<p>Wash U sucks.</p>
<p>(I got waitlisted >_>)</p>
<p>randombetch</p>
<p>That probably means you'll get into an Ivy next week!</p>
<p>(just kidding, but truth be told WashU's shady Yield-protection strategies are atrocious)</p>
<p>Edit: Sorry, Yield-protection would imply that WashU has anything resembling a good yield rate--- it doesn't. I think I meant to say "USNEWS-gaming". </p>
<p>But hey, don't lose hope WashU ppl... UPenn was in the same exact position a decade or so ago and well, look at where it's at now.</p>
<p>lol, I love how they use these sketchy yield protection systems, and still end up with a yield in the teens</p>
<p>jazzymom, don't look just at the US News rankings... It has horrible job placement and isn't known for anything else other than medicine</p>
<p>How come does washu have such a high alumni giving rate if its job placement is horrible? You can go to Olin's site to see its undergrad placement record. It is very good. Say something based on record, please.</p>
<p>randombetch, i agree. (i got waitlisted too D:)</p>
<p>WUSTL's yield is not "in the teens," in fact it happens to have the same yield as Johns Hopkins, at 32 percent. UChicago's yield is not that much higher at 34 percent or 37, so there. Maybe you got confused with WUSTL's admission rate, which last year was 17 percent.</p>
<p>I can understand Wash U's admissions policy.
Just look at the # of people they take off the wait list, these are usually the people who show that they are more interested in Wash U than some of the other schools on their list.
I'm under the impression that if a person stays on the Wash U waitlist and shows that he or she really wants to go to the school that he or she would likely get off.
Something that is interesting to me though is that Wash U has around the same median SAT score as places such as Duke and Dartmouth.. which is higher than Brown, Penn, Columbia, and the very non-test score focused Stanford. </p>
<p>Does this mean that Wash U is simply very test-score focused (accepting high test score applicants with mediocre grades/EC's) or does it mean that it is actually.. gasp.. selective?</p>
<p>At the end of the day I think the general concensus is something like this:</p>
<p>Is WashU, with regards to the bigger picture, a good school? Definitely yes. It legitimately belongs in the top 20 probably.</p>
<p>However, is it as GOOD as Cornell, where it's USNews rank suggests it is? Definitely not. Its reputation and overall caliber of students are nowhere as good as the Ivies. WashU loses HORRENDOUSLY in all cross-admit battles. There's a good Ivy-inferiority complex up there at WashU (friend goes there) whereas on the other hand WashU isn't even on the avg Ivy student's radar. </p>
<p>It's overrated respective to its USNews rank.</p>
<p>WUSTL is actually very test-score focused. My friend applied there and he had a SAT score of 1940. When he called up the admission officer, he was told that the adcom probably would not even see his essays and the rest of his app as his score was too low.</p>
<p>Not always true, truazn.</p>
<p>For instance, I have a friend (who is at Duke right now) who was accepted to Duke, Cornell, and Wash U. Cornell was the first one off his list of the three, since he didn't like the environment there (he considered Cornell to be cold and depressing after he visited). Environment plays a big role. </p>
<p>Can anyone explain to me why Wash U has a test score average 65 points higher than Cornell (1450 v. 1385) if the 'overall caliber of students is nowhere as good as Cornell', that alone seems to prove that the caliber of Wash U students may even be higher than those at Cornell SOMEWHERE, not everywhere of course...</p>
<p>"However, is it as GOOD as Cornell, where it's USNews rank suggests it is? Definitely not. Its reputation and overall caliber of students are nowhere as good as the Ivies. WashU loses HORRENDOUSLY in all cross-admit battles. There's a good Ivy-inferiority complex up there at WashU (friend goes there) whereas on the other hand WashU isn't even on the avg Ivy student's radar."</p>
<p>Are you from the east coast, per chance? I think you'd be surprised how little of an Ivy-inferiority complex there is at excellent schools in the midwest (such as WUSTL, NU and U of Chicago). I find that people from the east (and I'm originally from there myself, so I get it) really do overestimate how much the rest of the country salivates over Ivies. There's not a single place in the midwest that Cornell could get you, that WUSTL, NU or U of Chicago couldn't get you.</p>
<p>truazn8948532</p>
<p>Please don't embarrass yourself like that</p>
<p>Their total alumni giving is not impressive. They probably hound everyone for $20 to make their number look better.</p>
<p>The alumni giving rate is about the same as Cornell and Northwestern, not far off from Chicago and Columbia and Johns Hopkins. Pretty good company.<br>
And which top college does not actively seek donations from alumni?</p>
<p>Actually a number #12 ranking for undergrad business isn;t that impressive. The top schools don't have undergrad business programs and yet they dominate elite recruiting. Thus a #12 ranking is more like #20-25 when you take this in account. </p>
<p>Cornell is an exception, but because they are so strong with recruiting at the overall undergrad level the business rank isn't that relevant.</p>
<p>Barrons, it seems you are not even trying to read the evidence objectively. What grudge do you hold against WashU? Was your kid rejected or something?</p>
<p>I can see why East Coast people may think WashU is overrated. I am from the East Coast, and both my friend and I applied to WashU and were accepted. I applied to the BA/MD program and was rejected, but I was accepted to the engineering school.</p>
<p>In any case, when we were both accepted, we both said we would not go there. Me because I wasn't accepted into the combined program, and him because he just didn't see it appealing. I also did not see WashU appealing from first glance - and I think that this is similar to many East coast students. </p>
<p>I guess when we think of Missouri, pleasant pictures don't pop into mind because we just don't know the area and have our preconceived notions about it. I am not saying that this is good - it is actually the opposite - but it definitely exists.</p>
<p>"However, is it as GOOD as Cornell, where it's USNews rank suggests it is? Definitely not. Its reputation and overall caliber of students are nowhere as good as the Ivies."</p>
<p>You keep forgetting that reputation varies based on what part of the country you're in. Believe it or not, there is more to this country than the East Coast. It is amusing to me how all the East Coasters think the middle of the country is flyover land and how all the West Coasters think the entire UC system is revered by everyone across the country when in truth only UCLA and UCBerkeley have national reputations. </p>
<p>Like I said before, there is no place anywhere in the midwest that a Cornell diploma could get you that a WUSTL, NU or U of Chicago diploma couldn't get you just as easily. Really, the rest of the country does not salivate over Ivys the way you all do. Just like WUSTL isn't on many East Coasters' radar screens, rest assured that Cornell isn't on many midwesterners' radar screens either. (No slam to Cornell -- but once you get beyond HYP and maybe Stanford, all reputations appear to be regional in scope.)</p>
<p>Pizzagirl that just isn't true. Cornell will work everywhere, WashU is more regional. There is no place a WashU degree will get you that a Cornell degree won't, but a Cornell degree has more leverage in the more influential parts of the country (business/ finance/ politics/ entertainment)- namely the east and west coast.</p>