<p>Therefore, anyone who would bother to send in additional information must REALLY want to go, right?</p>
<p>The problem is huge, but is caused by both applicants and colleges. Today’s student is applying to TOO MANY SCHOOLS. Just look at some of the threads on this board, many students are applying to 15-20 schools. If you are a student and getting admitted to 10+ schools then you are HOLDING A SPOT at all of those schools except the one you are attending that could be filled by other students. </p>
<p>The schools have to react knowing this. A school that wants an incoming class size of 1,000 kids has to accept 3,000 to account for the 2,000 kids who will get an accept and deny because they are going somewhere else. And on top of that, they have to waitlist another 1,000 or so kids because they know 500 kids will deny the waitlist leaving them about 500 kids available to consider if more than the 2,000 kids deny their acceptances.</p>
<p>From the college end, it is truly a statistics formula or scenario to be considered to make the numbers work.</p>
<p>Colleges are too slow in getting financial aid finalized. Kids are too slow in getting their accept/denies turned in, and the waitlist drags on further.</p>
<p>Then, there is a mini version of this that takes place AGAIN once waitlists get processed. You then have kids who have paid their deposit and hold a spot that then turn down the acceptance because they got accepted from the waitlist at another school. The cycle perpetuates and you have to go through the process again to achieve your ideal enrollment numbers.</p>
<p>I have argued in other threads about there being too much time in this whole process. Colleges are too slow, applicants are too slow. The system is an issue and needs major overhaul and improvement.</p>
<p>Someone should invent a single source applicant, acceptance, denial, deposit system that they try to sell schools to enroll in. 1 place that a kid handles all of their information, does all of their applications, the schools process their applications, etc… You could create a system that resolves a lot of issues, doesn’t apply applicants to wait too long, to deposit to 2 schools, etc… It could be easier… IT SHOULD BE EASIER.</p>
<p>oldfort, ha!..this sounds like a 12 step for Parents of Applicants Anonymous:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>rjpfl5: You’re describing the system they have in England. Students create one application (no supplements) and then list your choices in order. It does sound much, much easier. The only hitch in England is the timing. Nothing is finalized until grades are in and exams are taken, which doesn’t happen until mid-August. Imagine you’re a college student going somewhere, but you only learn where just two weeks before you ship off? That part doesn’t sound ideal, but for colleges, it seems much, much less frenzied.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is ridiculous to have students have to “prove their love” again. They wanted to go as evidenced by the fact that they applied, presumably in good faith.</p>
<p>If a college really only wants people who show it love, then they should expand the % of the class they take from ED. Those are the people who love you most. If that’s a factor. (Which it may or may not be.)</p>
<p>And call me cynical, but if it’s true that they wait-list students who have not visited (hoping to get another visit), I think that’s a way of looking for who the full-pays are and targeting them. Because who else is going to traipse around the country on short notice other than full-pays? (If the college were close, they would have already visited.)</p>
<p>I don’t think it’s cynical to say they are looking for the “full pays,” in the WL round. I actually think colleges are pretty up front about this, anyway.</p>
<p>I also don’t fault colleges for this practice, either.</p>
<p>Colleges have to fund themselves. Someone has to be a full pay or there will be no money for the fin-aid admits. It’s just a fact. Bringing money to the equation doesn’t give a kid much of an advantage in the RD round, but it may well give them an advantage in getting off the waitlist.</p>
<p>I do think it would be beneficial for colleges to state this policy outright, though. It’s just that it is so politically incorrect, I doubt the PR machines would advise them to do this.</p>
<p>Oh, I agree – I don’t have a problem with privileging full pays off a WL. I just think it’s inefficient to hint at it by saying “we need more love,” seeing who flies in, and going from there. Just be upfront and pick the full pays off the waitlist. Or just pick more of them in RD.</p>
<p>Yeah. I think they should just be upfront in the WL round about it. Just say, if you can afford this college and would like to stay on the waitlist, please check box C.</p>
<p>I would hate to see them take more full pays in the RD round if they can manage it with the WL…just because I hate to see people locked out of a competitve process based on thier ability to pay. But that’s just me.</p>
<p>Full page is just parents “showing the love” LOL.</p>
<p>Maybe each school should auction off, say, 10 spots in the class to the highest bidder. Let a couple of billionaires’ kids have them. Then they won’t need to worry. It would more efficient than some of the behind closed doors you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours that certainly happens.</p>
<p>
This is why my son had to be talked into even sending his card in to stay on the waitlist at what had been his first choice. His feeling was, he’d already spent more than enough energy over the past several months selling himself and waiting to be judged, and he wanted to be done with that. I couldn’t say I disagreed with him, but we did convince him to at least send in the card. I don’t think there’ll be much love-proving going on, though. He’d rather prove his love to those who’ve proven theirs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s not true. People apply to safeties, matches, reaches and super reaches. Sometimes a school would WL someone because they may think it’s a backup school for an applicant. Even if a school was someone’s top choice in Dec, come April it may no longer be the case. That is why it’s important to reiterate to a school that it is still a top choice. There is no point in getting indignant about being WL or having an attitude of “if you don’t want me, then I don’t want you either.” What purpose does that serve? The point is do you want to go to that school bad enough to put yourself out there again? After 4 years of getting good grades, studying for SATs…you would want to give up because a school didn’t show their love right away? That is fine, because there are other applicants who may want to extend themselves, and those are the applicants that the adcoms may want to call first because they know those applicants would jump at the chance.</p>
<p>All that being said…If your kid is perfectly happy with his/her acceptances, than I would move on, leave that spot for someone else.</p>
<p>
I agree that feeling “indignant” would be an overreaction, and I certainly don’t agree with those who think that waitlisting is somehow unscrupulous or irresponsible on the colleges’ part. They (the colleges) should do what they think is best, and not be blamed for it as long as they aren’t deceptive or manipulative about it. But students (and their parents) likewise should not be blamed for feeling more inclined toward the colleges that gave them an unequivocal vote of confidence on April 1. This is a perfectly natural and reasonable response.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think that’s for the school to try to suss out. If an application comes through the door, then it should be the school’s assumption that the student is interested in going there. I think the schools have very little business playing this game of “I’ll WL this kid because I think I’m his back-up.” Take the applications in good faith. Is this kid qualified? If so, admit him. If not, move on.</p>
<p>That maybe what you would like, but it doesn’t necessary work that way. As much as students game the system (by doing ECs they don’t want to do, hiring private counselors, using various hooks), schools also do what they need to do to protect their yield. They do what they need to do, and we do what we need to do for our kids.</p>