I really shouldn't speak for anyone else, but I can't help myself
, so here goes! Under the old system (which was similar to undergraduate admissions), while you were required to reduce the acceptances you were holding to one after a certain date, "poaching" by taking people off a WL after that date was an acceptable practice, and always allowed candidates to make the choice that was most favorable to them at a given point in the cycle.
Under the new system, CTE dates are staggered over a period of weeks, and forcing people to make commitments without being allowed to stay on WLs can seem arbitrary, and not at all in the best interest of the candidates. This perceived unfairness in the process (due to the leverage medical schools have to impose this requirement, given the ratio of seats to applicants) is what can lead to the temptation for candidates to act in their best interest (since the schools clearly aren't) by staying on WLs if they can get away with it, and breaking CTE commitments if the opportunity presents itself, justifying the action by reasoning that they were "unfairly" pressured into making the commitment at the time. I'm not saying it's right, but I do understand the rationale, since it really is BS that there is not a common CTE date, with an allowance to stay on WLs after that date.
You can bet if there were more seats than applicants that candidates would not be pressured or required to make commitments until they were good and ready to do so!!!
Just because schools have the market power to do this doesn't make it right, and it's hard to blame people for trying to work around the system. This would probably make a great CASPer situation!