Do you think that WUSTL would reject an applicant purely on lack of ECs and minor...?

<p>Leadership?(only VP in a special club)..</p>

<p>Ok guys its the mid stretch and I am convinced WashU is for me so I'm going to ED it but....
Im scared they'll reject me because although i have some nice awards(not national but regionals once a year) and some small leadership/interns programs that I was in.My per hour weekly commitments is about 3 hours (for all activities) on average including community service but not counting like the honors societies and small school club!!! Man.... so obviously they wouldnt defer me because my grades are perfect in the hardest program and classes...so its either a reject or accept right?</p>

<p>Also my class rank is in the top percent of my clas but there are still a few kids better than me!</p>

<p>Anyways tell me the hard cold truth...did i ruin my chances?</p>

<p>No, because the US News rankings do not care about ECs or leadership.</p>

<p>? What does that have to do with this question lol</p>

<p>
[QUOTE=interestingguy]

No, because the US News rankings do not care about ECs or leadership.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>was that supposed to be serious? in any case admissions don’t work that way, and certainly not at WUSTL, because ECs and leadership are definitely taken into serious consideration…</p>

<p>With that said though, Iwantcollegehelp, I don’t think there’s any reason the stuff you mentioned would kill your application - i didn’t have much in the way of leadership when I applied, and my EC list wasn’t all that impressive either. ECs are one of many ways you can make your application stand out, but a weaker set of ECs isn’t really a huge deal - you just need to have another area on your app that’s strong, if you’re going to maximize your chances. So from what info you’ve mentioned, you could still be right where you need to be to apply, in my opinion anyway.</p>

<p>Oh and i deferrals aren’t really that common anyway, I don’t think, although there are a fair few people waitlisted every year…</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I’d argue that the perfect WUSTL applicant is someone with good SAT scores and top 10% class ranking, but poor-to-mediocre ECs. This student (if enrolled) enhances WUSTL’s US News profile, but is unlikely to attract ivy offers that’d lure him or her away.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE=interestingguy]

I’d argue that the perfect WUSTL applicant is someone with good SAT scores and top 10% class ranking, but poor-to-mediocre ECs. This student (if enrolled) enhances WUSTL’s US News profile, but is unlikely to attract ivy offers that’d lure him or her away.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>and i’d argue that 80% of those applicants will be rejected by WUSTL. Where do people get these ideas about US News obsession and Tufts Syndrome? It’s a top school, and for some freakish reason it gets ranked alongside other top schools. crazay.</p>

<p>sorry if that comes across as me making arbitrary claims and stuff. but i go to this school, i love it, and our admissions process is seriously nowhere near that lame. WashU goes for hook students the same as any other similar school.</p>

<p>did my first post help with your question at all though, OP?</p>

<p>interestingguy - I seldom respond to these “chances” threads, but I am very interested how you would back up your argument. WashU looks for specific types of individuals that complete a mosaic that will enhance campus atmosphere. In order to accomplish that aim, it is important to admit students with a variety of skills and atributes. Obviously WashU looks beyond only numbers (GPA & SAT) to achieve its aim.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Less than 80% of ALL applicants are rejected by WUSTL, if you consider how many applicants are waitlisted.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>WUSTL is only a “top (12) school” according to US News, which is related to my original point. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Arbitrary AND biased, but understandable. Many people feel defensive about their schools.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Haha. A “mosaic”? You must work for WUSTL’s marketing department.</p>

<p>interestingguy- and you’re clearly biased against the school, so how is your opinion (which is all it is, as you don’t have a single fact to back up your claim) any more valid?</p>

<p>^ How am I “biased” against WUSTL? I have no affiliation for or against the school. Just my two cents. </p>

<p>The OP asked a question and I answered it.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE=interestingguy]

Less than 80% of ALL applicants are rejected by WUSTL, if you consider how many applicants are waitlisted.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>umm… no. That’s what the waitlisted people on CC say every year to make themselves feel better, and I’m fine with that. The waitlist is nothing like 20,000 names long, though. Try a number like 4,000. </p>

<p>
[QUOTE=interestingguy]

I have no affiliation for or against the school.

[/quote]

you could probably throw “and no first-hand information about the school” into that lineup. Seriously, if you can dig up one more myth about WashU i’ll be convinced you’re ■■■■■■■■. Remind me again why you’re answering questions on the WashU CC forums? Because you really don’t come across as anyone either A) a prospective, or B) a parent/student connected with WU.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>17% of WUSTL applicants were accepted. If 4,000 applicants were WLed, that’d represent approx. 18% of the applicant pool (of 22,000). Even if you allow that some of the accepted were originally WLed, where do you get 80%+ rejections?</p>

<p>BTW, if you’re trying to dispel the “myth” that WUSTL has Tufts Syndrome, stating that the school waitlists nearly one-fifth of its applicant pool isn’t exactly helping your cause.</p>

<p>interestingguy - Sorry if the word “mosaic” is too complicated for you to understand. But the fact is that the goal of washU is to assemble a freshman class every year that is best described by the term “mosaic”. Each admited candidate fits a part of the puzzle. As Don_Quixote stated - your comments would be beneficial if they were based on facts and not biased opinion.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Not too “complicated.” Just too cliche and touchy-feely.</p>

<p>Given that WUSTL is NOT need-blind, I imagine qualified, low-income students don’t really “fit” the mosaic, huh?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I took Don_Quixote’s facts (from post #12) and ran with them. Too bad you don’t enjoy the logical conclusions derived from these facts.</p>

<p>4,000 WLed…lolz</p>

<p>P.S. Keep in mind that the 4,000 figure is probably a depressed estimate.</p>

<p>Yah that fact that the univ is not need blind left a bad state in my mouth…that is not equal opportunity…and they say it minorly affects admissions which i believe is bs bc if it was minor they might as well get rid of it if it only affect 5 applicants…it obviously affects hundreds</p>

<p>interestingguy - You seem to be batting 100%, since you are wrong again. Applicants with a family income below $60,000 do not pay tuition - all aid for these students is in the form of either scholarships or grants. There seems to be no point in continuing this exchange, since you seem to not be interested in using any facts to support your opinions.</p>

<p>interesting guy and Iwantcollegehelp-</p>

<p>WashU may not be need blind, but the fact is that ~60% of the student body receives some form of financial aid (not including merit scholarships). And of that, I do not know of any student who didn’t have 100% of their need met. It’s fairly well known that if you’re not happy with your aid package, the finaid office will generally do something to help you.</p>

<p>As far as aid goes, yeah WU is right up there, with plenty of people receiving lots of aid. The reason they can’t fully get rid of “need awareness” is that once they start pulling people off the waitlist, they tend to run out of aid money, which means the last ~100 people brought in might have their decisions affected if there is no financial aid to give them. That’s all.</p>

<p>On the waitlist size, I think I misread your statement about WashU rejecting “less than 80% of it’s total applicant pool” as saying they waitlisted 80% or something, but the point is the same. There are no official numbers available on the size of the waitlist, but there’s no real reason to think it’s so much larger than another school’s. Except whatever inside source you’ve got, apparently.</p>

<p>Second, Tufts syndrome has nothing to do with the size of a school’s waitlist. It has to do with the <em>type</em> of students that are waitlisted. And until someone shows me a numerical trend for WashU waitlisting everyone who applies with perfect stats/ECs, I’ll see no reason to believe WashU waitlists “overqualified” students. Quite the opposite, actually.</p>