What in the world?

Colleges and Universities A-Z Washington University in St. Louis
41

<p>
[quote]
Do you believe people have a right/entitlement to life in the US? I assume you will say yes.

[/quote]

Actually, my answer to that is the same as to admissions- you don't "deserve" it.</p>

<p>Yes, you're really lucky to get in, and really lucky to attend (for the record, I'm a current freshmen).
But you are by no means entitled to it (getting in, living in the US, or whatever). I'm of the opinion that life doesn't owe you anything.</p>

<p>The complainers can go ahead and complain- I could care less.
What I do care about are the few people who are going around proclaiming that they must "protect" future applicants from the "evils" that is washu because they felt cheated out of a "deserved" spot (even when it wasn't anywhere near their first choice).</p>

42

<p>Waitin184 -- I understand the disappointment. My point is that many posters (I don't mean you) leap from their disappointment to the conclusion that WUSTL is engaged in some unfair practice, isn't worthy of them in the first place, admits less qualified students, etc. Those views do not reflect well on the posters. And, no, I don't think anyone is "entitled" to admission at any university (much less highly competitive universities). Deserving perhaps, but certainly not entitled.</p>

43

<p>haha thanks krocks and helicio! Maybe I should have asked you two to write my recommendations lol</p>

44

<p>Personally, I did not apply to WashU but have read several threads in the WashU subforum because this phenomenon of being "overqualified" intrigues me. From what I've seen so far, I have a few things to say.</p>

<p>1. I know it must hurt to hear this for those of you who were accepted, but the idea that WashU is waitlisting overqualified applicants is not founded upon nothing. Look at other schools of comparable selectivity and you will see no complaints about extremely qualified students being waitlisted. It's not just through random chance that this dispute comes up on the WashU board. I looked through over half of the decisions thread (over 150 student replies), and immediately found results that no one could possibly consider normal for a school on the same level of selectivity as WashU. Just as an example, I saw maybe a few 2300+ that were accepted and loads of them that were waitlisted. On the other hand, the 2100-2300 students seemed to have the reverse ratio. Loads of them were accepted while only a few were waitlisted. However, that is not to suggest that I only looked at test scores. It's easier to make the example with numbers, and I saw a solid correlation between the students with higher test scores and those with solid ECs. Basically, what I'm trying to say is, as an outsider looking in, it appears undeniable that WashU is waitlisting students it considers "overqualified."</p>

<p>2. However, I have noticed that a majority of the posts have come from the students that indeed were waitlisted due to "overqualification." These students appear to be convinced of there position and are not here to debate over whether or not this waitlisting effect actually exists. So, while you are ranting about how broken WashU's system is, consider that there are also many that were accepted to WashU (many of which really like the school and will eventually attend) and that this ranting shows no tact and serves almost as a slap-in-the-face to these students. What you probably should be thinking about is why you even applied to WashU in the first place.</p>

45

<p>Yes, deserving is the better term to describe those applicants who did not get in. But if some one "deserves" something they do not get, it is understandable for them to complain. </p>

<p>My reason for posting an argument is because some accepted students on this thread act as if they are more qualified than all of the waitlisters and therefore were entitled to their spot. For example, some have given their high/average SAT scores/ class rank/ etc in defense of their own acceptance while rejecting the complaints of others, who rightly claimed they were qualified for admissions. Two wrongs do not make a right people. </p>

<p>Everyone, both accepted and waitlisted, needs to understand that luck (major, race, sport, ex-cs, etc.) plays a huge factor in admissions when it comes to deciding between qualified applicants. I do not mean to undervalue your acceptances, but all of you have to understand that their were several applicants who were just as deserving of an acceptance but were not admitted.</p>

<p>As for the waitlisted complainers, you need to understand that everyone who was accepted deserves their acceptances (except for a very small amount of applicants who might have lied in their apps), and that you were waitlisted because they had too many applicants of your race, major, etc. </p>

<p>I do believe interest played a factor in admissions! However, it is reasonable for a college to weed out those applicants who treat Wash U as a saftey school. IMO, they did a pretty good job waitlisting many applicants who probably would not have attended the school. This leaves more room for the applicants who actually want to go to the school! </p>

<p>As for the FA theory, a college has the right to accept students who will pay the full tuition over those who need FA! If they do accept all those FA students, the college will collapse economically and no one will be able to attend the school! Don't get me wrong, those applicants are certainly deserving of an acceptance, but they were just unlucky to have to apply during this recession. </p>

