<p>If you read carefully you may have noted that I simply provided a few examples of reports of suspicious data. Much more that 1.5% of the USNWR ranking comes from data produced by the school (data concerning sat ranges, teacher ratios, etc, etc) and if it were true that some data is manipulated (big 'if"), it would not be a huge leap of logic to suspect other data produced by the school may be suspect. So, neither were my comments “arguments” nor were they “ridiculous”.</p>
<p>Additionally, it would be naive in my opinion to assert that the admission rates and yields and their effects on rankings are not of significant importance to alumni and thus admission depts.</p>
<p>“Is Wash U legit as an elite top tier school or is it really regarded perhaps in the slightly lower ranks of Notre Dame, UMichigan, UC Berkeley, Georgetown, Washington & Lee?”</p>
<p>I’m certainly biased, but I wouldn’t put Georgetown in this group.</p>
<p>"Is it your contention, or any responders, that WUSTL is completely above board in its admissions strategies and data reporting? "</p>
<p>I have no idea what any school is doing. This reporting is completely unaudited, who knows what shenanigans are going on, all over the place? I don’t, at any rate.</p>
<p>My son’s school has scattergram data on its applicants to Washington U. In the “sweet spot” range – top 5% of the class (a couple look like #1 or #2) with ACTs at 30+, there were 2 acceptances and 6 waitlisted (the LOWER stats were accepted!). Candidates with these stats at our school usually get accepted at Northwestern and U. of Chicago. So it looks like there is some objective evidence of admissions manipulation.</p>
<p>My son, who has stellar academic stats (class rank 1 in 400, 36 ACT) refused to consider Washington U because he felt their methods were dishonest, and he didn’t want to play their pretty-please-let-me-in game. I would imagine that this strategy will backfire on the school as much as it helps their rankings.</p>
<p>I did not think that those were your arguments, and I’m sorry if I gave that impression. </p>
<p>I was also referring only to the “yield manipulation”, since that is the most frequently cited argument against WashU. My post does not apply to SAT ranges or teacher ratios. I should have made that clear.</p>
<p>Regarding yield manipulation, though, I stand by my point. Since the rankings are “graded” on a 100 point scale, the biggest difference yield/acceptance rate could make would be 1.5 points, assuming that WashU received a “full score”, and other universities received 0. Odds are that the most advantage they could gain would be .5-.75 of a point: enough to move them up one spot, if that, but no more.</p>
<p>To think that Wash U is the only school (or even the main offender) in the “manipulation” of college admissions statistics is naive beyond belief. Also, if you think US News and other ranking services are stupid enough to be duped so thoroughly for so many years by a large number of schools, you are a fool. </p>
<p>Everyone plays the prestige game; it is simply (and unfortunately) part of the world we live in where big name degrees get you the big jobs and the big bucks. Wash U wants donors. They want their alumni to be proud of their alma mater, just like every other reputable university. To do this they must make the school a prestigious university, which they have done over the past decade or so. As proven by Wash U’s recent streak of donations and massive expansion both physically and academically, the school is most definitely a contender with the low ivies and in some degrees, even the nation’s top 10 (Wash U was ranked 9th nationally a few years ago). And their grad school placement can testify to their reputation among schools like HYPSM. </p>
<p>Rumor is that Wash U received ~4000 more applications this year than last year, one of the biggest increases among the top 20 schools. If that alone isn’t enough evidence to show that Wash U’s recent reputation among the nation’s top students isn’t excellent, I don’t know what is.</p>
<p>^Does that mean ~4000 more phone calls or post cards to the admissions office? (to be clear this is just a joke)</p>
<p>@ LoremIpsum</p>
<p>I checked our HS scattergram to see if I could determine a pattern of wait listing but with over 500 applicants to WUSTL the graph is a bit difficult to decipher clearly. I do notice that there does seem to me to be a similarly abundant number of “waitlist or deferred” in the 34 and 35 ACT ranges as there is in the 32 and 33 ranges, which doesn’t pass the common sense test to me but is clearly not a particularly scientific result. Of the 3 dots indicating a 36 ACT score who applied, these were all accepted. </p>
<p>Another interesting anomaly i noticed that significantly more applicants with 36 ACT scores apply to Northwestern U and UChicago than apply to WUSTL, although I am not sure what that says.</p>
<p>It is so ridiculous how some students and parents feel a sense of entitlement when it comes to WashU, as if the school has no right to reject or waitlist them. My kids attended a highly ranked prep school where about 1/3 of the class is accepted at top-20 schools. The admissions results were all over the map, with kids getting into the most selective ivys who were waitlisted/rejected at mid and lower-tier ivys or kids getting into Johns Hopkins who were rejected at Georgetown or Vandy. The 10 highest ranked students did not get into Harvard, while 3 lower ranked (non-athlete, non-URM, non-legacy) students did. And the two who got into Princeton did not get into any other high or mid ivys. So the fact that someone with high stats doesn’t get into WashU while someone with lower stats does is not proof of manipulation; it’s what all schools do–they make their decision based on what they need to craft a class. </p>
