<p>Why is UG focus so damn important? </p>
<p>There seems to be ABSOLUTELY no correlation between focus and any sort of academic achievement/prowess.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Then they accept students from the WL who have made many contacts with the admissions office. Supplemental letters, more recommendations, et cetera. Obviously these WL-admitted students who send this information really want to attend Wash U, increasing the yield rate.
[/quote]
gradatgrad,</p>
<p>Actually it's more than that. As I mentioned in post #67, they'd call the candidates and send only the ones that verbally accept the "offer" on the phone the acceptance letter/package. Those that decline the offer on the phone stay as "waitlisted".</p>
<p>
I realize that now; I was hasty in my reply. Question: do you know whether or not these waitlist admits count toward yield? I'm assuming they do... which is utterly and totally manipulative on the part of Wash U.</p>
<p>Waitlist admits always count toward the total admits and hence the yield for any school. The difference is WashU defines "waitlist admits" differently, as explained in my last post.</p>
<p>Use of the waitlist to control admission and yield is common practice among the top universities.</p>
<pre><code>Northwestern waitlisted ** 2,734 ** applicants in 07-08 and took 471 off the waitlist. Did they need to waitlist that many to fill less than 500 slots? Obviously not. So by the same logic, NW is also "gaming the system."
</code></pre>
<p>Whether WU does so more or less than other top colleges is a matter of speculation, which of course you're free to do, but that's all it is. (And not at all surprising that it is Northwestern students spending great time and energy to discredit WU, a Midwest rival.)</p>
<p>Why shouldn't WU takes steps to ascertain whether students on the waitlist really want to accept before they're taken off the waitlist? If it affects WU's yield, so what? Yield is something all colleges want to improve, and it's one of those bragging rights data points, but it DOESN'T HAVE ANY IMPACT ON THE USNWR RANKING. Yield has not been included in the magazine's ranking formula for many years. </p>
<p>The so-called manipulation of the admissions numbers through the waitlist cannot make a significant difference in the rankings. Admit rate is only 1.5 percent of the overall score. (10 percent of the Selectivity Rank, which counts for 15 percent overall.) If it mattered so much, then Brown, with it's lower admission rate would be much higher. So it's the other factors, mostly faculty resources and financial resources, that put WU high in the rankings under the USNWR methodology. </p>
<p>The waitlist ed herring is convenient to use, though, if someone wants to employ terms like "manipulation" and "gaming" and "worse than I thought" to smear WU in general and discredit its place in the rankings. </p>
<p>And, as usual, the NW fan-club criticism of WU come without any context to what other colleges also do. Large waitlists are not out of the ordinary --- and I'd say that nearly 3,000 is a large waitlist --- and I'll bet that most colleges that are not HYP take similar steps to take from the waitlist the students that indicate they really want to come.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I realize that now; I was hasty in my reply. Question: do you know whether or not these waitlist admits count toward yield? I'm assuming they do... which is utterly and totally manipulative on the part of Wash U.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But yield isn't in USNWR, so all they're manipulating is ... yield. Not the USNWR rankings. Which means, therefore and in conclusion, if they are playing games like this, it doesn't affect the ranking, and so therefore how can it be "overrated"?</p>
<p>jazzymom,</p>
<p>Please look at the link at #76 and see for yourself how WashU scattergrams are <em>very different</em> from all others. In couple of them, there's only <em>one</em> rejection (cross as the symbol) while there were many watilisted students. In all of them, waitlists outnumber rejects by significant margin for WashU. Northwestern's scattergram is nothing out of ordinary and like just about any other peers, the rejects outnumber waitlists by significant margin. Also, Northwesten does not call people to find out if their waitlisted candidates would likely matriculate before sending out acceptance letters/packages and exclude those that decline the acceptance offer over the phone in their admit tally. </p>
<p>As for Northwestern offering 2734 waitlisted spots to fill 471, why didn't you mention that only 1274 of them accepted to be put on waitlist? It seems to me you intentionally left that out to make NU appear to play some wacky game. Also, last year's waitlist was the largest in history when they also accepted the highest number in school history in April. This means they were experience the uncertainty they never had before. They did admit 471, which is a significant percentage of 1274. And out of that 471, probably only 150 accepted the spot, a yield of 1/3 which is not much different from their overall yield. In other words, Northwestern uses its waitlist to deal with the uncertainty and risk of under-enrollment which is what waitlist is supposed to be used for. The waitlist didn't help increase its yield or decrease its admit rate.</p>
