- Joined
- Oct 28, 2015
- Messages
- 3,426
- Reaction score
- 12,944
That theory relies upon the assumption that they view a higher yield as a benefit that offsets the cost of accepting less desirable applicants. Like all things, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. Say they score all the applications on a scale of 1-100. Applicant A scored a 90 and also has an acceptance to Johns Hopkins. Applicant B scored a 90 and also has an acceptance to Loyola. Applicant C scored an 80 and has no acceptances. Obviously, in a perfect world they would want applicants A and B. But being rational people, they realize that there's no way A will ever come. They think that B might come, but is he good enough to risk a possible wasted acceptance? That would probably depend on all sorts of extraneous variables, like how badly they need a certain demographic. They know that C will definitely come, but they don't like him as much. They also know that he has no leverage and that they can just accept him whenever if they need to.
Might they offer more waitlist acceptances in the next week or so? We don't know. I think the distribution of interview dates is a little strange, but that is from a sample size of like 10. I really hope that they give out more acceptances, but we just don't know how any of this works, and for those of us without acceptances we just need to keep working on our application for next year. The limbo is horrible but last fall before I had any interviews I would've given anything to be waitlisted at such a fine institution. Best of luck to all!
By the way, what do you call someone who gets accepted the day before class starts? A medical student.
