<p>My point exactly...</p>
<p>I know all that...take it up with FAFSA (run by the government btw) and the CSS. I got a great financial aid package from Dartmouth and the other schools that accepted me.</p>
<p>Grade Inflation Schools = overrated
Stanford, Harvard etc.</p>
<p>Grade Deflation Schools=underrated.</p>
<p>UCB, UCLA, UNC</p>
<p>Very Simple.</p>
<p>Wisconsin is quite underrated. Uva is a bit overrated.</p>
<p>Wisconsin is overrated, and UVA is just right. Seriously, Wisconsin does not deserve to be #32 in US news. It's a joke to get in.</p>
<p>With due respect to JYM626 whose opinions I respect . . .</p>
<p>Here's a different take on Wash-U: I live in the midwest and have had friends and family that have been students and faculty at Wash-U since the mid 1970's. To me, calling Wash-U a "fad" school is like calling a talented, hard-working novelist (or actor) an "overnight sensation" when he finally attains public recognition despite 10, 20, 30 + years of diligently working at his craft. Wash-U has LONG been recognized by academics and "those in the know" as a top school, long before it became a USNews "star." Like some of the East Coast LAC's, it long had the reputation as a place where many top professors sent their own children for undergraduate studies. There is little question that Wash-U was significantly UNDERRATED for many, many years. In an effort to combat this, Wash-U did what many businesses do (and yes Virginia -- in many respects, a college is simply an institution whose business is the dispensation of higher education) -- they studied their "lack of recognition problem" (and I'm sure at a great cost and with the help of various high-priced consultants) and embarked on a plan to raise their public recognition to something commensurate with their long understood reputation for quality undergraduate education. Ironically, they may have been too successful. Their meteoric rise in the popular "rankings" has raised eyebrows and caused people to unduly emphasize their marketing techniques without adequately considering the quality of the institution. They are the same school that they were before, just run a whole lot better and more high profile. They have a huge endowment and use that endowment to continually improve their infrastructure, attract high-quality faculty from all over the country, and attract top students from all over the world (including many students who are enticed to attend Wash-U instead of similar and usually "better known" institutions because of Wash-U's strategic use of merit scholarships).</p>
<p>I have friends and family who have connections with Wash-U in the 70's, 80's, 90's, and 00's. I have a child who is attending right now. In some respects, I think the real "fad" is to now label Wash-U as overrated without looking at the long history of Wash-U being a historically underrated college. Whatever it's numerical rating (and does anyone really believe that there is ANY meaning in calling a school 9 vs. 15 vs. 22?), Wash-U is a very high quality school. Talk to the alums. They're like "Moonies." :) A huge percentage of alums believe they went to one of the best school on the planet. Most truly enjoyed their undergraduate experience, believed it was very valuable, and stay very involved in the Wash-U "family" throughout their lives. If this is overrated, I'm glad my child decided to attend an overrated school despite offers from some similarly situated schools that haven't been labeled overrated.</p>
<p>Do I have a personal stake in all of this? Sure I do. But, the overrated versus underrated aspects of Wash-U's reputation doesn't concern me because I think knowing the history of this school gives you a better understanding. A Wash-U degree has long been a very positive thing indeed as its holder flashed that degree in front of grad schools and potential employers. Since it has become so "faddish" to call Wash-U overrated, I thought I'd provide an alternative take for some fence sitters who might otherwise run away from the school, thinking this label has given them an "easy" answer. Ultimately all college applicants have to do their own research, but very few people seem to be disappointed in Wash-U.</p>
<p>Just my $0.02.</p>
<p>Wisconsin FACULTY compared with other top schools--no joke--look at the chart. An average ACT of 28 is not a joke either. It may be a public school that tries to make room for the actual public rather trying to be a little ivy wannabe but it is not joke. What is a joke is how poorly Uva does when comparing the facts of the school itself vs the students.</p>
<p>I agree with abrandel05, except fot the thing with the LACs. LACs and the other Universities shouldn't even be compared, IMO, because they offer vastly different types of educational experiences. There are people who will only go to universities because of the breadth of opportunities and whatever, whereas there are people who will only go to LACs because of superior teaching.</p>
<p>I think that Georgetown is definitely underrated. It has amazing professors, and all of the schools within Georgetown are excellent. Definitely underrated.</p>
<p>Hi Dude- Happy holidays.
