The meaning of being WL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pps are both so wrong.

They had institutional priorities they had to meet which didn’t leave enough room for the unhooked kids they really liked- those kids get WL’d. It does not mean they like someone better. They might have fought hard for these kids in committee.

We were told time and time again it’s an accomplishment to get WL at an Ivy, a T10, etc. It means you had everything there just wasn’t enough space at the Inn.

They don’t have large WLs. They might have an entering class of 1,500-1,700 only with 50-60k Applicants and put only 800–1k on the WL.

My kid was called May 2nd for an Ivy WL and then 2 days later off another and a T10.

He chose the first Ivy and his Freshmen year won a departmental award.

You also need to remember by RD for unhooked kids the admittance rate is closer to 3-4% vs the 15-25% in ED. So these can be more highly competitive kids than those in the early round and much much fewer space.

This is so true, I wish I had saved a great quote by our boarding school CC. Sentiment was none of this is personal, zero, they are filling a class and have institutional priorities we’ll never know year to year. That’s why I’ll never agree with the love the school that loves you back. Again, it’s not personal. One of mine got off a waitlist at an Ivy a few years back. They are crushing it there in every way and a major value add for the school overall. There are others that were admitted that struggle. It’s not a meritocratic system as we all know.

But if this is true (and I do agree it is), why shouldn't kids then apply as widely as possible? Like to 12-15 reaches and only 2 safeties and 3 targets? Why isn't this the right strategy?

Isn't a very wide-ranging application strategy in the kids' best interest? The schools are acting in their interests by admitting according to IP. Shouldn't the kids "play the game" - whether it's showing targets (Lehigh, Case, Wake) and reaches (Dartmouth, Davidson, Northwestern, Rice, Penn, UChicago, UMichigan, WashU) enough demonstrated interest to "fake" the AO and then rolling the dice by applying to 20 schools? I wonder if kids aren't acting against their interests when they limit themselves to 4 reaches?

Plus, given the lack of a meritocracy, you don't know where you'd end up anyway. Visiting only a few colleges early might make more sense, and then waiting to see where the chips fall to see where your options are?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pps are both so wrong.

They had institutional priorities they had to meet which didn’t leave enough room for the unhooked kids they really liked- those kids get WL’d. It does not mean they like someone better. They might have fought hard for these kids in committee.

We were told time and time again it’s an accomplishment to get WL at an Ivy, a T10, etc. It means you had everything there just wasn’t enough space at the Inn.

They don’t have large WLs. They might have an entering class of 1,500-1,700 only with 50-60k Applicants and put only 800–1k on the WL.

My kid was called May 2nd for an Ivy WL and then 2 days later off another and a T10.

He chose the first Ivy and his Freshmen year won a departmental award.

You also need to remember by RD for unhooked kids the admittance rate is closer to 3-4% vs the 15-25% in ED. So these can be more highly competitive kids than those in the early round and much much fewer space.

This is so true, I wish I had saved a great quote by our boarding school CC. Sentiment was none of this is personal, zero, they are filling a class and have institutional priorities we’ll never know year to year. That’s why I’ll never agree with the love the school that loves you back. Again, it’s not personal. One of mine got off a waitlist at an Ivy a few years back. They are crushing it there in every way and a major value add for the school overall. There are others that were admitted that struggle. It’s not a meritocratic system as we all know.

But if this is true (and I do agree it is), why shouldn't kids then apply as widely as possible? Like to 12-15 reaches and only 2 safeties and 3 targets? Why isn't this the right strategy?

Isn't a very wide-ranging application strategy in the kids' best interest? The schools are acting in their interests by admitting according to IP. Shouldn't the kids "play the game" - whether it's showing targets (Lehigh, Case, Wake) and reaches (Dartmouth, Davidson, Northwestern, Rice, Penn, UChicago, UMichigan, WashU) enough demonstrated interest to "fake" the AO and then rolling the dice by applying to 20 schools? I wonder if kids aren't acting against their interests when they limit themselves to 4 reaches?

Plus, given the lack of a meritocracy, you don't know where you'd end up anyway. Visiting only a few colleges early might make more sense, and then waiting to see where the chips fall to see where your options are?

Same PP you’re replying to, that’s exactly what mine did. Some say quality declines, but mine was on top of it and all were customized and not rushed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pps are both so wrong.

They had institutional priorities they had to meet which didn’t leave enough room for the unhooked kids they really liked- those kids get WL’d. It does not mean they like someone better. They might have fought hard for these kids in committee.

We were told time and time again it’s an accomplishment to get WL at an Ivy, a T10, etc. It means you had everything there just wasn’t enough space at the Inn.

They don’t have large WLs. They might have an entering class of 1,500-1,700 only with 50-60k Applicants and put only 800–1k on the WL.

