you s-u-c-k, but if we get desperate, and the 17 potential synchronized swimmers ahead of you turn us down, you might get in anyway, as the coach thinks you have potential.</p>
<p>So hang tight. There's hope yet. SOMEONE is going to get that place, and it might be you!</p>
<p>Send us the little card, and make nice.</p>
<p>Love,</p>
<p>Then there is -</p>
<p>Dear So-in-So:</p>
<p>We put you on the waiting list, but we really didn't mean it. There's just NO way you're coming here. Your dad, class of '72, will be very disappointed of course, but what the heck has he ever done for us? Who does he think he is, sending us a measly $75 a year? The nerve of him! And then thinking sonny boy will get in. Ha! Last time we took somebody with a 460 Verbal SAT it was Bill Bradley. Let me tell you, son, you are NO Bill Bradley.</p>
<p>So this is our way of letting you dad down lightly. He can wear the almost-got-in around his neck if he likes. We don't care. Just increases our prestige. Honestly, though, we think you should count yourself lucky to get into Muskogee State.</p>
<p>Return the little card. Have a Nice Day!</p>
<p>Love,</p>
<p>I laughed so hard I cried. Mini. I'm expecting letter #2 next year. I told my dad to up the donation to $100!!!</p>
<p>
[quote]
My son was waitlisted at Stanford, and I thought their letter was quite honest.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Totally off topic here, but hey, who isn't from time to time?? <em>lol</em>:</p>
<p>I happened to think Stanford's rejection letter was particularly decent also--well written and not patronizing. ~berurah</p>
<p>
[quote]
If any adcoms are perusing this thread can you please explain how one can justify this conduct.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm not quite an adcom, but I used to be one at a small LAC and now have an somewhat insider view of admission at a large public.</p>
<p>I'm not speaking in any official capacity here. I actually share a lot of your views.</p>
<p>Waitlists are a must given the uncertainty of yield. It is the job of admissions to deliver a class that meets the targets. That's their duty. A waitlist is an important guarantee that they will be able to deliver.</p>
<p>If a school has a big waitlist, it probably serves both as a soft deny (for many students) and a pool of desirable-but-excluded-for-space students (for a few). Some kids on the waitlist have near-impossible chances, and other have quite decent chances. If you're discouraging to them all, you're sending the wrong message to kids who might very well get in. If you're not discouraging, you're sending the wrong message to kids who have no chance. Thus, maybe there is a desire to offer sufficiently vague information that you hope some of the students will interpret correctly. You could differentiate between the high-priority waitlist and a different kind of waitlist, but then you're defeating the purpose of the soft-deny (anyone who doesn't hear they're high-priority will discern that they're really rejected). </p>
<p>The only real solution is to stop using waitlist as a soft-deny. To make waitlists only as long as you need to for insurance, and fully disclose the numbers to the students on it. You have less to lose with this sort of waitlist and the requisite statistics on it.</p>
<p>Thus, I'm not fond of my current school's long waitlist. However, I understand the political realities of being a large, popular flagship, with many state residents squeezed out by the increasing selectivity of the place. Many of them feel entitled to a place at the state's best university, and they will complain long and loud if their son or daughter is denied. They are more mollified, and can accept the reality of limited space, if the university says their child is (waitlisted) university material.</p>
<p>Then there is....</p>
<p>Dear So-So -</p>
<p>You'd like to believe we are sorry to put you on the waiting list. In fact, we relish the chance. Actually, we don't get the opportunity very often to put on the waiting list someone who got into Princeton! (we knew, because we cracked into their computer system - Fred Hargadon showed us how.) This majorly increases our prestige, because it indicates we are more selective than they are. Nah-nah-nah-nah-ne. </p>
<p>But the college prez says we shouldn't reject anyone who got into Princeton because there's always a chance we'll snag one of you, one of these days, when either your family or someone elses figures out the EFC stands for something very different than they think it does.</p>
<p>Geez, we hope it's not you. You'd frankly be a pain in the butt to be around, and your parents would probably complain that we still don't teach Serbo-Croatian.</p>
<p>Return the little card, and here's hoping we never hear from you again.</p>
<p>Love,</p>
<p>Dear So-in-So:</p>
<p>After long, hard, serious, heartwrenching deliberations, we have put you on the waiting list for the class of 2009. This was a very difficult decision for us. We saw that you had 1600 on your SATs, a personal recommendation from the President of Ford Motor Company and the head of the European Union, speak six languages fluently, have 18 APs with 5s in each of them, starred as the football captain of the state championship football team, were a National Science Foundation Fellow at age 12, and have raised enough money to feed half of Burundi for the next two years.</p>
