"under review" vs. "waitlisted"

[dub]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

i see a lot of people here are waitlisted, however i've been calling schools and i'm still under review. is there a difference? for those on the waitlist, have you already interviewed?

i'm freaking out, because if theres already a waitlist, and my file is still under review, it means that if i do get on the waitlist, i'll be way down on it.

 

[peace84]

yes, there is a difference. those on the waitlist have already interviewed. under review means you have not been invited to interview yet. without an interview, you can't get on the waitlist.

 

[dub]

yes, there is a difference. those on the waitlist have already interviewed. under review means you have not been invited to interview yet. without an interview, you can't get on the waitlist.

so, basically, things aren't looking good for me. while they are still deciding whether or not to invite me to interview, there's already a waitlist of people basically accepted but waiting for a spot to open up? 🙁

but i've heard of people applying at the last minute and getting in. do they jump the waitlist?

 

[Mz.Doctor]

welcome to my world..."under review" at least we aren't rejected... 😳

 

[jschro21]

At some schools, waitlists refer to having your application on hold and waiting possible interview invitation. It has been deferred for future review, if you will. This is the case at CCOM/AZCOM, and KCOM is similar, too, referring to the application being on a "hold" status. It gets confusing as waitlists there refer to awaiting interview while "alternate" refers to those who have interviewed, haven't been rejected, but have not yet been offered a seat. I don't know why all schools can't just use the same lingo.

 

[mj1878]

"Under Review= "The Slow Rejection Pile"

"Waitlist"="The Slow Accept Pile"

I think it's BS how admissions offices jerk applicants around, teasing up their hopes with phrases like "under review". Guess what? They looked once, weren't impressed, and now it's in the "we-haven't-gotten-around-to-writing-your-rejection-letter-because-we-got-busy-cashing-all-of-the-application-fee-checks-but-we'll-sure-have-that-rejection-out-to-you-at-OUR-soonest-convenience-;-meantime-we'll-tell-you-that-you're-under-review-and-give-you-false-hope" pile.

Sorry to sound bitter, but I just think that admissions offices could be a LOT more honest with applicants. If you're never going to even consider an applicant, why can't you tell them over the phone, instead of jerking them along and sending a rejection in June when you finally get around to it?

Anyone ever notice how admissions offices move quickly when money is coming IN to the office (i.e., you'll get a secondary REALLY quickly), but when money is going OUT of the office (i.e., paying postage for the rejection letter or a letter saying you're complete at a school), things move a LOT slower.