Whoa-- didn't mean to step on any toes-- didn't mean any offense, sorry. I continue to agree that Wash U. is an excellent school. I looked strongly at it for grad school and was very impressed (though unfortunately the grad student that took me around was apparently the resident cynic who didn't have a nice thing to say about anything!) My comments were an attempt (perhaps not well done, having just gotten back into town) to separate over/underrated issues from what I consider "fad" issues. The "fad" school to me is the "hot" school that everyone just HAS to go to whether it is the right school for them or not. They just have to go. Just have to. Just because. And that seems to be about as much as they know about the school. I unfortunatley know several students who just "had" to go to Wash. U or UVA or UNC- Chapel Hill. Ask them why-- and unfortunatley from several you got a not very erudite,well researched response. But I also know some very very bright kids who chose Wash U for the right reasons. And for what it's worth, a good friend (whom I met when he was in dental school and I in grad school) went on to Wash U for orthodonture school. He put both my kids in braces, and their teeth are very straight :)</p>
<p>Wowowowo guys I am an international applicant ( studying in an american hs though ) maybe thats why I am slightly biased. DO you know all internationals are expected to pay the whole 40-44000 dollars for an educationin almost in all good privates barring 10-20( or atleast 25-30000). Considering most of the internationals come from 3rd world countries thats pretty discouraging! And furthermore most of the need met is through loans which we have to pay back with interest!</p>
<p>And are you seriously saying that reducing the fees to 30-35000 frm 45 will cost losses of 1000's of millions of dollars ? Keep in mind.. less fees means less need to be met.</p>
<p>Well, to paraphrase George Orwell ... "straight teeth gooooood, crooked teeth baaaaaaad."</p>
<p>No offense taken. I certainly understand how "fad" might turn into "hot," and, in turn "hot" creates an environment whereby due diligence (and this DudeDiligence likey due diligence :) ) about the real factors to attend or not attend a school sort of falls by the wayside.</p>
<p>It admittedly irks me that a truly outstanding school like Wash-U seems to now be talked about primarily because of their controversial marketing techniques, rather than the merits of the school itself. Given some history with the school, it's rather easy for me to separate the two, but I understand that for others it's more difficult. And, I will agree with you about one thing --> there are probably many who now apply solely because it's perceived as a "hot school." For the sake of the overall climate culture, I can only hope that the AdCom does its rumored good job of identifying those who are truly interested in the school as opposed to those using the school for their own nefarious reasons (bwaaaaahaaahaaa) ;).</p>
<p>Thanks for the post Jym.</p>
<p>Well considering nobody here has ever heard of Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT), I can safely say that it is very underrated.</p>
<p>UCSD and UCSC are Underrated.</p>
<p>RIT is more well-known than Worcester Polytech-- home of the Segway. Worcester Polytech also has an excellent program that facilitates work/entrepreneurial opportunities. Check their website for more info-- I'm a little rusty on the details and don't want to give out any incorrect info...</p>
<p>I think RIT is more well known for the least happy students and ugly campus title on Princeton review's rankings! ( No offence RIT !!!!)</p>
<p>i think u of chicago. since we all know its the admit rate and yield that basically drive the ratings, i predict that within several years, maybe a decade, chicago will have gained a whole bunch on the upper ivies in terms of applicants, therefore admit rate, and thus become more prestigious. as for their education, i think people give them nice credit now anyhow. already, theyve i think doubled their applicant pool over the last maybe five years.</p>
<p>I think WUSTL needs to step down in the rankings to like number 40.</p>
<p>According to the USNWR:</p>
<p>OVERRATED:
Duke University
University of Pennsylvania
Washington University</p>
<p>UNDERRATED:
University of Chicago
University of California-Berkeley
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor
UVA
UCLA
UNC-Chapel Hill
Wisconsin-Madison</p>
<p>i dont really like USNWR rankings in the 1st place, but heres my 2 cents</p>
<p>overrated: pennsylvania, duke, dartmouth, notre dame, USC</p>
<p>underrated: chicago, johns hopkins, and a ton of publics (cal, michigan, uva, ucla, unc, wisconsin, UCSD), simply because they dont match usnwr's ideas of a good school (higher acceptance rate because they accept more applicants, higher student/faculty ratio, lower financial resources rank, etc)</p>
<p>well-rated: caltech, columbia, brown</p>