<p>So our decision was a difficult one, but one we felt we had to make. For some reason, you didn't realize we a women's college.</p>
<p>Please return the little card, and let us know if the operation is a success.</p>
<p>Love,</p>
<p>"let us know if the operation is a success."</p>
<p>ha ha ha... maybe the person could pass as a really butch woman.... lol, sort of reminds me of wellesly's policy to go coed</p>
<p>in the waitlist matter... I got waitlisted at a bunch of schools but all of them were from schools that were at the middle of my list. When i got in to a few top choices I just chose not to stay on the waitlist</p>
<p>I'm not a legacy/athlete/person with connections so I dont think that the waitlists were soft rejections</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>I have mixed feelings about waitlists. I see them as part of the larger problem of kids applying to 10,15, even 20 schools which boosts the overall total number of applications which boosts the number of qualified kids moved to waitlist which, in the end, reduces the chances of getting off the waitlist.<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>Yes, but there is another factor here driving the trend, namely the inability of kids or parents to figure out with any degree of certainty whether or not they are going to get admitted to any given school. If you knew which good schools would take you, you would just apply to two or three of those and be done with it. I think very few kids apply to 15 schools to collect skins. Applying to 15 schools is a lot of work. They apply to 15 schools because they aren't certain how many, which ones, or even if any of the 15 are going to admit them. </p>
<p>Another symptom of the same disease is the wild popularity of the most useless board on CC: the Chances board. Kids are asking each other, because they can't tell for themselves and are desperate to find out, even if what they are told is probably bogus.</p>
<p>So as the admissions process becomes less and less transparent and less and less predictable, the number of apps per student will continue to climb and the size of the waitlists along with it.</p>
<p>Waitlists are for me like the medieval version of purgatory -- if your survivors can provide proof of additional merit, after a reasonable delay you will be promoted to full heaven status. If you don't make the grade you are doomed to spend eternity, close, but no cigar. Being on a waitlist combines the worst of the optimistic/pessimistic schizophrenia that abounds in the whole application process. Don't give up hope, but don't hope too much. Very, very tough situation and extremely difficult for families to decide when to bring the situation to closure. How much waiting and much effort is enough?</p>
<p>I can certainly see the reason that colleges must resort to their waitlists. Since the number of total college-hopeful seniors isn't increasing in the same proportion as the number of applications received by each elite college, there is no other logical explanation except that more kids are applying to more colleges. This is especially true of the super-selectives. Sybbie's Williams example is especially telling. A small college like Williams can't afford to over admit. They just don't have the housing or other resources to absorb an extra 50 kids. With matriculation rates being so variable, because of the change from ED to EA and the flux in the number of applications per student and overlapping recruitment of a small pool of qualified URM's and internationals, colleges have no choice but to under-estimate and make up the shortfall off the waitlist. This is sensible and I think acceptable to students and parents as well. We understand the element of luck and we can live with it.</p>
<p>What muddies the water are the courtesy waitlists for legacies and nice, smart kids that are already in excess. Letting them down gently by giving them waitlist status actually just prolongs the agony. Colleges would be doing everyone a favor if they just stopped this practice now.</p>
<p>Like Robyrm's kids, my son was given an application limit. He was accepted ED so it was a moot point; however, I was, even two years ago, emphatically against the school's policy and am now even more convinced that limiting applications puts kids at a severe disadvantage. Maybe not the academic/talent super stars, but certainly the bright well-roundeds who have no obvious negatives, but no guarantees. If your family requires financial aid and your entitlement is murky, then it's double indemnity. Your child may get in, but you may not get the money.</p>
<p>Restricting the number of applications would be fine, if everyone were limited to 8 or 10 or whatever, but with the reality of selectivity today (i.e., the same number of kids applying to many more selective schools) then if you want to be a player you have to play. If you want to get into highly selective schools and if financial aid status is murky then you'd better take the (educated) shotgun approach!</p>
<p>I'd be in favor of selective colleges as a group limiting the number of applications per student. This would be extremely difficult to monitor (and extremely controversial) but I think it could be done, let's say by the 31 colleges who collaborate on that annual survey. It would really help get these kids out of waitlist limbo and started on a happy, emotionally healthy college life.</p>