<p>@UVA , For the above reasons, I agree that WUSTL did not engage in any fair practice. Even if they did accept students based off of interest and/or financial reasons, they have the right and the responsibility to do so.</p>

46

<p>I also agree with Jir's post. Everyone should read it. It brings up some really good points.</p>

47

<p>Jir's post is based on the faulty assumption that "data" is the plural of "anectcote." I believe the most likely explanation for the prevalence of "denied because of overqualification" threads is because WUSTL releases its RD results substantially earlier than peer institutions. So, undserstandably, folks who are waitlisted start to worry and comfort themselves by concluding that they were simply overqualified and are certain to gain admission eslewhere. They may well gain admission at other top schools -- I genuinely hope that they do -- but that will demonstrate only that the admissions proces is random, not that they were waitlisted because they are overqualified for WUSTL.</p>

48

<p>UVA, it is completely true that some over 2300+ got in, while a ton were waitlisted. For the average scorers on CC, a ton got accepted and some were waitlisted. Just look at the threads!!</p>

<p>Of course CC only represents a small portion of the applicants, and people who got in with an SAT of 2300+ are less likely to care and post their acceptances.</p>

<p>Regardless, the threads prove that something about the admissions process was strange. I personally think it had something to do with interest.</p>

49

<p>Well said, Helicio. My stats are somewhat lower than yours (3.8 UW GPA, and 2150 SAT) and I was deferred from Yale SCEA and waitlisted at WashU. College admissions are somewhat of a crap shoot, people. Just try your best and be proud of what you've done so far in your life. Everyone on here WILL get into a college; I'm sure of it!</p>

50

<p>First, Congratulations to all people admitted! WashU is a top college and you guys deserve a place there. I am giving my 2 cents on this issue based on my kid’s experience, readings, and observations.
Actually, this kind of practice of waitlisting or even rejecting some top applicants in many elite private colleges is a well documented. According to a study by academics (They are economics professors in an ivy college but I do not remember which one, Princeton? and the title of the research paper, majority of those elite colleges did that, with just a few exceptions, e.g. Harvard, MIT, Caltech. Even Yale and Princeton are not immune to this. The reason is this is an extremely competitive admission game! They are very concerned about their acceptance rates and yields. First, they let applicants believe they pick the best and fittest applicants. This drives up the number of application. Then they look very closely at those very bright applicants to see if they would accept their offers if admitted. They even have statistical model to help them do predication. Nobody wants to be beaten by others and the applicants. The admission officers are trained to find the best and guess which of the best would most likely not attend their college. They are professionals in this game! Why does WashU have the worse reputation than others such as Princeton, Columbia, Duke, Upenn? It is because of its relative position to others and more vulnerable. They realistically know they are in a disadvantageous position to compete for the best of the best, and they simply HAVE TO protect their yields and acceptance rates, and thus their reputation as one of the top colleges in this country. I guess some of them are still in this forum to read this kind of stuff. In one sense, it is the fault of those applicants who think their records are so superior that they are almost entitled to be granted the offers and thus consider WashU as a safety school. But you should know the people in admission offices know better than you do! They are professionally trained to detect your intentions. However, the colleges like WashU bear the primary responsibility of misguiding applicants in terms of their selection criteria. So, unless you can do a better job of misguiding them or apply early so that you are bound to go there, do not worry about thinking applying to WashU if you think it is just a safety school to you.
Need evidences? My kid’s school had two students admitted to WashU (here I mean the RD) and more than a dozen waitlisted. Did the admitted have better records in terms of academic and ECs? No way. Majority of the waitlisted are simply better in these two aspects. Did they have better essays and recs? I do not know and it seemed unlikely, since some of the waitlisted won national essay competitions. But majority of the waitlisted end up being admitted into other better colleges (As far as I can remember, 1 Princeton, 1 Columbia, 1 Chicago, 1 Duke, 2 Upenn, 1 Harvard, 2 Cornell, 1 Caltech). So, for those waitlisted, do not worry about your chances at other top colleges. Just give a specific example here. An applicant waitlisted by WashU had outstanding records in terms of academic and ECs: 2300+ SAT, 5s’ for all APs, 3.99GPA (UW), regular columnist in school newspaper, and one of ECs leading to be a very prestigious national honor. Essay and Recs? I do not k now. But I guess nothing but excellent due to the fact of getting offers from Harvard and other top ones. Was this applicant not fit in WashU? If not fit, what kind of students do they really want? Imagine what outcome would be if in ED. This is just to show there is indeed some exceptional applicant being waitlisted there. So, applicants should know more about how the colleges select their students before deciding to apply. I do not think any college would tell the whole truth, because doing that would destroy their reputation.</p>