<p>As for yield not being included in the magazine's ranking formula, please recognize that yield and admit rate are just both sides of the same coin. Also, don't underestmiate the different of small percentage point in USNEWS; the separation among the top schools is tiny. It's like gymnastics competition. Northwestern jumped two spots pretty much because of the increase in test scores.</p>
<p>Ok, so let's say WUSTL plays these games and NU and others don't, for the sake of argument. How does that have anything to do with the clear talent in the student body and what goes on in the classroom? Doesn't make WUSTL "overrated." It just makes it a relative newcomer, which has disturbed the powers-that-be in the Northeast who don't like to admit to the existence of really good schools in between the coasts unless they are in Chicago. NU and WUSTL are more similar than different, IMO, and I say this as someone who lived in St. Louis, got into both schools and attended NU.</p>
<p>I totally seond what you said. I actually don't think WashU was "overrated". I was mainly addressing the admission practice that was a bit dishonest in my book.</p>
<p>Sam Lee</p>
<p>You were right, WashU's scattergrams were off the charts, literally, waitlists everywhere, far exceeding green dots and even red rejections. lol That was surprising. I didn't know it would be THAT bad compared to the colleges on that list.</p>
<p>The result of this waitlisting scheme, WashU is 6th in terms of selectivity, tied with Columbia University in 2007 USNWR.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It just makes it a relative newcomer
[/quote]
WUSTL has been a member of the Association of American Universites for a long time (1923 to be exact)...compared to other schools on the membership list, it's hardly a newcomer.
AAU</a> Members by Admission</p>
<p>Sam: Yes, NW rose due to its test scores because the test scores count for 50 percent of the Selectivity Rank, five times as much as the admission rate counts. </p>
<p>If WU uses the WL strategy --- and it's a strategy MANY colleges use, not a "scheme" --- to control its admissions for the best yield (with the goal of admitting students who want to come there) it does not have the kind of impact on its ranking level that would make a difference. WU is ranked 6th in selectivity because of the high national test scores --- remember that's 50 percent of the selectivity rating --- and the high numbers of students in the top 10 percent of their graduating classes --- another 10 percent of the selectivity rating --- not because of some fine tuning in taking students off the wait list for admission. Which other colleges also do so it probably is negligible in impact.</p>
<p>There is nothing "fishy" or suspicious in WashU's ranking. The PA of 4.1 is accounted for in the methodology after all. PA is 25 percent. But WashU shines in the areas of Selectivity (15 percent of the total) mostly due to the high test scores and high percentage of top-10 students; in Faculty Resources (20 percent of total) and in Financial Resources (10 percent of total). </p>
<p>So WashU is lower than it's rival NW in PA (4.1 compared to 4.3), but higher in Selectivity Rank ( 6th for WU and 19th for NW in the '08 figures since I don't have '09 yet) and higher in Financial Resources (4th in rank compared to 12th for NW) and they were tied for 7th in Faculty Resources. </p>
<p>According to the article that Phead linked, WU was helped in the rankings in the late 90s when a huge fund-raising effort created a $175 million endowment that they put toward scholarships to attract top students. Thus, test scores and Selectivity ranking rose significantly. WU was also helped when its Faculty Resources rank rose from 30th to 9th between 1996 and 1997, the year USNWR adjusted its calculation of faculty salaries to account for cost of living differences. </p>
<p>I suppose someone could use that fact to claim that WashU manipulates its data by being located in St. Louis, which costs less to live in than Chicagoland or the NE. Go for it.</p>
<p>overrated Harvard
underrated Princeton</p>
<p>
[quote]
WUSTL has been a member of the Association of American Universites for a long time (1923 to be exact)...compared to other schools on the membership list, it's hardly a newcomer.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, I know; I've been aware of (and thought highly of) WUSTL for a long time, having lived in St. Louis. In fact, the person who set the wheels in motion for me to wind up at NU is now a hot-shot at WUSTL's med program :-). I just mean from the national perspective -- it's far more on the national radar screen now than it ever used to be. It's gone from top-notch regional school to top-notch national school.</p>
<p>I am originally from the East, and I know how it's fashionable to pretend the rest of the country is flyover land; I thought that way myself. It's no surprise that part of why people are hesitant to embrace WUSTL into the upper tier is because of its location. (Not the physical location - it's in a beautiful area - I mean that it's in St. Louis, not a particularly high profile city.)</p>
<p>jazzymom, just FYI (and as you can see I have plenty of heart for WUSTL), please don't use NW as the abbreviation for NU, it hurts our little alumni eyes :-)</p>
<p>I'm confused how the Financial resources rank is calculated- could someone explain?</p>
<p>
<p>Northwestern waitlisted 2,734 applicants in 07-08 and took 471 off the waitlist. Did they need to waitlist that many to fill less than 500 slots? Obviously not. So by the same logic, NW is also "gaming the system."
