By Ashley Anthony
Navigating the weird world of college admissions; inbox inundated with no reply emails, glossy pamphlets and nerve wracking release dates, for the good half of a year now, I have stopped being surprised when I learn something new about the process. Although I have already submitted all of my applications, it seems as though, at this point, I could get accepted to a university and still not know everything about the process.
I have so many questions.
Which college is better? Which rankings are biased? How does Swarthmore compare to Tufts or Amherst, and how do they decide which students to admit? How do the Ivy leagues make their selections? What’s the likelihood I’ll get into a given school with my current GPA and SAT scores? What are the pros and cons of re-sitting the SAT? Honestly, it seems to be that the answers to these questions depend on whom you ask. I have spent (wasted?) many an hour scouring the boards of College Confidential; reading about the community of each of my schools, reading about who got accepted (and who didn’t), and why they thought they’d been accepted or not. Everyone has their own idea of what schools are looking for, and every time you think you’ve got it down, some outlier posts something that completely contradicts your current understanding of the system.
It’s sort of like trying your very best to win a dance competition but not knowing what style of dance the judges are looking for. Maybe the selection process is specifically ambiguous, so that students can’t change themselves to suit a particular school, and instead are accepted into schools that they “fit”.Something curious though that I have come across is yield protection, nicknamed “Tufts Syndrome”. Yield protection refers to the practice of schools rejecting highly qualified students on the grounds that they will most likely get accepted into a better school, and therefore enrol there instead. It is termed “yield protection” since yield is defined as the percentage of students who accept the offer of admission.
The idea is essentially that highly qualified students are unlikely to accept the admission offer, and it is better to waitlist or reject them than have a lower yield. There is too, an argument of “demonstrated interest”, where the school may reject a well-qualified student claiming that they simply do not seem interested enough in the university. They suggest that the student should make an effort to visit the campus, do an interview with alumni, and mention specifics about the school in their college essays. This, I suppose, is to deter students from using the school as a “safety school” – somewhere they know they’re guaranteed to get into (in case all else fails). My issue with this however, is that again, it seems like you’re expected to do certain things but no one ever informs you, and then you’re penalised for not completing the task.
The name “Tufts” in the nickname comes from Tufts University, a school that in the past many have accused of committing the act. However, in some ways it is understandable why schools would want to admit students who genuinely want to go to the school. In addition to just yield, there are other factors that contribute to a school’s ranking and reputation, for example how happy the students are there. Why would the school accept someone that sees them as a last resort, over someone who views them as a top choice? Who do you think is more likely to rank themselves as happier if admitted? There are some who argue that “Tufts Syndrome” is not real, and is perhaps invented by bitter students having been rejected from schools. Either way, it is still interesting to think about.
There are so many factors that contribute to whether or not you will get into a school, some of which may very well be out of your control.
