<p>Why one repeats after another without using common sense? No wonder it is the less common of all the senses!
One say “Wash U uses the wait list a lot”, but no one looked at last year admissions when NO ONE got off the wait list. This year, very few kids got off the wait list and only in Arts& Science, and those were the ones that received the package (I got the package before the phone call with two weeks to decide).
BTW, Princeton has admitted more kids from the wait list this year than Wash U.</p>
<p>People aren’t referring to how often WashU uses the waitlist as much as they are to how many people WashU places on the waitlist.</p>
<p>I have two problems with the old “Wash U overuses the waitlist” argument. First of all, as far as I know, the precise number of individuals placed on the waitlist each year is not known because Wash U doesn’t make that information available. Therefore, it is pretty hard to compare how many kids Wash U places on its waitlist to the number placed on the waitlist by other schools. Secondly, Wash U has had some difficulty in recent years determining how many students will accept its offer of admission. Last year is a perfect example. The freshman class was overenrolled by about 200 students. Housing was a nightmare and some sophomores who wanted to live on campus had to move off campus. Obviously they don’t want that to happen again so they accepted fewer students outright and put more on the waitlist and waited to see if they would have any slots available. Doesn’t sound sinister to me.</p>
<p>“Doesn’t sound sinister to me.”</p>
<p>Thats because it isn’t. Everybody on here is overreacting; this thread is dumb.</p>
<p>God I haven’t been on here in weeks! and people never give up on WashU do they?</p>
<p>I decided to go to WashU over NU and it was the best decision I ever made.</p>
<p>But that’s not the point.</p>
<p>This whole argument is stupid. Stupid, Stupid, Stupid. Who cares what the rankings are? Kids want to go to WashU. I WANT TO GO TO WASHU. If it is effing 500th, 50th or 1st, I want to go there. Argue that for me, will you Sam Lee? This whole idea that the rankings matter is bull. If people make decisions based on that they don’t deserve to go to college. WashU wants kids to learn about the school and become attracted–after all is said and done, that whole idea of the rank and everything else is thrown to the side when students actually visit and apply and get a feel for what is right for them. </p>
<p>WHY THE HELL DO YOU PEOPLE CARE???</p>
<p>Kids will continue to apply to washu. is this sabotage to stop that from happening? cus I don’t think that you’ll succeed on a silly CC forum. I just can’t believe that such smart people are so blind and…pointless sometimes. </p>
<p>Rant over.</p>
<p>Only people for Arts & Sciences got off? Argh. I applied to Business (I was called a stupid jerk today by my great aunt when she found out I’m not going directly to college- she has a PhD from Columbia :-D). Accepatnce is ~5-5.5% (according to calculations done from statistics provided by Wash U) and it said somewhere that 100+ students got off wait-list…not sure which year (2006?). They don’t rank it- they simply have “spots.” From talking of college discussion I have definitely learned how to make myself stand WAY out :-D. Every action is an amazing accomplishment! Every sneeze is golden…every brain-tease is a nimble picking of fruit from the tree of knowledge. Onwards, college zombies! ONWARDS!</p>
<p>By the way- I think it was a mistake for me to send my ACT scores- 31 comp - 
Got above 30 in everything but science- 23 (argh). And I am very good at biology- just sucked at ACT science lol- only thing my bro got better than me - and he got a 28 comp!</p>
<p>To throw in my 2 cents - Wash U does super whatever the ACT and most schools do not. Cornell’s school of ILR did and the other Cornell schools don’t, NYU doesn’t. They should if they superscore the SAT but they don’t. I don’t know if schools translate ACT scores into SAT scores for purposes of comparison - if they do it would give Wash U an edge. Especially since they’re in the midwest and may have more applicants who take the ACT.</p>
<p>Ugh- my ACT puts me in a REALLY bad light for science. (23- gah) </p>
<p>Life goes on.</p>
<p>Been away for a few weeks and missed this thread but feel compelled to comment in support of the OP:</p>
<p>My D too was offered a place off the waitlist this year but declined (was only given 24 hours to decide). She checked back a few weeks later on the WUStL web site and her status was still “waitlisted”, not “accepted”. No package received. (She’s not the one who PM’d the OP). One would certainly surmise that she won’t be counted as an “accepted” student. Maybe other schools do this, but I think the tactic is inappropriate. This really invalidates the acceptance rate statistic.</p>
<p>I’m not here to bash WUStL. My introduction to WUStL admission tactics started innocently enough - when D was originally placed on the waitlist, I went to check their Common Data Set, available on almost every major college’s website, to find out how many people were on the waitlist last year vs. how many were accepted, to gauge D’s chances at eventual acceptance. But WUStL doesn’t make their’s public. Huh. Red flag. Then went to USNWR, which states the following (2005-2006): </p>
<p>Qualified applicants offered a place on waiting list: N/A
Applicants accepting a place on waiting list: N/A
Students enrolled from waiting list: 144 </p>
<p>A recent CC poster stated that WUStL acceptance rate this year is 21%, and yield 31%. If WUStL counted as accepted only those who agreed to enroll, their “yield” would be 100% for those 144 students. They would have had to conventionally accept 480 students to have 144 enroll (31% yield rate), raising the total number accepted by 336 students. That would be enough to change their acceptance rate by 1%, and enough to move it up (or down) one or two schools in terms of selectivity.</p>
<p>It’s ironic, really, because WUStL was originally one of D’s top choices and might have enrolled if accepted RD. But by the time she was “accepted” off the wait list, she’d moved on. WUStL is only hurting itself by trying to “game” the system (assuming it is).</p>
