Get out of the game: the growing use of wait lists is one application of game theory that is going awry - The Admissions Angle

University Business, June, 2002 by Howard Greene, Matthew Greene

One--Many students see a wait list as either a polite form of rejection, or a "teaser" from a second-choice school that does not recognize a student's talents or interest.

Two--The college application process is so fraught with anxiety and vulnerability for high school students that the very thought of dragging out the admissions process for one or more months is abhorrent to most of them.

Three--The odds are that the admissions committee has actually misinterpreted the applicant's level of interest in their college, and that individual's likelihood of attending. In other words, the indicators used to gauge that interest can be misleading. For example:

* Many accomplished students are unable to visit the campus because of their commitment to their studies and their activities.

In addition, students may not be able to afford the cost of visiting some or al of the colleges they are considering, and may need to wait until they are certain they have been accepted.

* Alumni volunteers are (sorry to say) not always reliable; every year, far too many applicants complain that they were never contacted by an alumni representative in their home area.

* Students tend to follow college instructions conscientiously, an thus will apply by one of the various means made available to them (e.g., common application or Internet) relying on college assurances that such applications are viewed equally to hardcopy applications.

* Students may be rejected by their "reach" schools, and may become very exciting candidates for somewhat less selective colleges.

* Candidates' interest and potential to attend can be misinterpreted, which means losing strong academic students, and perhaps full-paying students or others who would add to the diversity of the college.

Conclusion: Focus on the yield number distracts from awareness of other "numbers" that are important to colleges.

Four--One institution's admissions committee simply cannot forecast which other colleges will accept a particular candidate. a Each college has its own peculiar mix of applicants and will evaluate them in comparison with one another and try to determine what special goals they have set for the upcoming year's class. The mix of legacies, non-traditional students, athletes, artists, and internationals will vary annually, and the renderings of the institution may vary in kind. This year's admissions fallout proves the point: High school seniors experienced a highly mixed pattern of acceptances and rejections to relatively comparable selective institutions.

Five--(And perhaps most significantly) we are dealing with adolescents who are able--okay, likely--to change their opinion and perspectives dramatically between the beginning of their senior year in high school and the spring of that year. By spring, many are more mature. And many, many students experience a complete turnaround about the kind of college they prefer, in the months following their initial inclinations.

Simply put, a college or university seeking interesting, talented students should not make a mathematical, theoretically based determination to put so many appealing candidates on hold. Rather, it should accept them outfight and then undertake its best efforts to inform the students about the distinctive advantages the school has to offer. This is, in the long run, the effective and honorable way to help students make the decision a college hopes for. Under the present gamesmanship, good colleges are losing individuals they would want to have as members of their community. They are also leaving many with a lasting negative feeling about their institution.