<p>Haha yea. Mm now that I think about it, ppl don't usually go "WOW!" anyways to what college unless it's like Harvard or Stanford. Essentially, who the heck cares about the name because in the long run it's the person who makes the college; the college doesn't make the person.</p>
<p>Colleges like Harvard generally choose students who demonstrate a capability of making the college to begin with (i.e. brilliant students).</p>
<p>IMO, as long as USNWR ranks Wash U as No. 11, or whatever number since it can fluctuate, then that's what its ranking is to the outside world. The people on this board don't have to defend it. (Why bother...the same outdated arguments against it get used over and over.) According to USNWR, Wash U deserves to be No. 11. If you disagree with the ranking, take it up with USNWR; it's their methodology. </p>
<p>BTW, the overall ranking, not the ranking of individual programs or departments, is of interest to many UG because they have not decided what their major is going to be. WashU is particularly attractive to undecideds because it offers flexibility in exploring courses in different colleges. Even if a student doesn't end up in the highly regarded medical, engineering, or business departments, he or she will still have received a top-notch education.</p>
<p>I agree that WUSTL doesn't need to be defended. The school is absolutely fantastic and deserves far more credit than it gets from prestige whores. However, I do disagree with your assessment of the U.S. News rankings on a few points.</p>
<p>"that's what its ranking is to the outside world"
Only top students care about top ranked schools and WUSTL is, unfairly and due to its rising status, singled out for scorn by a large percentage of those students. That's the subject of this thread. Prestige whores do not think of it as no. 11. Other students mostly haven't heard of lesser-known top schools (like WUSTL, Emory, UChicago, Dartmouth, Vanderbilt, etc.) </p>
<p>"the overall ranking, not the ranking of individual programs or departments, is of interest to many UG because they have not decided what their major is going to be"
Whatever USNews gives, it is not an overall ranking of undergraduate academic quality. It's a numbers game designed to put the right prestige schools in the top twenty or so.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It's a numbers game designed to put the right prestige schools in the top twenty or so.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And that somehow doesn't include Berkeley? LOL</p>
<p>I always thought Cal was more about grad school than undergrad</p>
<p>Though I do enjoy the controversy as it really gets people's opinions out in the open, I have gotten what I wanted from this thread: I see that WUSTL is an excellent university and that some ppl just think it is ranked a bit too highly...in a sense, I may agree with them. I would probably consider Chicago and Brown, along with several others, as equal to or better than WUSTL. But that is my opinion and based on more than just the numbers/quality of students. After a certain point, the schools really all do start to blend together and constitute the best of American education. Whether WUSTL is #11 or #20, it doesn't matter - it is a great school. I will definitely apply.</p>
<p>That's a healthy way of seeing things, brand. Good luck!</p>
<p>Yeah, I'd second (third?) that.</p>
<p>"And that somehow doesn't include Berkeley? LOL"</p>
<p>Berkeley and Michigan both get screwed in the rankings for precisely the reason that they're a numbers game.</p>
<p>Cavalier, as a resident of California and frequent visitor to UC Berkeley (when deciding whether to go to Berkeley or WashU), I can say that the undergrad quality at WashU is MUCH better. Berkeley is famous for grad, not so much for its undergrad. I was actually recommended by several teachers to not to go to Berkeley for undergrad.</p>
<p>I guess this hits on the vagueness of the US News rankings. What exactly should "Doctoral University" rankings mean? The academic gravitas of the school should be a major consideration. However, I'm with all of you in being confused about the mission of the rankings.</p>
<p>Does anyone think that Cavalier302 might be bitter b/c Wash U rejected him?</p>
<p>You guys all really just need to stop this. Noone's going to win (and please don't bother to send all the posts that say that's not what you were trying to do, you have my admission here and now that there was a much better way to say that that I didn't take the time to do).</p>
<p>Everyone should focus on enjoying their last few weeks at home and enjoying the excitement of prepping for your new life. Why be involved in an exchange which is only causing negative feelings on both sides at a time when you're about to start something so positive.</p>
<p>Call a truce and move on.</p>
<p>no i don't think cavalier is bitter...i think he's just making a point. it's good to be open to other ideas even if they are different from your own. i think everyone has made some great points here, but that the rankings aren't actually taken seriously by intelligent students anyways so there's no reason to continue arguing over them.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The yield rate? No*
*(Wash U was oversubscribed by ~100 people this year. There was no waitlist.)
[/quote]
WUSTL may have many strengths. It's yield rate, however, is not one of them. Based on the data provided by US News:</p>
<p>WUSTL: 19822 applied; 4400 admitted; 1452 enrolled -> 33% yield
In fact, it's been hobbling around 30+% yield for the past few years. This puts WUSTL quite a bit below Cornell(50%), Brown(57%), Rice(40%) and Northwestern(41%), schools that are ranked a few notches below. And significantly below Penn(63%), Columbia(59%) and Dartmouth(50%), schools that are ranked a couple notches above. It's more at the level of USC(34%).</p>
<p>*You meant "no one was taken off the waitlist this year"...There were certainly a lot of people being placed on the waitlist this year, as in the past few years.</p>
<p>WashU has a low yield yet is scorned for trying to recruit good students with merit and and sending out mass-mailings to get its name out. Seems like a lose-lose battle to me.</p>
<p>If we're going to start talking about manipulating statistics, Penn's unusually high yield is a great example.</p>
<p>To me, if we are going to look at school yields, we should first subtract the number of early decision applicants a school has. </p>
<p>Northwestern: </p>
<h1>applied: 16221</h1>
<h1>admitted: 4819</h1>
<p>%admitted: 30</p>
<h1>enrolling: 1952</h1>
<p>Yield: 41
%admitted under ED: 26</p>
<p>26% 1952 = 508 </p>
<p>Thus, the yield is actually 30%, as 508 students were bound to their admission and are thus automatically counted toward the yield. </p>
<p>Don’t like what I’ve done here???? That’s fine with me…..</p>
<p>How about Columbia University, Columbia college:</p>
<h1>applied: 17151</h1>
<h1>admitted: 1667</h1>
<p>%admitted: 10</p>
<h1>enrolling: 1017</h1>
<p>Yield: 61
% admitted under ED: 45</p>
<p>45% 1017 = 458</p>
<p>Yield : 34%</p>
<p>hmmm...well don't students do ED if they are certain they want to attend that university more than any other...so even if they didn't apply ED, there's a strong chance they'd attend that university if they were accepted.</p>