My kid was called May 2nd for an Ivy WL and then 2 days later off another and a T10.

He chose the first Ivy and his Freshmen year won a departmental award.

You also need to remember by RD for unhooked kids the admittance rate is closer to 3-4% vs the 15-25% in ED. So these can be more highly competitive kids than those in the early round and much much fewer space.

Yale podcast said the early round is usually more competitive for unhooked kids. They can't take a kid who isn't a layup because they dont know the rest of the pool yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pps are both so wrong.

They had institutional priorities they had to meet which didn’t leave enough room for the unhooked kids they really liked- those kids get WL’d. It does not mean they like someone better. They might have fought hard for these kids in committee.

We were told time and time again it’s an accomplishment to get WL at an Ivy, a T10, etc. It means you had everything there just wasn’t enough space at the Inn.

They don’t have large WLs. They might have an entering class of 1,500-1,700 only with 50-60k Applicants and put only 800–1k on the WL.

My kid was called May 2nd for an Ivy WL and then 2 days later off another and a T10.

He chose the first Ivy and his Freshmen year won a departmental award.

You also need to remember by RD for unhooked kids the admittance rate is closer to 3-4% vs the 15-25% in ED. So these can be more highly competitive kids than those in the early round and much much fewer space.

OP here. Thank you this makes sense.

It also (kind of?) matches what a national private college counseling firm said about these kids being competitive, but for something in their profile (geography, major) which was already saturated and didn't fit a "bucket" in RD. They also mentioned major playing a big role in WL - meaning they will WL a lot of STEM, business, math, etc, kids in RD because they apply by a larger factor than humanities kids to T20 now?

They pointed out that a strong kid that doesn't have that something "special" (national awards/recognition, something really unusual or novel) will often be in this situation with multiple (4-6) RD WL after a rejection or deferral from REA, and an ED choice to a Brown, Northwestern, Cornell, or Dartmouth (or similar) can significantly improve the same kid's T20 chances. But it's often major dependent. So, in the early rounds, aim lower if a STEM or business major and aim higher if not? It's not clear.

just to be clear, applicants to these level of schools need something really special, national awards, etc. they take one of every 20. 'standard strong' isn't enough

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pps are both so wrong.

They had institutional priorities they had to meet which didn’t leave enough room for the unhooked kids they really liked- those kids get WL’d. It does not mean they like someone better. They might have fought hard for these kids in committee.

We were told time and time again it’s an accomplishment to get WL at an Ivy, a T10, etc. It means you had everything there just wasn’t enough space at the Inn.

They don’t have large WLs. They might have an entering class of 1,500-1,700 only with 50-60k Applicants and put only 800–1k on the WL.

My kid was called May 2nd for an Ivy WL and then 2 days later off another and a T10.

He chose the first Ivy and his Freshmen year won a departmental award.

You also need to remember by RD for unhooked kids the admittance rate is closer to 3-4% vs the 15-25% in ED. So these can be more highly competitive kids than those in the early round and much much fewer space.

This is so true, I wish I had saved a great quote by our boarding school CC. Sentiment was none of this is personal, zero, they are filling a class and have institutional priorities we’ll never know year to year. That’s why I’ll never agree with the love the school that loves you back. Again, it’s not personal. One of mine got off a waitlist at an Ivy a few years back. They are crushing it there in every way and a major value add for the school overall. There are others that were admitted that struggle. It’s not a meritocratic system as we all know.

But if this is true (and I do agree it is), why shouldn't kids then apply as widely as possible? Like to 12-15 reaches and only 2 safeties and 3 targets? Why isn't this the right strategy?

Isn't a very wide-ranging application strategy in the kids' best interest? The schools are acting in their interests by admitting according to IP. Shouldn't the kids "play the game" - whether it's showing targets (Lehigh, Case, Wake) and reaches (Dartmouth, Davidson, Northwestern, Rice, Penn, UChicago, UMichigan, WashU) enough demonstrated interest to "fake" the AO and then rolling the dice by applying to 20 schools? I wonder if kids aren't acting against their interests when they limit themselves to 4 reaches?

Plus, given the lack of a meritocracy, you don't know where you'd end up anyway. Visiting only a few colleges early might make more sense, and then waiting to see where the chips fall to see where your options are?

NP. I agree that what the PP said is true. I also agree with the above about playing a game, applying widely to reaches, for a high stats kid, especially full pay, as often the waitlist is need-aware.

Decisions are more algorithm-driven than ever, though it is hard to know what factors go into the algorithms and how they are measured. This occurs on the back end, the proverbial shaping of the class by the admissions director, often beyond the scope of the AOs themselves. It's how they make budget year after year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pps are both so wrong.