Read the thread again. No one ever said that using a waitlist alone was a bad or unethical move on the part of universities. I just think it says a lot that you can find those statistics for Northwestern and other peer schools easily with a simple Google search, while Wash U keeps their waitlist numbers under lock and key. </p>
<p>
It's a matter of speculation because Wash U's admissions office makes it so. And taking a look at the data above that Sam Lee posted, along with mountains of anecdotal evidence, do you honestly think that Wash U's waitlist system mirrors that at peer schools?</p>
<p><a href="And%20not%20at%20all%20surprising%20that%20it%20is%20Northwestern%20students%20spending%20great%20time%20and%20energy%20to%20discredit%20WU,%20a%20Midwest%20rival.">quote=jazzymom</a>
[/quote]
NU's school motto, from Philippians 4:8: "Whatsoever things are true." The full verse: </p>
<p>"Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things."</p>
<p>Seems like Wildcats may have taken this to heart. </p>
<p>
It affects WU's yield, but it also affects their admit rate. If they only accept students that they know are going to attend, eliminating the problem of yield entirely and resulting in a 100% yield for the waitlist admits, then they can "reject" everyone else left on the waitlist at the end of the admissions cycle, again artificially lowering the admit rate. Which has an impact on what students think, what other schools think, etc etc etc. </p>
<p>
[quote]
And, as usual, the NW fan-club criticism of WU come without any context to what other colleges also do. Large waitlists are not out of the ordinary --- and I'd say that nearly 3,000 is a large waitlist --- and I'll bet that most colleges that are not HYP take similar steps to take from the waitlist the students that indicate they really want to come.
[/quote]
The problem isn't necessarily only the SIZE of the waitlist, though of course we have no idea how large WU's is. It's the calls and the admission of only those students who have already declared their attention to attend. It's the admissions office playing with the hopes and lives of its applicants. It's the university putting the numbers game ahead of what's best for its applicants. Personally I'm proud to attend a university that places itself in high enough regard to avoid such shenanigans.</p>
<p>
Does logic escape you?</p>
<p>WU artificially lowers its admission rates. Are these considered by US News? Yes they are. Does that mean Wash U is overrated? YES IT DOES! I don't know how to explain it any more clearly than that.</p>
<p>Not to mention the inflated counselor rankings and peer rankings that result from a lower acceptance rate.</p>
<p>How do you explain the fact that WUSTL Overenrolled in 2006 and didn't admit ANY students that year from the waitlist?</p>
<p>
Obviously WU is a good school, no one is disputing that fact. Sometimes admissions offices mispredict the yield rate, which is what happened there. What they've done on their waitlist in prior and subsequent years isn't erased by that aberration, in my mind.</p>
<p>If you're a conspiracy theorist, one might argue that many students make their matriculation decisions based on college rankings. And WU's were great that year. Possibly they were overrated?</p>
<p>OTOH if you're one of those that likes to compare WU to NU, NU also overenrolled in 2006.</p>