<p>I have heard of schools postponing student enrollment until later in the school year and not counting them in their stats because they have lower numbers than the fall students. </p>
<p>Is it conceivable that a wait-list could be manipulated to the schools advantage? </p>
<p>Are there other ways schools can game the system? </p>
<p>The common data set is GREAT but like everything it should be taken with a grain of salt. Or am I wrong …</p>
<p>That is not the wait list. That is spring admission.</p>
<p>Yes, it can be used to manipulate CDS and similar data. However, it is likely that the primary purpose is to load-balance enrollment, since fall semesters are usually more heavily enrolled than spring semesters.</p>
<p>A wait list would not matter because the data is based on enrolled students as of the institution’s official fall reporting date or as of October 15, 2012. </p>
<p>As UCB, stated, a spring admit would change the landscape.</p>
<p>Yes. The waitlist can really help yield. But I don’t think I’ve seen that manipulation as it would show up in the numbers of kids coming off the waitlist. Though I 've been seeing huge waitlists, I don’t see a lot kids on them getting offers. Nor do I see huge spring programs at the more selective schools. At those schools where I see the spring programs,I see a perfectly good reason to have this happening without the CDC issues.</p>
<p>There is indeed CDS manipulation as Cal and Middlebury have learned to appreciate. The issue is, however, based on the design of the CDS that allows the inclusion of the total number of applicants but the exclusionof the Spring Amits. </p>
<p>One solution would be to add the later admits and enrolled onto the following Fall numbers. The reality is that this issue has NEVER concerned Bob Morse. And he has 99 more problems with his survey and the CDS to revise the forms. </p>
<p>So the skewed data will continue to appear and be used in the rankings with impunity.</p>
<p>The waitlist games is a viable crutch for both yield and selectivity, as verbal offers can turn into 100 percent yield. The numbers of WL admits can be substantial. A few years back, Duke admitted 200 from its WL. Not a rounding error.</p>
<p>Sorry for bringing up Spring Admissions to confuse the issue. </p>
<p>I’m referring to a CSS/Profile school (not – no-name little state U) that is bringing 23% of their class from the wait list which has made me suspicious. This school has a huge motivation to continue to make itself “selective”. </p>
<p>So if I’m understanding the responses it could help their yield but probably not much else. Or they could possibly be doing some funny business …</p>
<p>xiggi-- Many thanks for your (CC) suggestions in helping my daughter ACE the PSAT/SAT. Your advice was invaluable and helped her win the lottery.</p>
<p>School’s choice spring admission seems to be getting more common, with USC (Trojans), Boston University, Maryland, Northeastern, and others beyond those usually named doing it these days.</p>
<p>Some spring admits may be able to save some money, if the spring-admit school allows taking courses in the fall at a low cost community college and transferring them usefully, allowing the student to pay 7 instead of 8 semesters at the four year school.</p>