Prior Year Waitlist

[Pistol Pete]

I had an interesting conversation with a friend that applied last year to a specific CVM and made the waitlist. She has now gotten a notice to interview again this year and believes last years waitlist scenario somehow puts her in a much better(she described it as "at the top") position for acceptance to this years class. She went on to say her GPA has remainded virtually the same, she does have some additional small animal experience but I came away from the conversation a bit puzzled by her logic.

Maybe I have missed something but has anyone heard of a school taking last years waitlist and assuming the candidates application hasn't "regressed" that these people would somehow be at the head of the line this year?

Pete

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Barnaby]

I haven't heard anything to refute or substantiate that claim.

BUT from the standpoint of an adcom it wouldn't make a lot of sense if you ask me...

I think it's fair to assume that they haven't regressed, but it is NOT fair to assume that they're BETTER qualified than other, newer candidates. The only way to ensure that is to throw them back into the mix and see if they come out on top (or near the top) this time around.

I would venture a guess that the waitlist of a previous year is minimally considered and only at the very very end maaaaybe if the candidate has beaten out other applicants within that years pool.

Just my guess.

Despite the notion that these people have somehow "waited their turn" to be accepted, there may be more qualified applicants out there, and since the schools want to put together the best class possible (based on a number of factors that they consider desirable) I'm sure they've made certain that she deserves this interview based on where she falls within the current applicant pool.

 

[pressmom]

The only way this logic would hold is if the applicant did a post-mortem and improved significantly in all areas suggested by the adcom. Even then it wouldn't be a slam dunk. I think just the average waitlister isn't put to the top of the pile, especially since the number of applicants tend to increase year to year and one could possibly assume from this that the number of qualified applicants also increases.

 

[Fairyblastt]

I want to be the fly on the wall when she explains her reasoning to the interviewers!

Maybe I have missed something but has anyone heard of a school taking last years waitlist and assuming the candidates application hasn't "regressed" that these people would somehow be at the head of the line this year?

I don't think so (though I certainly don't know for sure). I would actually think that not 'regressing' probably won't be good enough, I would still expect to have to show how I've used my time to improve myself in the areas that prevented me from getting accepted. Because if you're exactly the same or very similar to what you were last year, you're still going up against a really tough crowd, and I would be worried that I'd just end up on the waitlist again (that would suck, yes).

My guess is though that if you were good enough to make it to the waitlist (oh so close!), you probably will end up near the top again without any sort of concerted effort on the admins to promote the waitlisted....

 

[Truth74]

I agree with Barnaby. I want to see how that goes.

If it is a school that does cold interviews (no background information to the interviewer), the interviewers wouldn't know if you were on a waitlist.

If that is the case, the only way the school knows you applied before, is if the person says so.

 

[Klhughes]

I was waitlisted my first year and they asked me about it during my interview the second time around because they wanted to see what I had done to improve my application. Unless she has done a lot to improve the reasons she was waitlisted in the first place it is not going to help this year. If she hasn't worked on what she needed to it may actually hurt her.

 

[chris03333]

I agree with Barnaby. I want to see how that goes.

If it is a school that does cold interviews (no background information to the interviewer), the interviewers wouldn't know if you were on a waitlist.

If that is the case, the only way the school knows you applied before, is if the person says so.

If you applied before it should be on VMCAS. I believe it was Kansas which said they actually do this with their alternate list, if memory serves me right. Do not think that is normal practice across the board though.

 

[VAgirl]

I had an interesting conversation with a friend that applied last year to a specific CVM and made the waitlist. She has now gotten a notice to interview again this year and believes last years waitlist scenario somehow puts her in a much better(she described it as "at the top") position for acceptance to this years class. She went on to say her GPA has remainded virtually the same, she does have some additional small animal experience but I came away from the conversation a bit puzzled by her logic.

Maybe I have missed something but has anyone heard of a school taking last years waitlist and assuming the candidates application hasn't "regressed" that these people would somehow be at the head of the line this year?

Pete

Since there are people on this board who made it onto a waiting list one year, didn't get offered a seat that year, applied the next year and were rejected, I'd say no, schools don't do this. But that's the only information I'm going off of.

 

[wildvet]

I agree with most of the people that posted here. Being waitlisted one year does not guarantee anything in the subsequent year(s). The only way that you will benefit from being waitlisted is if you do the post-mortem interview after your "rejection" and you actually show improvement in all of the areas in which you were lacking. If anything, telling the adcoms about this situation might even backfire in a cold interview, as they may see you as a weak applicant. But it depends on the person that is interviewing you.

Some schools even specifically state that they do not give preference to previous applicants, in particular Illinois says: "Individuals who are interviewed but not offered admission will be placed on an alternate list. Alternate status does not guarantee admission, nor does it convey any preferential standing in subsequent application cycles."

This methodology makes sense too, as it evens out the playing field for everyone applying. It wouldn't be right to put these people higher on the list when they know that there are better qualified applicants applying.

 

[lailanni]

I agree with most of the people that posted here. Being waitlisted one year does not guarantee anything in the subsequent year(s). The only way that you will benefit from being waitlisted is if you do the post-mortem interview after your "rejection" and you actually show improvement in all of the areas in which you were lacking. .

I also agree. I'm not sure why she'd think she's a shoe-in. If she's really extra special she would have been accepted. There are plenty of great applicants that apply each year and it's a bit foolhardy to think that resting on your laurels could be enough to carry you through.

I know several people who have applied twice and gotten the question, "what have you done between now and last year to improve your application?". I have a feeling "Not much, I think I'm in good shape" wouldn't be the best thing to say.

It is also logical to think about it this way-- if it didn't work on the first try, and it hasn't been improved, why would it work the second try?

I'd view getting waitlisted as a step in the right direction. Not as a delayed invite.