<p>I wonder how much this “Tufts Syndrome” venting hurts a school like WashU in the long run? I know that at my son’s school there have been two HIGHLY qualified applicants waitlisted and they have read all the WL management information on CC.</p>
<p>As a result, I expect they will spread the word, I know my second son wouldn’t apply, and the highly qualified kids at my son’s school will be less likely to apply in the coming years. My son and the other young man WL are widely respected in their school and their college decisions are closely watched.</p>
<p>I have no idea whether there is <em>ANY</em> merit to the WL controversy. I just know that some of the students believe it and so, ultimately, they will opt out. </p>
<p>While WashU will probably always have more than enough terrific applicants, you have to wonder if their image won’t suffer a bit–even if undeserved?</p>
<p>SAT CR: 680-760
SAT M: 700-780
ACT: 31-34
Top 10%: 96%</p>
<p>I’d love to see the stats of the so-called “overqualified” applicants. WUStL admitted fewer than 22% of applicants last year, and blaming a rejection on Tufts Syndrome may be comforting – but it is not accurate.</p>
<p>WUStL has a reputation for waitlisting students because its yield is extremely low compared to those of its peers, hence the need for a waitlist from which to draw students if too few students matriculate.</p>
<p>From the US Dept of Education, 2008 SAT critical reading and math scores at the 25% and 75% levels. Wash U does not seem to be suffering from any syndromes related to Tufts:</p>
<p>Tufts Syndrome is <strong>supposedly</strong> waitlisting the very qualified applicants that they think probably won’t matriculate (using WashU as a safety of sorts) in order to increase their yield…</p>
<p>No one knows if any schools actually do this, but it is sometimes used to comfort the “why not me?” despair of the super-qualified waitlisters.</p>
<p>My point, originally, is just that if VERY qualified kids start to see any validity in the WashU waitlist issue…then they might be less likely to put their time and energy into applying there.</p>
<p>Long term I am wondering what this would do for WashU reputation.</p>
<p>I think it’s just a matter of they have too many applicants and they can’t accept them all, so they have to pick and choose, but they don’t want to reject ones they would otherwise accept if they had room.</p>
<p>I’m sure if you look at the accepted and waitlisted, the stats would be very comparable. No one seems to complain about this with the ivies or whatever.</p>
<p>Jamiecakes - if “very” qualified potential applicants look at the stats in jimb7’s post they won’t be discouraged from applying to WashU. Does anyone really think that, everyting else being equal, 2400/4.0 applicants are less likely to be admitted than 2200/3.8 applicants? “Very” qualified students will see the “tufts syndrome” complaints for what they are.</p>
<p>Perhaps…I don’t think the highly qualified students of which I speak particularly care whether or not they got waitlisted…I think that the perception of OTHER people (underclassmen) might matter, though. (For what it’s worth, the students of which I speak are 2300+/4.3 applicants and one is URM just like many on the WL).</p>
<p>When the underclassmen see the top students (in their excellent school) get waitlisted at UWash I think it makes them less likely to apply in the future. I think this is actually worse than rejection because it doesn’t say to them “work harder to get in” instead the Tufts Syndrome almost says the opposite.</p>
<p>The Ivies don’t have the same problem because they have a more prestigious REPUTATION that protects them. So being waitlisted seems like an honor (“you almost got it”) rather than a bewildering strategy.</p>
<p>I am not saying I AGREE with this perception. Only that this perception might hurt WashU in the future.</p>
<p>I agree. My son has been placed on WL. Outstanding academics, class rank and equally strong ECs did not matter. My D will be ready for college in a year and has equally strong background. We will not waste our time with Wash U.</p>
WUStL has been getting steadily more selective, wealthy, and recognized over the years. As much as people complain about its waitlisting procedure, it’s clearly doing something right. </p>
<p>
Here’s a few more your daughter might want to avoid, then…</p>
<p>One of colleges’ many unfair-to-students practices is their use of the wait list. Many colleges put hundreds of students on the wait list, most of whom never get admitted. For example, Williams wait-listed 800 and admitted 37, and Lehigh wait-listed 2160 and admitted just 20. Each year, Harvard wait-lists 700 to 1000 students and, in most years, admits zero to 20.