They had institutional priorities they had to meet which didn’t leave enough room for the unhooked kids they really liked- those kids get WL’d. It does not mean they like someone better. They might have fought hard for these kids in committee.

We were told time and time again it’s an accomplishment to get WL at an Ivy, a T10, etc. It means you had everything there just wasn’t enough space at the Inn.

They don’t have large WLs. They might have an entering class of 1,500-1,700 only with 50-60k Applicants and put only 800–1k on the WL.

My kid was called May 2nd for an Ivy WL and then 2 days later off another and a T10.

He chose the first Ivy and his Freshmen year won a departmental award.

You also need to remember by RD for unhooked kids the admittance rate is closer to 3-4% vs the 15-25% in ED. So these can be more highly competitive kids than those in the early round and much much fewer space.

This is so true, I wish I had saved a great quote by our boarding school CC. Sentiment was none of this is personal, zero, they are filling a class and have institutional priorities we’ll never know year to year. That’s why I’ll never agree with the love the school that loves you back. Again, it’s not personal. One of mine got off a waitlist at an Ivy a few years back. They are crushing it there in every way and a major value add for the school overall. There are others that were admitted that struggle. It’s not a meritocratic system as we all know.

But if this is true (and I do agree it is), why shouldn't kids then apply as widely as possible? Like to 12-15 reaches and only 2 safeties and 3 targets? Why isn't this the right strategy?

Isn't a very wide-ranging application strategy in the kids' best interest? The schools are acting in their interests by admitting according to IP. Shouldn't the kids "play the game" - whether it's showing targets (Lehigh, Case, Wake) and reaches (Dartmouth, Davidson, Northwestern, Rice, Penn, UChicago, UMichigan, WashU) enough demonstrated interest to "fake" the AO and then rolling the dice by applying to 20 schools? I wonder if kids aren't acting against their interests when they limit themselves to 4 reaches?

Plus, given the lack of a meritocracy, you don't know where you'd end up anyway. Visiting only a few colleges early might make more sense, and then waiting to see where the chips fall to see where your options are?

NP. I agree that what the PP said is true. I also agree with the above about playing a game, applying widely to reaches, for a high stats kid, especially full pay, as often the waitlist is need-aware.

Decisions are more algorithm-driven than ever, though it is hard to know what factors go into the algorithms and how they are measured. This occurs on the back end, the proverbial shaping of the class by the admissions director, often beyond the scope of the AOs themselves. It's how they make budget year after year.

It's interesting that the kids applying to 20+ schools are either looking for best $$$ packages or really full pay - likely no one in between.

[Anonymous]

WL is like being on a sport team practice squad. They liked what they saw but your chances of making the team are slim to none depending on what may happen to starters and second string backups.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pps are both so wrong.

They had institutional priorities they had to meet which didn’t leave enough room for the unhooked kids they really liked- those kids get WL’d. It does not mean they like someone better. They might have fought hard for these kids in committee.

We were told time and time again it’s an accomplishment to get WL at an Ivy, a T10, etc. It means you had everything there just wasn’t enough space at the Inn.

They don’t have large WLs. They might have an entering class of 1,500-1,700 only with 50-60k Applicants and put only 800–1k on the WL.

My kid was called May 2nd for an Ivy WL and then 2 days later off another and a T10.

He chose the first Ivy and his Freshmen year won a departmental award.

You also need to remember by RD for unhooked kids the admittance rate is closer to 3-4% vs the 15-25% in ED. So these can be more highly competitive kids than those in the early round and much much fewer space.

This is so true, I wish I had saved a great quote by our boarding school CC. Sentiment was none of this is personal, zero, they are filling a class and have institutional priorities we’ll never know year to year. That’s why I’ll never agree with the love the school that loves you back. Again, it’s not personal. One of mine got off a waitlist at an Ivy a few years back. They are crushing it there in every way and a major value add for the school overall. There are others that were admitted that struggle. It’s not a meritocratic system as we all know.

But if this is true (and I do agree it is), why shouldn't kids then apply as widely as possible? Like to 12-15 reaches and only 2 safeties and 3 targets? Why isn't this the right strategy?

Isn't a very wide-ranging application strategy in the kids' best interest? The schools are acting in their interests by admitting according to IP. Shouldn't the kids "play the game" - whether it's showing targets (Lehigh, Case, Wake) and reaches (Dartmouth, Davidson, Northwestern, Rice, Penn, UChicago, UMichigan, WashU) enough demonstrated interest to "fake" the AO and then rolling the dice by applying to 20 schools? I wonder if kids aren't acting against their interests when they limit themselves to 4 reaches?

Plus, given the lack of a meritocracy, you don't know where you'd end up anyway. Visiting only a few colleges early might make more sense, and then waiting to see where the chips fall to see where your options are?

