<p>Not a bloody clue, but as it happens all the time, I assume Amherst just isn't a fit for some people. I can speculate that it may have something to do with the strength of Yale's debate team (she and I are both on the same circuit as Yale), but really, no idea. By the tone of your post, I'm guessing you're something of an Amherst fan, but it's important to keep in mind that frequently schools make mistakes and admit people who don't fit. It's just a fact of life. A student at my current university (Wesleyan) actually transferred here FROM Yale. I may not understand the decision, but that doesn't make it less valid. She probably had good reasons. I assume my friend does as well.</p>
<p>I can see why people would chose Yale over Amherst. I was just wondering what about her experience was so bad that she would go through the transfer process when she was already at a very elite school. And yes I understand about fit. I can see how a small lac like Amherst isn't for everyone but it's really the responsibility of the student and not the adcom to realize that. </p>
<p>I applied to Wes as a transfer. What don't you like about it?</p>
<p>It seems like colleges should let transfers know that they are doing rolling admissions.</p>
<p>what do you mean by moratorium message? what did it say? is it like a waitlist?</p>
<p>I'm pretty sure Yale is done... unless they lied in the rejection letter</p>
<p>according to canaday (if i'm interpreting correctly):
there may still be a group of people who havent received any decisions, which means their applications are still under consideration. or,
there may be a waiting list.</p>
<p>FYI -- I was given the "moratorium" message before I even got a chance to tell the person my name</p>
<p>There is a substantial group of people who are still under consideration, according to the hearsay I already cited. They will receive decisions in the next three to four weeks. As for lying in the rejection letter, schools follow this policy all the time. As someone who was on the Harvard waiting list until the very bitter end, I can tell you that many people on the waiting list got rejection letters months before I got mine. Think of it like "American Idol." </p>
<p>As for the response about why you would choose Yale over Amherst because Amherst is already prestigious, it isn't all about prestige. Those of us fortunate enough to attend prestigious universities/LACs don't lead blessed lives free from conflict. Frequently, a school (like Wesleyan) may be an excellent institution which we are quite capable of excelling at, but which we are just not happy at, academically/socially/etc. In my case, Wesleyan was not a fit because:</p>
<p>a. The academic catalogue was oppressively small with ridiculously small classes, leading to quite a bit of factionalism between class years to the point taht I'd get dirty looks for being in an upper division Govt course just because I "should have waited until I was junior" to take it, so that I wouldn't take an upperclassman's spot. I like small courses, but I'd rather not be foreclosed from taking interesting courses because of class envy (meaning class year envy).
b. The debate team at Wesleyan was far more laid back than I was about debate, and I felt frustrated by what I perceived as a lack of support.
c. I'm a conservative Republican. Wesleyan is Wesleyan. 'Nuff said.</p>
<p>Don't let this discourage you. My interests were eclectic enough that Wesleyan couldn't satisfy them. That doesn't mean it's not an excellent school and that I don't recommend it highly to all I come into contact with. Every prospective freshman I've ever hosted has decided to come here, because I plug the school like all hell. Wesleyan's a great place. So is Amherst. It's just that I and my friend would rather be somewhere else...like Yale.</p>
<p>...how hardcore can you get about parli?