<p>Count yourself lucky, sarah’sdad…my D never even got the call despite having a stellar senior year with 6 AP courses, a correspondence course taken (she was a transfer student and needed to pick up this bogus course only offered in 9th grade), and being a superb musician in 4 orchestras…on and on and on…teachers even wrote SECOND letters of recommendation to drive home the point.</p>
<p>It is well known that girls have a tougher admit rate than boys because there are fewer qualified boys out there applying to selective colleges and a lot of schools dont want a female lopsided student body, as that further scares boys off…</p>
<p>I dont know if WUSTL is gaming the system. Maybe they are trying to stay out of the games by not publishing…I dunno.</p>
<p>We moved on as well and so forth. But I am also one to say that while WUSTL is a superb school with some interesting qualities, it isnt the only game in town. Admissions selectivity is not the only measure of a great school.</p>
<p>The final rejection letter we got from WUSTL, however, did say that they STRONGLY encouraged her to reapply as a transfer student if she was not happy at her college choice next year. We will keep that in mind, though it isnt likely.</p>
<p>I understand the numbers and how hard it is to get into good schools. But it sure would be a lot easier on the stomach if we didnt hear stories about kids getting into top schools who otherwise didnt seem to be qualified or had “legacy” to push them through. I know this happened at Duke this year. But it is what it is and we move on. We think positive and are grateful to be going where we are going.</p>
<p>Pomona is a great school in a beautiful setting. Scripps, Harvey Mudd, Claremont are also great schools and they can take courses there if they so choose. Good luck to your daughter and congrats!</p>
<p>Friedokra</p>
<p>Have you asked about the January Program at Wash U (called J-prog)?
Also what instrument does D play. If she plays the viola—Wash U has a shortage of violists (big-time). My son’s viola teacher has to play with the orchestra because they lack violists. I would not give up.</p>
<p>Friedorka:
It is well known that girls have a tougher admit rate than boys because there are fewer qualified boys out there applying to selective colleges and a lot of schools dont want a female lopsided student body, as that further scares boys off…</p>
<p>This comment really made me chuckle. I’m guessing that you’re the mother of girls?</p>
<p>Miss Molly…viola, BINGO! And the admissions office knew all about it and her awards…alas, they missed the boat on that one. And they missed the boat on a superb student of impeccable integrity, someone with many friends, whose teachers ADORE her, and a tremendous work ethic. In short: admissions just missed the mark. Of course, I dont have 22,000 applications sitting in front of me, so its all relative I suppose.</p>
<p>But if they wanted a violist…a REMARKABLE violist…they should have seen that early on and plucked her out of the applications bin immediately. </p>
<p>so it goes.</p>
<p>She would not likely be interested in a January admissions plan. She hasnt burned any bridges, but frankly, she is moving on down the road for her sanity. You have to bond with your college…dance with the one who brung ya, so to speak.</p>
<p>LOL.</p>
<p>BUt thanks for your caring thoughts. Its heartache for us, but we are in at a great school and glad to be there.</p>
<p>As for College Kids Mom:</p>
<p>Yep. Parents of all girls. But its not bias that makes me say such things, its fact. Colleges are beseiged with applications from girls with high stats and a lot of them struggle to maintain a balance between boys and girls. Even at formerly all male schools they have a problem with that. I know of one southern formerly all male school that was dipping lower in the ranks for males than females this year.</p>
<p>I am not saying girls are smarter than boys. I am saying the SAT is a blunt instrument and it is used extensively by colleges. There are more girls applying to college than ever before in our nation’s history and many of them have exceptional records, making it very very competitive for them.</p>
<p>Gender is a part of the admissions process, as is race in many places.</p>
<p>Call it what you will, it is what it is.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, the admissions department has “no clue” about the orchestras needs. I know about the violist shortage because my son is one. But if D had sent a tape to the music dept chair or the symphony orchestra conductor then maybe things might of turned around for her. Sounds like D has moved on, and I do not blame her.</p>
<p>She didnt send a tape because she is not a music major. She doesnt want to become a poor starving musician…we know too many of those. She told them in her application she would audition and play in the orchestra and she included recommendations. Its WashU’s loss as she is a VERY accomplished violist. Oh well. </p>
<p>But thanks.</p>
<p>friedokra: For the class of 2006, </p>
<p>Male/Female: Males outscored females in critical reading in all ethnic groups except for African American in which females scored 7 points higher than males. Furthermore, males outscored females across all ethnic groups in mathematics. Conversely, females outperformed males in writing across all ethnic groups. from collegeboard.com</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>1.) If my memory serves – I have looked and not been able to find this article – the WSJ reported several years back that about 55% of Duke students in the class of 2005 were admitted for “academic” reasons – music, extracurriculars, grades, courseloads, SATs, LORs, strength of high school, etc. The remaining 45% were legacies, anticipated donors, athletes, diversity admissions (geography and race, no mention of gender), and artifacts of yield protection.</p>
<p>2.) I find it hard to imagine that Duke’s 45% is any higher than any other major USN university with possible exceptions for specialized schools like MIT.</p>
<p>Does anyone know what LORs and beneficiaries of yield protection are? I think that’s disgraceful - MIT was a good example because they say they don’t give legacies any preference. I know a few kids that got in there and they are truly “godlike”.</p>