Well, they should, contrary to what most DCUM posters believe. DCUM is like the king of bigotry. So if you go against most of its arguments, you’ll actually do well in life.

[Anonymous]

Applying widely is the way. It’s annoying and expensive and unfair, but it’s the current state of affairs. Until everyone stops shotgunning, you have to play the game.

[Anonymous]

This was 20 years ago, but I was WL at a college I would've gone to, but instead I accepted at one of my top 3 that I had been taken at... afterwards, my college counselor said "yeah, they said that if you had show interest, they would have taken you"

I don't think it would have changed my life, but I had interpreted the WL as "better than a rejection, but still a rejection" and apparently it was a "show us you want it"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This was 20 years ago, but I was WL at a college I would've gone to, but instead I accepted at one of my top 3 that I had been taken at... afterwards, my college counselor said "yeah, they said that if you had show interest, they would have taken you"

I don't think it would have changed my life, but I had interpreted the WL as "better than a rejection, but still a rejection" and apparently it was a "show us you want it"

that's what DI and LOCI are all about. colleges aren't mind readers

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This was 20 years ago, but I was WL at a college I would've gone to, but instead I accepted at one of my top 3 that I had been taken at... afterwards, my college counselor said "yeah, they said that if you had show interest, they would have taken you"

I don't think it would have changed my life, but I had interpreted the WL as "better than a rejection, but still a rejection" and apparently it was a "show us you want it"

that's what DI and LOCI are all about. colleges aren't mind readers

Exactly. The PP listed the DI T20 schools - they have DI for a reason. They don't just want you to shotgun. But guess what: you can pretend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pps are both so wrong.

They had institutional priorities they had to meet which didn’t leave enough room for the unhooked kids they really liked- those kids get WL’d. It does not mean they like someone better. They might have fought hard for these kids in committee.

We were told time and time again it’s an accomplishment to get WL at an Ivy, a T10, etc. It means you had everything there just wasn’t enough space at the Inn.

They don’t have large WLs. They might have an entering class of 1,500-1,700 only with 50-60k Applicants and put only 800–1k on the WL.

My kid was called May 2nd for an Ivy WL and then 2 days later off another and a T10.

He chose the first Ivy and his Freshmen year won a departmental award.

You also need to remember by RD for unhooked kids the admittance rate is closer to 3-4% vs the 15-25% in ED. So these can be more highly competitive kids than those in the early round and much much fewer space.

This is so true, I wish I had saved a great quote by our boarding school CC. Sentiment was none of this is personal, zero, they are filling a class and have institutional priorities we’ll never know year to year. That’s why I’ll never agree with the love the school that loves you back. Again, it’s not personal. One of mine got off a waitlist at an Ivy a few years back. They are crushing it there in every way and a major value add for the school overall. There are others that were admitted that struggle. It’s not a meritocratic system as we all know.

But if this is true (and I do agree it is), why shouldn't kids then apply as widely as possible? Like to 12-15 reaches and only 2 safeties and 3 targets? Why isn't this the right strategy?

Isn't a very wide-ranging application strategy in the kids' best interest? The schools are acting in their interests by admitting according to IP. Shouldn't the kids "play the game" - whether it's showing targets (Lehigh, Case, Wake) and reaches (Dartmouth, Davidson, Northwestern, Rice, Penn, UChicago, UMichigan, WashU) enough demonstrated interest to "fake" the AO and then rolling the dice by applying to 20 schools? I wonder if kids aren't acting against their interests when they limit themselves to 4 reaches?

Plus, given the lack of a meritocracy, you don't know where you'd end up anyway. Visiting only a few colleges early might make more sense, and then waiting to see where the chips fall to see where your options are?

Well, they should, contrary to what most DCUM posters believe. DCUM is like the king of bigotry. So if you go against most of its arguments, you’ll actually do well in life.

lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It means the school didn't like you as much as the students they admitted but they think you could still be qualified. You'll never know why they liked someone else better. You can look on the CDS to see how often the school accepts from the waiting list.

Most highly rejective schools don't admit by major.

Agree with this.
However, while they don't admit by major, in RD they are shaping the class. So if you are a CS major and someone else is a Comparative Lit major, and well they've only seen a handful of those kids so far, the other kid will absolutely get a leg up. This is the secret sauce of private college counseling by the way. They "strategically position" your candidacy - omit a bunch of ECs and add new ones, to show "authentic alignment" with major.

There was a great longer thread on strategic positioning a while ago. It absolutely works at our private school and our CCO talks to families about it warning folks not to list CS or engineering if aiming for a top private.

Where is this thread?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A WL in RD does not mean you’d have gotten in ED.

Agreed. Because many ED kids are deferred and then waitlisted . Some schools don't do this (duke was one this year) but many other top 20s do it all the time.