What in the world?

<p>Thank you, TheaJay, great post and exactly my thoughts on all of this!</p>

<p>I agree, best post thus far. Theajay, I have to add the bitterness toward a rejection is natural for any applicant, but eventually (the earlier the better), an applicant has to move on.</p>

<p>I also agree that they most likely did a good job selecting people who would fit in he college community. I, personally, would rather go to college with those accepted with "average stats" than the "over-qualified" applicants with huge egos.</p>

<p>First of all, my college experience will be more enjoyable. Second of all, those applicants are probably more likely to cooperate with other students, therefore making academics more bearable.</p>

<p>As for those who were waitlisted b/c they have no interest toward Wash U, you probably would not have gone to the school, so why make applicants, who actually want to attend, wait longer for their admissions?</p>

<p>Congrats to all accepted applicants. Good Luck to all waitlisters who are still trying to gain admissions to Wash U.</p>

<p>Just some FYI on what I read before and could find now. Not necessarily directly connected to WashU. Just something that may help us make sense of the admission game among elite colleges. </p>

<p><a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=601105%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=601105&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>The</a> New York Times > Week in Review > Image > Collegiate Matchups: Predicting Student Choices</p>

<p>Golden, Daniel. "Glass Floor: How Colleges Reject The Top Applicants–And Boost Their Status
–Accepting Only the Students Likely to Enroll Makes A School Look Selective–'They
Were Simply Too Good'," The Wall Street Journal, 29 May 2001, p. A1</p>

<p>You can form your opinions and I will no longer say anything.</p>

<p>Do any of you who posit that you, your son/daughter or someone you know was waitlisted because s/he is "overqualified" really think that the odds of a 2400/4.0 applicant being admitted to WashU are lower than the odds of a 2200/3.8 applicant being admitted all other things being equal? No, I didn't think so.</p>

<p>People just like to complain. That's a universal truth.</p>

<p>Yesir^^, and people like to complain back. For this reason, this thread has gone on forever.</p>

<p>I don't agree with the overqualified people being wait listed just in case washu was their safety. i had decent stats 3.81uw/32 act, but in no way was i overqualified and i was wait listed. they simply just had better applicants than me who were a better fit for the school. it's sad those who were wait listed are blaming it on being overqualified..unlikely, just because your stats were good doesn't mean your essay,recs,ecs were good. washu isn't just about stats..instead of putting washu down for wait listing you worry more about the schools you did get into/are waiting to hear from..complaining is highly nothing but a waste of time</p>

<p>People. I do believe some applicants were indeed more qualified than many other applicants in all aspects except interest/fit. To the above poster, it is safe to say most (or at least, a good amount) of those applicants have superb essays/recs/ecs/etc. down the board. Just look at some of the Wash U decisions threads! </p>

<p>However, in my opinion, interest is a qualification for admissions. They are better off accepting someone with a 3.2 GPA / 1850 SAT who has shown deep interest to Wash U than an applicant with a 4.0 GPA / 2400 SAT that showed 0 interest to Wash U (in terms of mail lists, visits, additional essays, etc.), who they think will be accepted at HYPS.</p>

<p>What more does the "overqualified applicants" have to offer Wash U than the other committed applicant if it is obvious the overqualified applicant will not even attend the school!?</p>

<p>My point is, some applicants are indeed more qualified (in terms of stats/recs/essays/awards/app) than other applicants. No one can deny that fact! Some of the accepted students are complaining how they are really more qualified/equally qualified than the applicants with ridiculous stats! Of course, all of you feel bad because they are "indirectly" attacking the validity of your acceptances. But at the same time, all of you are putting off the hard work those waitlisted applicants put into their high school careers to win Intel , get a 2400 SAT, or rank #1 in the class! </p>

<p>But as I stated before the previous paragraph, those who are "overqualified" for admissions, lose their qualification when they show no interest to the school or demonstrate how they are a bad fit among Wash U students.</p>

<p>If an "overqualified" student joined the mailing list, visited the campus, showed interest through the app, then they should have been admitted as long as they seem like a reasonable fit personality-wise. But most of the complainers did no such thing, hence their waitlist decisions!</p>

<p>By the way, I am a waitlisted applicant with relatively low SAT scores. I totally understand why I was waitlisted (SATs, lack of interest), so please do not label me as an "overqualified" complainer. I am totally neutral in the situation and believe both sides (the accepted and the "overqualified") are in the wrong.</p>

<p>waitn184: How can you make assumptions of an applicant being more qualified than another without reading the entire application? </p>

<p>Yes, because we ALL know that being good at regurgitating worthless information in high school to incompetent teachers translates to success at the college level. Furthermore, those who have taken numerous SAT courses to raise their score to a 2300 from a 2100 means that the applicant is FAR more qualified than someone who found better things to do with their time.</p>

<p>Yes, to some extent it is a numbers game but admissions counselors can see which applicants are gaming their four years of high school to be competitive for schools that are "better" than WashU. People need to realize that someone's ECs, essays, and recommendations can say a lot about someone's actual motivation and intellectual curiosity. </p>

<p>3.8/2100 vs. 4.0/2350: Such a scenario may SEEM like a big delta but in reality, we're splitting hairs here. You cannot possibly compare applicants based solely on what they post in the decisions thread.</p>

