<p>@ fallenchemist, thanks for the addition to my post, you said some things I also meant to say :)</p>
<p>Also, as a side note, my host for discovery weekend and for finalist weekend is a full tuition scholarship recipient for the Rodriguez Program - he is not latino.</p>
<p>fallenchemist,
You’re most likely correct about why Wash U changed its scholarships. It would have been surprising if WashU didn’t change their policies after that scathing WSJ article brought their scholarship programs to public attention. The fact that they DID change it seems to support the idea that the policy had been faulty, unfair, and racist.
Of course you’re right that minorities (and women too) were shut out of many universities until recently. Many of the Ivies didn’t take women until the second half of the last century. Anytime a person is given opportunities or withheld opportunities based on the color of his skin alone that is racist. That directly conflicts with MLK’s famous words about being judged by the content of one’s character. So it’s good that some things are changing. </p>
<p>I put the comment here because other posters had expressed their dismay and dissatisfaction about WashU after learning more about the school. Their experiences were much like my sister’s.</p>
<p>Oh, I nearly forgot, Dartmouth had black students more than a century ago. Not many, but there was a great story about one in a recent issue of the Dartmouth Alumni magazine.</p>
<p>There are no “minority only” scholarships at WashU. Yes, in the past that was the case, but as posted by acolombianp28 that policy was changed over 4 years ago. The only reason that the Ervin and Rodriguez might be considered a bit easier to obtain, is the fact that there are more of these two awarded than any other scholarship. But, on the other hand, the quality of the recipients is unbelievably high and consists of the top applicants to WashU.</p>
<p>As with many “named” scholarships, both the Ervin and Rodrigues were originally endowned with a specific purpose, objective and very specific guidelines. It took quite a bit of work by washU to change the original charters for these two scholarships. Obviously, no institution is perfect, but WashU tries to the best of its ability to change aspects that need to be changed.</p>
<p>It seems a bit silly to make any decisions based on info that is over 4 years old.</p>
<p>The problem is that people still perceive WashU to be in a lower class than the Ivies, instead of being on the same level as the Ivies. If an applicant were waitlisted at Harvard, then nothing would be thought of it.</p>
<p>Just a note: Whereas the average layperson may not have heard of WashU, WashU’s reputation is pretty solid among academics, especially among scientists and physicians.</p>
<p>I am doubting this tufts syndrome thing…</p>
<p>I got a likely from Columbia and also got into Washu w/o showing any interest</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It works *exactly the opposite *at our high school, which is one of the top ten in the state.</p>
<p>This high school routinely churns out NMFs and Ivy-bounds. And the greater the buzz about a waitlist — and even an increase in rejections — generally makes those particular colleges receive more applications in the following three years.</p>
<p>Yeah, I went to a top school and I’m sure that a lot of waitlists did not mean fewer future applications…it meant that people were more impressed by the school.</p>
<p>^^ scwymer, the GCs told me it was a combination of factors. Yes, as you said, the general impression of these “waitlist & rejection” schools increased, but also the GCs said students at high-achieving schools (which this one is) look upon it as something of a challenge, much the same way they view taking 4-5 AP courses and daily voice or cello lessons.</p>
<p>I’m not trying to up the ante here, just writing what the GCs told me. I found it interesting that their results were the exact opposite of what the OP states.</p>
<p>heyalb</p>
<p>That IS interesting. I, myself, don’t know the answer. Nobody could know without doing some sort of study of the issue. It is just my feeling from listening and reading responses. </p>
<p>It could well be that kids see it as a challenge…who knows?</p>
<p>Not too sure about the Tufts syndrome but my brother experienced something similar. Accepted to MIT, Caltech, Columbia, Yale, Stanford, but waitlisted at WashU</p>
<p>Tuft’s syndrome or not, not applying is a bad idea. Other schools may be using a similar tactic of waitlisting postential-non-matriculating candidates. If you apply to too few, you may not get even one. So you need to apply several top schools and not mentally wedded to a particular school to avoid disappointment.</p>
<p>I feel that Wash U values interest in the school more than other schools do, meaning they can more easily waitlist a 34 3.8 person who they can tell blew off the essays and accept a 32 3.6 person who REALLY made as much an effort as they could have to show interest.</p>