why would yale want to recruit you? they already have the best teams in the nation.</p>
<p>I called Amherst elite, not prestigious. You obviously heard elite and your mind jumped to the prestige factor. I was actually referring to the quality of instruction and peers. And I never suggested it wasn't possible to be unhappy at an elite school, just that one shouldn't really blame the adcoms for admitting them even though they weren't a good "fit."</p>
<p>Thanks for the info about Wes. Are there a good amount of moderates there, or is pretty much everyone super liberal?</p>
<p>caraway,</p>
<p>I never thought Yale would want to recuit me for debate, and anyhow, it wouldn't matter, because their team is student-run. Would I get on the team if I went to Yale? Time will tell. Point is, I simply said I'd rather go to a school with a more devoted team. As for how hardcore you can get about Parli, trust me, you can get quite hardcore. </p>
<p>As for your question, addy, the answer is very complex. Yes, there are a few "moderates" here (if by "moderates", you mean "mainstream democrats"). However, you wouldn't know it because most of the far left members of this campus do their best to strawman any sort of opposition or moderation into racism, sexism or classism. If you want a long rant about this, PM me. I'd rather not let loose on this forum.</p>
<p>Canaday,</p>
<p>I thought a bit more this morning about the "hearsay" that you are substantiating, and I don't think that it makes sense that Yale would be rolling its decisions. In fact, I am indeed convinced that, with the exception of a waiting list which Yale usually elects to create, but of which we have, as of yet, seen no evidence on these boards, Yale is done with its review of applications.</p>
<p>I point to two quotes from the standard letter of denial that many of us have reported receiving:
"The admissions committee has COMPLETED its meetings..."
"Selecting a group of less than thirty WAS a difficult task..." (emphasis added)</p>
<p>I believe that Yale was very precise in its language in the letter, and that it can fairly be interpreted to mean what it says. If Yale wanted to roll its decisions, they would have not written a letter as such. Rather they would have used language like, "The admissions committee has completed its review of your application..." which would suggest that it may or may not have completed the review of other applications.</p>
<p>Yale has no precedent to roll its decisions, they have not done so in the past, they have announced no change of policy, and there hasn't been a major change of leadership in the admissions office between this year and last year. It is still about a week early in the transfer season, and there is no reason why Yale had to release decisions to some applicants now. Even if some decisions were made a month ago, Yale is within every right to hold the decisions and release them all at once and at a later date: around a week or two from now, which is when I believe they came out last year (correct me if I'm wrong, I haven't had a chance to search last year's transfer threads).</p>
<p>Yale, or any school of similar prestige has never rolled its decisions, they have always waited until all have been made to release them, and I see now reason why it should be different now. That said, there may be a few applicants who were placed on a waiting list, but they would have similarly been notified of their status.</p>
<p>Finally, regarding your point about the Harvard waitlist and lying: I would like to point out that there was no lying involved. Harvard was very precise in its use of language, as any school which might be subject to lawsuits from any number of applicants who might have felt deceived or unjustly denied would be. It is in the school's absolute interest to be completely honest concerning any information it chooses to release to the public. It would be very unwise for schools to lie in their written letters, and create a problem so easily avoidable.</p>
<p>I was in the portion of Harvard waitlistees that was denied early on, and I will note that the rejection letter said something along the lines of:
"[high freshman enrollment means that we WILL only be able to take a few students off of our waiting list this year]"
Harvard's language did not at all suggest in any way that the waiting list process was complete for all applicants, it just informed us of our denial, but still acknowledged that there may still have been other applicants under consideration.</p>
<p>So obviously, I don't have first, or as you do second-hand access to information from the admissions office, but these are the conclusions I came to based on my interpretation of Yale's letter.</p>
<p>Yale admission office told me on the phone that "decisions have been mailed".</p>
<p>Transferapp07,</p>
<p>Your interpretation may be correct. Who knows? I was only posting what I'd heard. You can believe it or not. Obviously, only God and Yale (contrary to popular belief, not the same thing) know if it's true.</p>
<p>post 93...</p>
<p>while we are here,
anybody know anything about when harvard hands down decisions? (thought i'd keep with the theme of courtroom metaphors :-)</p>
<p>Rejected. Applying from Brown U., originally from CA.</p>
<p>rejecteddddddd</p>
<p>were the letters large for acceptances / small for rejected? or all the same? also, I'm from MA, pretty close to Yale, and haven't received anything yet. It seems strange....</p>
<p>^^^I got my rejection in CA yesterday. Can't speak to the size... my dad told me over the phone. There's nothing sweeter than a father conveying a rejection to a son, no matter how expected it is. ha</p>