<p>As background, my S was admitted ED with average stats-- perhaps even on the low end. He was looking for a school that was strong academically but also one that was inviting and unpretentious. Wash U fit the bill.<br>
When I look at these posts of students who perceive themselves to be "over-qualified" and angry that they were waitlisted, I have a sigh of relief that he made the right choice. I sense that the students who select Wash U are ones that are place other values over immediate name recognition and have really taken a holistic view of what they want in a college experience.
As another post mentioned, the difference between 2100 and 2400 SAT scores is ultimately immaterial. Both show a high aptitude and in the end the most successful students will be those with a strong and rigorous H.S. education. I also think it is worth noting, as it has been before, that College Confidential is such a small percent of the overall application pool. At my son's school and the neighboring ones, about 30% or more got in to Wash U, among them some with extraordinary stats. So, although it may be comforting to think that those waitlisted were just too good for Wash U, it is simply not true.
It may not seem this way now, but I can assure you that the prestige of an Ivy League education fades with every passing year after graduation. You may get one or two free passes early on, but it comes down to performance and personality (character, I might add as well). Those who constantly refer to where they went to school become a bit of a joke in the real world. I've seen it all too often. </p>

<p>Good luck to all. Don't let this college admissions define who you are. If you do then you will find yourself ill prepared for real setbacks in life.</p>

<p>Cd, thanks for your inspiring input. </p>

<p>@THEAjay, I am not making any specific assumptions (e.g razman123 is more qualified than teb098). All I am saying is that someone with perfect/almost perfect stats on CC is more than likely to write a great essay or have a great rec than someone with a 2060 SAT. I have read some essays of those on CC with perfect stats and those who have normal stats. Typically, the essays of those with perfect stats were perfect/great/decent enough. Same with recs, if someone is very active/successful in his/her class, they are more likely to have great recs from teachers/ counselors. Finally, ECs are basically covered on the CC threads. We can get a general feel for how strong one's ECs are just by looking at the ECs list in context of the rest of the CC post, leadership positions, correspondence with major/other ECs, and finally awards relating to the ECs.</p>

<p>Given the large amount of these overachievers who were waitlisted, it is safe to assume (based on the above argument) that many of those applicants were indeed more qualified for admissions than some accepted students in every aspect of college admissions EXCEPT interest or fit. Fit is usually a mater of luck. (e.g. how many people from your region, of your major, of your race applied). Interest is not based off of luck. Those who successfully showed interest towards Wash U and were accepted deserved that acceptance, regardless of other aspects of their app.</p>

<p>"Yes, because we ALL know that being good at regurgitating worthless information in high school to incompetent teachers translates to success at the college level."</p>

<p>It is proven that HS grades/GPA corresponds with college grades/GPA. I do not know how you define success in college (pea shooting champion?), but Grad Schools/ Med Schools/ Law Schools look at GPA to see how well an applicant performed well in college. Of course, college will be different than HS, but I still think you have to "regurgitate worthless information" in college. </p>

<p>About SAT scores, you are making unproven generalizations which undermine the legitimately high scores of several applicants. Face it, some applicants can take the SAT for the first time in their lives (without practice), and get 2300+. Anyways, you forgot to consider the possibility of "average" scorers paying for classes and raising their SATs 300+ pts. (e.g from a 1900 to a 2200).</p>

<p>It has been two weeks people. Give it up.
I am white. I applied for financial aid. I showed no interest. Admissions is a crapshoot sometimes. So is life. Get used to it.</p>

<p>Just to give you a little backup info, waitn184, my D took the SAT once only, and was 800CR, 730M, 800W. I pretty much agree with everything else you said also. Numerous studies have shown a strong correlation between GPA in HS and college, as well as SAT scores. Some universities have ditched the SAT's out of PC considerations, but not many despite the intense pressure a few years back. In this day and age of highly sophisticated modeling of applicants, don't you think they would tell students not to bother if they didn't find the SAT's useful? (ACT's too I am sure, although she never took those).</p>

<p>For all people obsessing over where they go, especially parents that are so stuck on their kid getting into an Ivy or similar, chill. CG123 is right, the whole "I went to Harvard" thing makes little difference once you have your first job, and if you are planning on grad/med/law school, even less. Good grades at any good school, along with good GRE/MCAT/LSAT scores will get you where you want to go. After that it is up to you and how you perform.</p>

<p>The textbooks at Wash U, Vandy, Harvard, Stanford, Tulane, Duke, etc. are the same as at XYZ State. The profs at all the top 100 schools are generally competent, and I would argue that the ones at the non-Ivies usually have more time for and pay more attention to undergrads than at the Ivies, where they are very focused on research and their grad students and winning grants and Nobel Prizes and the like. That sounds like a putdown of Ivies, but it is not. They are just not as undergrad oriented as the Wash U's and similar schools.</p>

<p>The biggest difference, I think, between schools at one tier and the next tier is the quality and competitiveness of your fellow students. Most people need to be pushed, especially when there are all the other more fun things to do around you all the time. Knowing that your fellow students are as smart or smarter than you keeps you honest. That, along with 100 other factors, is what "fit" is all about. One thing I know without any doubt is that you should pick a school based on where you will have the best overall experience, not where you think it is so impressive to have gone. As long as it challenges you and isn't just a skiing vacation, lol.</p>

<p>fallenchemist - You absolutely nailed it in your last paragraph. The major difference is the level of your classmates. As for name recognition - if the name is not as well known, then what would the parents have to brag about.</p>

<p>I got waitlisted. I'm a little disgruntled- I got into Cornell with a likely letter, and I showed tons of interest in WashU (mailing list, applying for scholarships, visited for 2 days, interviwed, the whole 9 yards) but was waitlisted. It's pretty unpredictable. </p>

<p>I think they probably do reject those they think are unlikely to attend. Now, whether that's because they feel someone is overqualified, or doesn't have the fit, or just doesn't seem like they're going to enroll, is pretty subjective. I don't think anyone can deny WUSTL (and probably most every other school) does that in one way or another, but it's impossible to say "I got waitlisted because I was overqualified," unless you are YoYo Ma or some other crazy thing, which the vast majority of us are not.</p>