Cool bro! You got into what you consider a "better school". So why are you complaining about being waitlisted at WUSTL? Do you have to put down WUSTL now because you can't take being waitlisted. Must you go about saying that you were "over-qualified"? You do realize that by saying, "I'm just over qualified and WUSTL must have Tufts Syndrome cause I got waitlisted, but I got into ______ University" makes you look very cocky. Seriously many of you sound so cocky in the "Waitlisted..." thread. If you got into what you consider a "better school," congrats! But don't be a prick about being waitlisted at WUSTL. Go to your "better school". What we don't need here is a smear campaign.
To those who won't stop complaining about being "over-qualified" and WUSTL having a "Tufts-Syndrom", there is a reason why you were waitlisted: WUSTL is a school where pretty much all the students are happy there (just walk around campus). Your whining just shows how you would not fit in there.
I feel obligated to say this so no one will say that I'm just kid who feels insecure about his Wash U acceptance. I have also been accepted (early) at Caltech, MIT and UChicago.
Last edited by coffeeannarbor; 03-12-2012 at 01:04 AM.
People need to realize that there is no such thing as being "overqualified" for Wash U or for any of the nation's top universities. A score of 2400 on the SAT is a percentile of 99.93. More than 1.5 million people take the SAT, which means at least 45,000 get a 2400. If all it took was a 2400 on the SAT and great grades in high school, then the people attending Harvard, MIT, Princeton, Yale, Caltech, Wash U, etc. would only be those people who got a 2400. Yet it's quite obvious that this is certainly not the case for everybody at those schools.
Admissions at any university is a complicated holistic process. Nobody except the admissions officers can be sure what exactly the schools are looking for. For the case of Wash U, I find it ridiculous that some people seem to think they are overqualified. Tens of thousands of people apply for only 1500 spots in the freshman class. With the exception of a few, almost all of the applicants fit the bill academically. Nobody should take a rejection personally because at any competitive school, you just can't accept everybody.
On the issue of showing interest, can you really blame Wash U for not accepting students who don't show interest? Given the thousands of applications they receive, what motivation do they have to accept person A over person B if they have very similar stats but person B has demonstrated enthusiasm toward attending the school? Tufts Syndrome is the theory that Tufts (or whichever school it may be) waitlists/rejects "overqualified" students to have a better yield percentage. That's a load of crap. Why accept students who haven't shown any interest in matriculating? Nobody should discredit the admissions officers, considering they do what they do for a living and Wash U consistently ranks among the nation's best in quality of student life. The Wash U community is amazing, so whatever the admissions officers do is working. In all likelihood, people who boast that they are overqualified to attend Wash U would not fit in here.
Yeah, my fault. I screwed up a few decimal places there. My point is that enough people get above a 2300 to saturate many of the top-tier schools, yet they don't.
Last edited by RaVNzCRoFT; 03-12-2012 at 02:23 AM.
FWIW, I know 3 people who were accepted to every school they applied to except Wash U, where waitlisted. One had 2390 on SAT and missed 10 pts on WR. Other two graduated from U of Chicago. A bit strange if you ask me. 2 of the 3 may well have gone there if admitted. One probably not.
Last edited by OhioMom3000; 03-13-2012 at 12:04 AM.
I can also list plenty of people who got into 3+ ivy's, washu, and a few other top schools, but were rejected from another random top school.
Anecdotal evidence means nothing.
To suggest that those who were accepted to WashU are inferior to those who were waitlisted (which is essentially what people complaining about "tufts syndrome" are doing) is a HUGE insult.
Here's more anecdotal evidence. I got into EVERY school I applied to. So where does that put me, hmm?
The fact that two kids were accepted to UChicago but waitlisted at WashU means nothing. Numerous people (myself included) are accepted to UChicago AND WashU every year. In these cases, there was no sign of "Tufts Syndrome." It's not as though WashU has on and off bouts of Tufts Syndrome; they don't waitlist excellent applicants when they're in a bad mood, and then accept them when they're in a good mood. As has been said countless times: unless you are an admissions officer, you will never understand what is going through their heads during the decision process. You can read articles, you can read books, but nothing will be able to tell you what they were thinking when they read YOUR (or your son's or daughter's) application.
I understand that people are disappointed. It's okay to be frustrated. It's okay to wonder where you went wrong. But when people choose to console themselves by thinking, "I truly am better than everyone else," then perhaps they've already answered the question of where they went wrong.
35 ACT, 800 math II, 760 us history and 740 bio e sat II, national merit finalist, AP scores of 5, 5,5,5,5,and 4, high school all american and state champion athlete, top 20 high school and less than 80 k family income -- the adcoms amust have pressed the wrong button and accepted instead of waitlisted according to some of these posters. Look at the folks deferred from Harvard or Brown for Pete's sake. These negative comments denigrate the achievements of those fortunate enough be admitted.
This is an interesting NPR piece on the admissions process:
Wash U does waitlist a lot more students than any other college! Last year my son was waitlisted at Wash U and the list had 10,000 students on it! He was also waitlisted at Stanford that had 900 students on it. You tell me who is manipulating the data?
