Reply to The meaning of being WL

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

Reply to "The meaning of being WL"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Pps are both so wrong.

[b]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.[/b]

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. [/quote]

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.  
[/quote]

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?[/quote]
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.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics