Anyone notice WashU rejecting what some may consider to be “overqualified” applicants? I have already gone to a number of events at top tier universities for recipients of full ride scholarships/highly coveted applicants. These participants were all amazing applicants and many had already received LLs from multiple Ivies etc.
This is what I found surprising. Out of these top tier students, I have found that around 10% were accepted, and the rest were waitlisted/rejected - and many of these applicants DID show demonstrated interest.
Anyone else think that WashU is harming itself in the long run by not accepting these applicants in an attempt to game the rankings?
Anyone know of other universities that do this? People often mention Tufts as another one.
I think WashU is trying to get the best yield it can–and not accept students that are unlikely to attend; I think Northwestern is doing the same thing. As you point out, many of the ‘amazing applicants’ that applied to WashU have been admitted to Ivies. Why waste a spot on a student unlikely to attend? Adcoms can figure this out.
I got waitlisted by WashU, too, but got a likely from a top tier university, so I feel that you are saying the truth, but let’s not forget that WashU’s accepted students are still like God tier students. No credit taken away from them.
Lots of schools that are below the super-selective level of admissions don’t care about raising their yield, but presumably know that the yield rates vary by the stat levels of the admits. So they will admit the 4.0/2300 students, but assume that only a small percentage will actually matriculate (or they may try to get some of them to matriculate with scholarships). Meanwhile, they will assume that a much larger percentage of admits for whom the school was a “reach” will matriculate.
All of these selective schools could fill their classes several times over with kids with “perfect” scores, activities, credentials, etc. So lots of them will, just by the math, be rejected. Given that, a school’s selection criteria may be that they have already filled the track team’s need for distance runners, they have extended offers to a few trumpeters, don’t think another is needed, a few state science award winners etc. Many of these schools know that the more interesting pieces of their class will be filled by the students who took a different route, had some challenges along the way, did something a bit off the beaten path, made the most of their circumstances vs being surrounded all their lives by an environment that encourages and supports success. It is a great irony that many people who lurk on CC trying to find ways to “game the system”, who ask what else they need to make their application fit a school, these are not the applicants these universities are interested in. That is not a dig against OP, it is just an observation that what is thought of here as an “over qualified” student is often misleading - you will be one of many. If you have a passion, there are many places it will bloom. If your goal in life it to wear a sweatshirt with a certain name on it, you are statistically more likely to be disappointed.
@saskatchewan Yeah test scores and grades are only qualifiers. When I say “over qualified” I mean the person that I met that was an ISEF finalist, best selling author, and app developer (and got likelies from two of the top Ivies).
@PurpleTitan I agree there is that aspect. Only one of the 20+ people who I met would have considered WashU (that person would have taken WashU over Harvard had they had the same amount of FA…but it’s also important to note that most decisions still haven’t come out yet, and maybe there is another college on her list that she would rather go to).
So I would assume that under this policy, they are losing a few amazing students - who could have potentially contributed much to the student body.
Also, it doesn’t help that it is hard for WashU to accurately gauge interest as they don’t even have a supplement as of right now…
I was admitted to WashU and I had no demonstrated interest. Legitimately was not even on the mailing list. Seriously, stop bringing the people who got in down.
I think you’re overstating the effect of a handful of kids. Losing maybe 10 kids (out of the 500 or so “amazing kids” they WL/rejected) is not going to hurt WashU considering that each entering class is about 1800.
@mikemac Because some of those kids WOULD HAVE enrolled.
@PurpleTitan I would disagree. The accomplishments of the bottom 500 enrollees can easily be dwarfed by the top 10 (if they are great).
@slights32 It’s so not only current WashU students are on it defending their school. I’m not bringing down the students who got in - for some reason you guys gained that impression (its completely false).
@Madeon, however, there is no guarantee that some kids who did well in HS will turn out “great”.
From your overemphasis on (high school level) star power, it’s pretty clear that
you have a pretty high opinion of yourself
you haven’t been out in the real world.
As a comparison, you can look at college football recruiting: would you get more production out of 10 5-star recruits or 500 3/4-star recruits (and the kids WashU is taking instead of your “stars” would be equivalent to 4-star or at least 3-star recruits; it’s not as if they’re taking illiterates instead)? I would take the 500 any day.
@PurpleTitan But many of these “high school level” stars are doing better NOW than most ADULTS do in their lives.
I could counter with a tennis analogy. Has any 3/4 star recruit from the United States ever been successful in the pros? The answer is no: only blue chip recruits (higher than 5 stars) have. I would choose 10 blue chips over 500 3/4 star recruits any day.
@Madeon, OK, give examples. You realize that WashU is not taking average people even if they reject superstars, don’t you?
@slights32, do you follow college college football recruiting at all? If you did, you’d realize that there are only a handful of 5-stars each year and some more 4-stars. Most major conference programs try to average around 3-stars (who, BTW, would be very elite and dominated in HS; most HS players would be 0 stars). We’re not talking about hotels here; it’s a different rating system. Now please educate yourself before saying something that makes you seem both emotional and ignorant.
@PurpleTitan True, WashU students are very talented. Lots of them will go on to do amazing things. That being said, students who are best selling authors, who have founded companies (some who have had them acquired already for 1M+), or who continue and run their companies and make over 6 figures are successful. The people whose ISEF projects cure a type of cancer can be considered successful. People who have had top 10 apps in the app store can be considered successful. The people who have already been recruited by some tech companies (without even a high school diploma) are successful. People who run a charity that raises 6 figures a year could be considered successful. These would be the “blue chips” of the college game.
@Madeon, sure, I agree with that. However, the drop-off from that level to the next level, on aggregate, isn’t huge, and if WashU gives up on a handful of “blue-chippers” in order to protect their yield, it frankly isn’t a big loss for them. Or for those kids, for that matter. First of, only a handful would have chosen WashU, and even if they didn’t get in to WashU, they’re almost certain to have some really good options. Furthermore, if they really wanted WashU, they could have applied ED there.
