Waitlist worries

'U' should use waitlist but remain respectful

As spring approaches, many University students are anticipating the end of another academic year. But University admissions officials are focusing on the beginning of next fall. Applications are being reviewed by the Office of Undergraduate Admissions admissions office and University administrators are struggling to keep the size of next fall's first-year class in check. This creates more rigorous admissions criteria, an increased competition from eager applicants and fewer available spots.

In this situation, the most effective way for University officials to review all applications and eventually choose the most-qualified students is by using a waitlist. This year, the University has postponed more application decisions than in prior years. As a result, the admissions office has been flooded with calls from angry parents and prospective students who are forced to wait before hearing a final decision from the University.

The debate about the process of using waitlists to filter applications is argued every year. Critics of the procedure claim that it is unfair and disrespectful to the applicants, allowing the University to postpone making a decision at the expense of the student. But however unfavorable the process of waitlisting may be, in a competitive academic setting such as the University's, it is a necessary evil.

This year, the yield rate - a calculated percentage of admitted students who enroll - is higher than usual. Available spots in the incoming class are being filled at a faster rate, but the strongest applications are not necessarily being received first. In an effort to maintain the rigorous standards and reputation of the University, officials need to review as many applications as possible before mailing acceptance letters. But this creates an unnecessary number of applicants who are expecting answers in the meantime. Clearly, the only fair and efficient solution is to implement a waitlist.

Postponing admissions decisions helps regulate the relative size of the incoming class. The number of students offered admission is carefully watched and the targeted class size remains in focus. This minimizes the effects of the more common problems associated with inflated incoming classes, such as overcrowding in the residence halls and increased classroom sizes.

While it may not be the most agreeable method of sifting through applications, the University must choose carefully from thousands of very adequate students for those it feels are most qualified. While many scorn the use of a waitlist, if acceptances were chosen as the applications poured in, admission into the University would be based in part by postmark date, rather than the applicant's academic capacity.

While the waitlist is definitely a necessary part of University admissions, concerns about deadlines remain. It is important that University officials realize the limited time students accepted from the waitlist have to make their final college decision. Minimizing the period of time waitlisted applicants must wait to hear from the University and allowing those accepted from the waitlist more time to decide would help alleviate negative responses to the waitlist process. The University must remember the precariousness of waitlisted students' situations and try to accommodate and respect the University's applicants.

03-25-98