<p>Looking at the scattergrams from the school, the top kids who applied to WashU were accepted. The two waitlists were good students, but not as strong as those at the top.</p>
<p>And as to mailing from admissions, we’re glad that they sent them out. A postcard encouraged one of my kids to look into WashU, which is far from where we live and not as well known as the schools on the coasts or the athletic powerhouses. We got even more mail from University of Chicago. Chicago wanted to raise its profile in our area–nothing wrong with that. Even the ivys sent out mailings, and they certainly have more than enough applicants.</p>
<p>^With Northwestern University now receiving 40% more applications than U of Chicago, I belive UC’s admissions department has perhaps become a little undignified (or perhaps zealous is a better word) in their recruitment efforts to avoid being overtaken (if they have not already been overtaken - obviously subjective).</p>
<p>In contrast to your view, I have not noticed a sense of entitlement, but have seen comments expressing credible confusion were there appears to develop a pattern of highly stat’d and EC’d applicants, accepted at multiple HYPSM’s, but waitlisted and deferred at WUSTL. Although I have not seen statistical documentation beyond anecdotal evidence as yet.</p>
<p>I think WashU will follow the path of Northwestern (which is an anomaly in the top tier schools), as a “jack of all trades, master of none” because
not one of their programs is exceptionally well known (like JHU, MIT)
they’re not part of the Ivy League (which automatically makes the school highly sought after) and
they don’t have a unique quality that would make students apply (Duke-basketball, UChicago-intellectuals)</p>
<p>If we judge by it’s selectivity, then yes, WashU is a top tier school with an acceptance rate less than Cornell. I disagree with the previous posts who say that WashU is manipulating data. Remember that WashU admits many students from its waitlist (who are usually highly qualified and chose to be put on the waitlist). This suggests that students of a high caliber are going to WashU.</p>
<p>However, for the general HS population, it’s not a top tier school. I suggest WashU to do what NU and other schools do.
Turn its proximity to St.Louis into an advantage, just like how NU marketed itself as being “just north of Chicago.”
Be more aggressive in its advertising materials. (UChicago and Duke both sent me posters)
IDK about its supplement since I didn’t apply there, but make it as short as possible. (This increases applications, making the school seem more selective)
Increase its endowment.</p>
<p>WashU and NU are peer schools in my mind. I’m confident that more students will see WashU as prestigious in the near future (just like how the students “discovered” UChicago) Remember that NU wasn’t considered prestigious years ago either and suddenly it’s compared to the lower Ivies.</p>
<p>^I agree that (at least on paper) WashU is a peer to Northwestern, Duke, U of Chicago, Cornell, Dartmouth and Vanderbilt - I think the point of the thread is that it doesnt seem to garner the same respect. If the skeptism is undeserved, then hopefully WUSTL will be redeemed through discussions like these. </p>
<p>But it would be hard to suggest that its just poor marketing strategy that accounts for much of the perceived (at least by me) lower regard in CC. Considering the meteoric rise from the back pages to now above-the-fold on the USNWR rankings, many consider them frontrunners in academic sales, not laggers.</p>
<p>good programs, but reputation is confined to midwest and maybe east coast. But nobody knows about Wash U on the West Coast, so not YET. I applied at WashU because of the campus looks, business program, and no supplement essay, so WashU got me just like thousands of other applicants. I do feel that Wash U is trying to decrease their admissions rate by not adding supplement essays and is really trying to game the system.</p>
<p>^Is appealing to self-confessed (I love the unapologetic honesty in how you matriculated to WashU) lazier people gaming the system? </p>
<p>… an argument can be made that it’s not any different then UMIchigan or Brown (and of course many others) going to the easier common app and receiving explosive #’s of apps- while Georgetown’s application #'s stagnate while it snubs it’s nose at the crassness of a “common” application.</p>
<p>I did find it helpful to hear the unimpassioned insights from actual Wash U student, and hope others will chime in.</p>
^im not at WashU, i just applied there this year, class of 2015. I don’t know if your trying to take a shot at me or what, but I just tell as I see it which is part of the reason I applied to Wash U was short supplement. I mean if they had one supplement essay I still would’ve applied but two…probably not, WashU’s too much of a reach for me to be spending that much time on Wash U app.</p>
<p>^matriculate just means that you registered (or enrolled or accepted admit offer) not that you are on campus… and no i certainly was not taking a shot at you… appreciate the honesty actually.</p>
<p>My son started inquiring about Wash U, and considered applying there, only after, and solely because, he determined they required little or no supplemental essays for the Common App.</p>
<p>^This astounds me. But from looking around a bit more, this seems to be far from a unique sentiment, at least for Wash U applicants. I suppose I continue to under appreciate the laziness of succeeding generations.</p>
<p>Some enterprising admissions office will no doubt soon develop the NON- app, where your guidance counselor simply forwards all relevant information to the school leaving the high schooler undisturbed from perpetual COD nazi-zombie battles.</p>