the stats AP in me just wants to tell you that the stats are not randomized.
Your sample consisted of ppl on CC who were WILLING to post stats if accepted or waitlisted. There's a big stretch between that and the real population.
true, Magnus, but it seems to me that most people here keep saying something along the lines of "All you have to do is look at the stats on the decisions thread to see that waitlisted people have higher stats than those who were accepted."
no.. most people were saying that it is clear that there are two main groups of wait-listees: those who are overqualified and those who just didn't make the cut. if you compare the stats of the overqualified group to the accepted, you will see the overqualified kids had better stats. But test scores isn't the only thing that makes the overqualified students overqualified. All of the overqualified kids have great ECs, essays, and reccomendations. How do I know this? Well, if they didn't have great all-around applications they wouldn't have gotten likelies from so many top schools. In fact, some of these kids got likelies to Harvard and Yale (which I think is truely incredible).
^^^ Exactly. Which should make many of you reanalyze the theory that there is such thing as an "overqualified" applicant to a top school (and yes, WashU is one!)
This "observational study" is also compeletely uncontrolled. Using people on this forum will create huge response (people lying inflating themselves ITS THE INTERNET IT DOES HAPPEN!), underrepresentation, and voluntary response biases. This "data" is absolutely useless.
the REAL reason those statistics don't tell the whole story is that they are purely test scores.
as you can see on the decisions thread (and as this statistic shows), there are a LOT of accepted students with high test scores. But a lot of these students also had relatively low GPAs. (I'm talking 3.6-3.8 UW, which is low compared to the GPAs of a lot of the waitlistees--who had both high test scores AND high GPAs)
so just because the test scores seem to be as high, doesn't mean "overqualification" is a myth. remember that GPA is just as important.
MCookie: Are you still around stirring the pot? You have the best attitude of anybody regarding the whole admissions game. Do you ever get mad? You seem to have kept the whole thing in perspective regarding all your schools.
^Eh, I just hate it when things are misunderstood. That's probably why I seem to have a "good attitude"--because I have to do justice to the truth, and it would bother me to delude myself.
Although the truth is I have an awful attitude, lol, and it's just beginning to improve. As for Wash U...oh well. Moooovin' right along
the REAL reason those statistics don't tell the whole story is that they are purely test scores.
as you can see on the decisions thread (and as this statistic shows), there are a LOT of accepted students with high test scores. But a lot of these students also had relatively low GPAs. (I'm talking 3.6-3.8 UW, which is low compared to the GPAs of a lot of the waitlistees--who had both high test scores AND high GPAs)
so just because the test scores seem to be as high, doesn't mean "overqualification" is a myth. remember that GPA is just as important.
You can't analyze GPA alone, as average GPAs for schools are considered. Colleges look at your relative GPA compared with your HS's profile. Going to a school that's known for relatively hard courses with lower average GPAs and getting a 3.6 could be the same as going to an ordinary school and getting a 3.8.
