So what's the real problem?

[goonboy589]

<p>It seems everyone has picked one side or the other. WashU is bad, practices a terrible admission process, has no soul, etc. Or WashU only does what it has to do and is no different than HYP. I'd like to offer my thoughts, with a preface that I did have WashU as my clear #1 school and was waitlisted.</p>

<p>IMO, this whole debate, frustration, confusion, whatever you want to call it, is fueled by our competitive nature to rank schools and figure out who is the best. This is not always bad, I'm a firm believer that competition is one of the best things, but only when kept within reason. Competing over who can fold a piece of paper better(extended competition, not just a simple contest that one might do as a kid) or similar contests are quite ridiculous. This is essentially what rankings have come to, meaningless stats that can be easily manipulated to raise your ranking. In this case, the evil is not the school or the disgruntled waitlistee, but USNews.</p>

<p>USNews, by publishing their rankings and using their arbitrary formula which many take to be the divine law, encourages this yield protection or whatever you want to call the subject of the past 8 or so threads. As most people will agree, WashU is a school on the rise. Most people can rattle off HYPSM as top schools in the country, but few even know WashU is in the midwest. To combat this, WashU solicits students with tons of mail. It gets its name out there. But then, most students' reactions are to investigate. Sorry to say, but what's the first site they check? Yup, the rankings. Sure, this may not be true for everyone, but still, I'm sure the majority have checked the rankings. Now, how does WashU back up their soliciting? Sure they are a great school, but as it's been pointed out in another thread, yield rate is a key component of the USNews rankings. So, to instantly put your school in the spotlight, drop your admission rate and raise your yield %. This is exactly what WashU does, and it is caused by the need to be recognized(as it rightfully should) amongst HYPM in the USNews rankings. </p>

<p>Now, contrary to what might be believed, HYPM do NOT suffer from this same problem. They do not need to maintain a lofty yield % or a unreal admission rate. They are well-known schools that will perenially top the rankings. HYPM are already on top, and do not need to worry about getting the eye-catching ranking or statistics.</p>

<p>It comes down to WashU is a school right now that is fighting for the respect it deserves. It is trying to climb its way up the pyramid, and in order to do that it needs to get the impressive stats and %'s that will assist it in that pursuit. Until WashU becomes a household name much like HYPM (the sole fact I can abbreviate 4 schools with 4 letters is testament to that) WashU will continue its practices to get noticed. Right now it is competing with the top schools in the country in the only realm of competition, the rankings. Kinda sounds like a adult paper-folding competition waged over years. Who's going to decide which one is better? The winner is determined by points most people can't see or recognize. And what's the point? Sounds kinda stupid to me...</p>

[Pyar]

<p>I've pretty much stayed out of this debate (whatever you want to call it) up to this point. But I have to stick my opinion in this thread because I think you are 100% correct. It is the US News who is at fault here. I have more to say but I have to go to eat dinner, I will be back later. :)</p>

[nervous1]

<p>Thank you goonboy589! I agree with almost everything you said. There is however a good side to the US News rankings. Without them, schools like WashU would never be able to change their status. WashU has done alot over the past few decades to improve their school, faculty, and the quality of their student body. Without the rankings, few people would know about it. The only reason WashU has gotten so much national attention from top students is because of their ranking. The Ivys and many other elites have household names and long held reputations for being top schools. The USNews helps up and coming schools and doesn't let established schools rest on their laurels. There is alot to be said for that.</p>

[briguy3162]

<p>what is HYPSM?</p>

[letsgorachel]

<p>Harvard Yale Princeton Stanford MIT</p>

<p>Basically considered the highest caliber of American schools.</p>

[jazzymom]

<p>
[quote]
...yield rate is a key component of the USNews rankings.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This, I suppose, is a matter of interpretation. I would not call it "key" but rather a minor point in the ranking formula. If you read the explanation for the methodology behind the USNWR rankings of colleges, it breaks down like this: </p>

<p>Peer assessment: 25 percent (How peer institutions rank the quality of a college)</p>

<p>Retention: 20 percent. How many freshman come back after the first year</p>

<p>Faculty Resources: 20 percent. The faculty being the resource for the student, this touches on student-professor ratios and average class sizes.</p>

<p>Student Selectivity: 15 percent. The biggest piece of this piece of the puzzle is test scores of admitted students (50 percent) and then it's percentage in the top 10 percent of the h.s. class (40 percent). The least percentage (10 percent) is the acceptance rate, or the ratio of admitted students to applicants. </p>

<p>BTW, USNWR no longer factors "yield," which is the proportion of admitted students who chose to attend the college into its rankings. But "yield protection" on these threads became the short-hand term for waitlisting students who appear likely to chose to attend elsewhere. </p>

<p>Finance resources: endowment and per-student spending. 10 percent of the ranking formula</p>

<p>Graduation rate: 5 percent of the ranking formula</p>

<p>Alumni giving rate: 5 percent of the ranking formula</p>

<p>So, does 10 percent of the part that contributes 15 percent of the overall ranking qualify to be called a "key component." As I said, I don't think so, but others might disagree on the basis that miniscule changes in numbers could affect how the rankings play out. </p>

<p>Having typed this and pondered for a moment, it occurs to me that rather than "yield protection," what Washu might be doing is looking at applications with an eye toward transfer prevention. In other words, since retention is pretty important, they might look for demonstrated interest --- the show me the love part of the application process --- to try to come as close as possible to admitting a freshmen class where everybody is happy to be there, content with their college choice and not be itching to transfer the following year. It does seem obvious that Washu adcom officials feel the need to be cautious in admissions, and use the waitlist at least partially to see who truly wants to attend and who doesn't. </p>

<p>And I repeat, the process is not perfect and human beings are going to make mistakes and get it wrong and miss some excellent applicants who really do want to be there. Actually, that's probably why the decision is so often "waitlist" rather than "reject" since waitlist says, you *were *good enough, we would admit you if we had enough spaces. </p>

<p>In a way, Washu has had to cope with its success in recent years in getting the word out. The "Hidden Gem No Longer" type headlines have made a difference and the result is 22,000 applications for less than 1,400 spots. </p>

<p>And I agree with Nervous. The USNWR rankings have done as much good as ill, shaking up complacent college administrations and forcing them to serve the consumer, the student, on their campuses in myriad beneficial ways, from lowering class sizes to looking for ways to make intense campuses more "fun."
It may not be good, but it's not all bad either.</p>