51

<p>"An applicant waitlisted by WashU had outstanding records in terms of academic and ECs: 2300+ SAT, 5s’ for all APs, 3.99GPA (UW), regular columnist in school newspaper, and one of ECs leading to be a very prestigious national honor. Essay and Recs? I do not k now. But I guess nothing but excellent due to the fact of getting offers from Harvard and other top ones. Was this applicant not fit in WashU? If not fit, what kind of students do they really want? Imagine what outcome would be if in ED."</p>

<p>Are you saying that if a person manage to get into Harvard, it means he/she should get into any of the lower ranked schools? </p>

<p>You should also check the forum about WashU ED result. There were plenty of "Perfect students" who got deferred and they of course had no "lack of interest" issue.</p>

52

<p>BearCub, please read carefully and do not take things out of context. The Harvard thing I mentioned was just to provide something to support my guessing of "essay and recs". I did not have any access to the essay and recs and can only give a guess. The guess is a low-bound, meaning they should not be worse, not necessarily better, than any applicant admitted to WashU. BTW, I forgot to mention that that applicant was invited to the White House by the President.</p>

53

<p>"that applicant was invited to the White House by the President". I mean because of the EC and the prestigeous honor, not because of something else such as presonal or family relationship or celebrity status.</p>

54

<p>Take the shoes of the admission officers or the director of admission office, or even the college president and understand their interest and job security. I am sympathetic toward them on this issue and had no bad feeling, even though my DD did not get in there. They know their relative position in this competition. Just look at the cross-admit yield data (I do not remember where I read it sometime last year) to see what competition was. Harvard, Yale, Stanford, MIT, and Princeton beat other top colleges badly. Anybody in admission business knows and assumes reasonably a top student would apply to and be probably given the offers from peer and better colleges and thus has several offers in hand. That is why the role reverses after they send out admission letters. They will write and call to persuade the admitters to choose their college and turn down offers from others. Give an extreme, totally hypothetical example to illustrate this, if WashU offers ALL admission to applicants who were also admitted to HYPSM. What many students could they predict to get for their class that year according to the across-admission yield data? According to that cross-admit yield table (I still do not remember the exact numbers), maybe just 10-30%. At the same time, they have to waitlist their next best group of applicants who also get offers from other peer colleges and in the end may lose a large number of them before you decide to take them out of the list to extend them your offers. Then, you would be in a huge trouble for enrollment for that year. You do not want to have a terrible year and ruin the reputation of the college and lose your own job. Even the college president would have huge trouble to report to the board of trustees. So, be realistic. Even though you assume WashU is indeed better than any of HYPSM, can you change the minds of majority of people easily? If you are the director, how can you report to the president and how do you instruct the admission officers?</p>

55

<p>Hello,</p>

<p>I am the parent of a applicant who got accepted by WASH U. In no way was she over qualified.</p>

<p>Her HS particpates in NAVIANCE which keeps tabs of students applications/acceptances. According to those records, which reflect those who applied to a particular college, the average GPA was 94 (unweighted) and total SAT was 2300+ for those who applied. Those stats don't sound like overqualified in terms.</p>

<p>BTW my daughter had 93.37 GPA and 2360 SAT and averaged 765 on 4 SAT2. Is she over qualified? I don't think so.</p>

56

<p>Congrats! IMO, you have an outstanding daughter. As I said, WashU is indeed a top college hard to get in and they do have a lot of top students like your daughter who can go anywhere they want to. She probably has alredy gotten letter and calls from WashU to urge her to join them. If your daughter also applied to some of HYPSM and get offers from some of them with much generous financial aid packages, would she be a bit hesitant about where to go? All I said is not about individual case of overqualification, though I gave some examples. To me, getting in WashU is a wonderful thing. The real thing is the corss-admit yield data collected (by NYT? or someone) and academic research on this issue. The question they face is how many students like your daughter they would actually enroll in their class in the end? That is the reality admission officers and applicants have to face.</p>

