noamk wrote:
Hey guys,
I don't exactly know how to interpret it, but from looking at both this thread and the SEPTEMBER 2011 INTAKE thread, I gathered the following:
1) 24 people reported that they got accepted
2) 21 people got into the waiting list.
The reason could be:
a) There are allot more waitlist applicants who were willing to register to the forum/share their status
b) By some statistical coincidence, there are allot more wait-listed applicants in this forum
c) This round's waitlist is huge!
I sure hope it's not C...
noamk,
be careful with comparing two different data sets. people will naturally gravitate to whichever thread is applicable to themselves and register their thoughts. e.g. after the fact people will log in and post for the first time that they're accepted to insead, just like people will do the same for being waitlisted. you'll have people registered in one thread that aren't in the other...you have to take one sample (where the two threads overlap, or just one) and stick with it for consistency's sake.
a better approach would be to take the sept 2011 intake roll-call as your sample, and figure out the statistics from that alone (ignoring the people who have registered here, but not there). who was accepted, who was waitlisted (to your knowledge), and who are you not sure about?
without having done the math, my hunch is that the waitlist is just as large as previous years (insead says it's comparatively small); and there's nothing to read into the number of waitlisters registered here compared to the number of those accepted registered in the sept 2011 instake thread.
also, it's good to look at the jan 11 waitlist thread -- probably a more positive point-of-reference for us waitlisters. my numbers show 65% admit from the waitlist, with >50% of those eventually admitted receiving notice within two months of the original (waitlist) decision. also keep in mind that the jan 11 intake does not compete with american mba programs, so one would think that the jan yield is historically higher than the sept one -- leading one to believe that the sept intake waitlist will see more action unless insead manages waitlist size as well between the two intakes.
sorry a lot of the thoughts are off-the-cuff, and i haven't really thought out / crafted a totally comprehensible or authoritative response. let me know if you (or anyone else) requires clarification on my thoughts above.
to all: remain POSITIVE. look at the jan 11 waitlist thread. there might not be a whole lot you can do to improve your candidacy, but know that insead's yield is not 100%; there will be people who decide to go to hbs, stanford, kellogg, lbs, etc instead, and the adcom will dip into the waitlist to fill diversity gaps. i might not get in, but i guarantee a significant % of those registered here will (and as i mentioned, within 2 months of now). that is unless for some unforseen reason r2 applicants are much stronger than r1 ones (which is NEVER the case).
it's just a crapshoot -- unless you discover the cure for cancer or solve the crisis (or crises) in the middle east. as a slightly pessimistic side, one thing that i'm doubtful of is that accepting more responsibility during the next 6-8 months will improve your standing on the waitlist. there's only so much you can do in 6-8 months that will substantially impact your candidacy, and the adcom has already said it's more about diversity than the strength of your application. you just need to happen to be the female kyrgyz tuba player on the waitlist for when the other one the adcom admitted decides to go to LBS.