– The All-in-One College Guide</p>
<p>You have to remember that it’s not just about EC’s and numbers. You have the essay, which might hurt a lot of the really number-wise qualified students, you have recommendations–which for some kids might be generic if they don’t know their teachers well. Also, admissions want a diversified freshman class, and sometimes kids just don’t fit into their image of what they want. It’s capricious but there is nothing you can do about it. To apply to any top notch school you have to understand going in that, in reality, nobody is a shoe-in. Even if you have a 2400.</p>
<p>My older sister considered applying at WashU until she read their financial aid booklet they sent her. This was back in spring, 2004, so maybe things are different now. At that time, she read through their booklet about merit scholarships, seeing what she could apply for. </p>
<p>She made a chart showing scholarships available, # of essays required, monetary awards, and length of essays for each of the following:
*any applicant (white and all minorities)
*Hispanics only
*blacks only
Minorities could apply for the minority-only scholarships AND the one for all applicants.</p>
<p>She noticed that the “big” essay for minorities was the very same question as one of the “short answer” essays that white kids had to write in addition to a “big” essay. White kids had to write far more essays, longer essays, and the prompts were harder than those for minorities. </p>
<p>She immediately came to the conclusion that she wouldn’t bother to apply to WashU because she was the wrong color.</p>
<p>…I’m pretty sure that all merit scholarships are open to all people of all colors…not just open to any one race…get your facts straight, that was changed over four years ago and to state that it is any less difficult to be a finalist for the Rodriguez or the Ervin is just erroneous. If that isn’t the epitome of hyperbole, I don’t know what is…I poured myself into applying for both the Danforth and the Rodriguez…and they required the same effort. In fact, I probably devoted more time and effort to the Rodriguez.</p>
<p>And I see you mentioned that this was in 2004, so yes, back then it was only open to certain minorities…but I still stick by the fact that the Ervin and Rodriguez are not any easier to attain than the other scholarships, and they are open to all applicants anyway</p>
<p>My facts came right from the scholarship booklet that WashU sent my sister. The only things in my initial post that weren’t facts were her conclusion and the evaluation of the level of difficulty of the essay prompts.</p>
<p>At that time, it was a FACT that minorities could apply for every scholarship but white kids could not.
It was a FACT that the very same question that was a “short answer” for white applicants was the “long answer” for minorities.<br>
You can look it up for yourself if you refuse to take my word for it. Shortly after my sister chose not to apply there, the Wall Street Journal ran an article about the scholarship handlings at WashU, which they also considered questionable. Look it up in their archives: [Business</a> News & Financial News - The Wall Street Journal - WSJ.com](<a href=“http://www.wsj.com%5DBusiness”>http://www.wsj.com)</p>
<p>I would like to think WashU has changed its policies since then, considering that it’s totally unfair and racist, just as it would be if the situations were reversed.<br>
If I were a minority applicant, I’d have been insulted to see that WashU expected less of me than it did of white kids.</p>
<p>I’m pretty sure that I said I agreed that it was still like that in 2004…and yes, as a minority, I would be insulted if they expected less, but guess what…I’m not, because they expect much from everyone. If it’s not enough that only 50 get chosen from the vast group of applicants as finalists, even less receive a scholarship for the Rodriguez. Yes, I can understand that there may have been the same essay question as there was a short answer question, but I don’t think you truly understand why and so you make an assumption that this was because the minority programs were inferior in some way. Each scholarship program aims to obtain certain types of candidates and while Danforth or Moog or Mylonas may have a short answer question about diversity, it is only because this is not one of the most important aspects of the program. Meanwhile, Rodriguez and Ervin programs both cherish much diversity to create an involved, open minded, and receptive community, so they use a similar question for their essay. While the short answer questions only require a brief answer, the essay requires much more personal involvement and value judgments which demand justification. While the Moog is centered around the specific disciplines of biochem and biology, Mylona around languages, the Nemerov scholarship centered around writing, the Ervin and Rodriguez scholarships are centered around bridging divides, celebrating diversity, and promoting leadership. So are their requirements going to be different? Without a shadow of a doubt. Is it possible that the programs may overlap in some of the characteristics they look for? Of course. Comparing different programs is not unlike comparing apples to oranges. Do not belittle or undermine programs due to your own lack of information.</p>
<p>swissmiss - I have been told by several independent sources that Wash U has changed its policies since then. Maybe it was due in part to that article and the unfavorable publicity that would bring, I don’t know. But several people have told me they know non-minority kids that have gotten the Rodrigez and Ervin. However, to so plainly state that such policies would be unfair and racist is debatable in itself. For decades, if not centuries, educations at places like Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Wash U, Vanderbilt, Virginia, etc etc etc were not available to minorities, much less with scholarships. So if a donor for a named scholarship chose to have their money directed to minorities in order to help remedy the clear imbalance that persisted at the time, is that really so wrong? I am not arguing the legality of it one way or the other, because I have no idea where the money actually came from or any of the other dozen or so details that would impact on such a debate. I am only saying one cannot say with such certainty that it would be unfair and racist.</p>
<p>You are not incorrect in one aspect at least. When your sister was doing the process those scholarships were for minorities only, apparently. Also, clearly, today they are not. So I am not sure what your point in bringing it up now was, nor why you did not research it first, since your implication is pretty serious. I am also not clear as to what it has to do with the Tuft’s syndrome topic of this thread.</p>