57

<p>To boil this entire topic down to the most basic level that I can, I ask everyone to look at the most repeated statement in college admissions. "Colleges are not trying to admit just the best students, they are trying to build a good student body." Students need to be multi-dimensional! You need to be a person! You need to be strong and confident in your essays! But, most of all, you need to be a kid. I was recently admitted to WashU- not because I outscored all of my peers in school or because I dominated the SAT (in fact, I did neither), but because I showed personality and dedication. </p>

<p>Waitlisted students, I get what you are going through, believe me. But, attacking an entire group of students without a warrant (other than "Wash U waitlisted the overqualified applicants and accepted the mediocre applicants") is very offensive and very condescending. You have every right to be FRUSTRATED, but have no right to be ANGRY. (Btw- reality check- you were waitlisted at the #12 best school in the country... its really not a bad place to be. haha) </p>

<p>Maybe i'm trying to justify why i got in. But honestly, if I was in your shoes, the last thing I would be doing is ranting on a college forum about how all "overqualified" people got rejected. I would be on the phone calling WashU, talking to my guidance counselor, making sure that Wash U knows every one of my new accomplishments. If you applied to Wash U just to get in, (as in you weren't seriously considering it as a potential college choice) then ask yourself, "what did I lose?" The answer is nothing (except maybe an app fee)! If you truly want to go to Wash U, do something! Make sure they know you're interested! Make sure they know you care! But do not insult others. </p>

<p>Now, ask your parents exactly where they got in and where they were waitlisted and rejected form for their undergraduate education (assuming they have one). I guarantee that less than 5% of them will be able to recall where they applied, let alone their decision. </p>

<p>You may choose to follow my advice and you may not. But those of you who choose to follow it, don't forget what happened to the boy/girl who got everything that he/she wanted... He/She lived happily ever after!</p>

58

<p>my friend:</p>

<p>into yale, unc, cornell, and likely letter from columbia</p>

<p>waitlisted at wash u</p>

59

<p>My nephew:</p>

<p>SAT 2390 (one and only sitting)
val
NMF
Pres Scholar semi
unusual ECs (did research for a national museum)
amazing math and science mind, incredible writer, etc. etc. </p>

<p>Waitlisted/rejected - Harvard, Stanford, MIT</p>

<p>Accepted - Harvey Mudd, CalTech, Northwestern, AND WashU</p>

<p>There's another one that blows the "waitlisting the over qualified" theory!</p>

60

<p>I just want to throw in my .02 here:</p>

<p>First off, NO ONE should feel entitled to an admission offer from WashU. So many people on these forums simply disgust me in that they seem to see the school as inferior. In fact some have even mentioned WashU as being an inferior institution...On what basis are people making this judgment? Just because maybe not as many people have heard of WashU as have Yale but that says absolutely nothing about the comparable quailty of education. I am currently a freshman at William & Mary and am looking to transfer to WashU in the fall and after visiting, I cannot tell you how impressed I am with the school. If this school is so "inferior", then why did you apply in the first place? There are PLENTY of people who would turn down ivies for WashU due to the quality of life factor. I have met people from ivies as well as WashU through Model UN and I can say with certainty that the WashU students I have met are just as bright and are not NEARLY as pretentious as a whole. </p>

<p>I went through this process last year and I am sorry you were rejected/waitlisted but one should not be bitter about it. College admissions go far beyond numbers as each institution looks to put together the perfect class. I understand that disappointment is almost inevitable when it comes to college admissions but those who can handle it constructively show a great deal of maturity. </p>

<p>WashU is an elite institution and should be seen as such. Perhaps WashU admissions can tell which applicants feel "entitled" and as a result, send them to the waitlist. These people have been doing what they do for a long time and have gotten pretty good at it. They can tell who would really be a good fit and who wouldn't really fit in with the WashU community. Why would they want to accept someone who is clearly using them as a safety? Character goes a long way at some schools when it comes to admissions. Just because it is a hit to some of your enormous egos, it gives you no reason to vilify the admissions committee and the school as a whole. I applaud the people who have handled being waitlisted maturely. To those of you who legitimately want to go to WashU, I encourage you all to pursue the waitlist and be relentless in your efforts to gain admission.</p>

<p>~Ajay</p>