<p>the point that it obviously proves is that students at HYP are better at CR than those of WashU ;)</p>
<p>but equal in math,hmm</p>
<p>Does it make difference the sitting these kids received those scores? Can be a test easier than other? In that case, there is no much to measure a student’s abilities when we are talking 10 or 20 points higher or lower.
The same goes to the GPA. My S had an easier teacher in Physics than my D, he had always A+, she does not, but he says that she is learning much more than he did. And they went to the same high school! If we have3.9 student and a 4.0 student, can we said the later is better?</p>
<p>WashU is not above reproach!</p>
<p>My counselor was an admissions officer from another prestigious midwestern university and she has a very low opinion WashU admissions. She said that there is a silent agreement in the admissions world that WashU is accepting students who they feel would attend their school, hence increasing the yield and increasing their rank on U.S News. As people said before: they are waitlisting students who they feel are over qualified as well as students who fall below the average application.</p>
<p>Also, correct me if I'm wrong but I think WashU is the only college that has the application for class of 08 at this time. To juniors applying to college, when washU is currently the only university that has apps available...what do they do? they open an application to washU, therefore increasing the numbers of applicants...and therefore increasing the ranks on U.S news</p>
<p>To tell the truth, I believe taht most of the many top top applicants aren't complete nerds, but are on a whole interesting people (many ppl are to judgemental...seeing a high stat applicant and immediately assuming that the person is an antisocial geek). I know WashU is a private institution (so it can do watever it wants) but this practice i think is borderline on unethical. If WashU seeks higher yield offer more scholarships/need blind aid to entice the students into coming to WashU. If schools like Olin (granted that its size is small) and Tufts (with only 1/4 of washU's endowment!!) are pursuing this, why can't washU?</p>
<p>Anyway, I know stats aren't everything and I really doubt the truth of this rumor until I heard it right from my counselor's mouth. And yes, I was waitlisted from WashU. I am not mad/bitter because I also was accepted into CalTech and MIT. Granted, WashU wasn't my first choice but I stilled put alot of effort into its application...Though not an officer, I believe that I made a fairly good impression with my app. To the waitlisted people: you will find or perhaps have already found another place as good or better than WashU.</p>
<p>In conclusion, I think that WashU's current practice will affect it negatively in the future...especially the stigma associated with waitlisting. WashU is losing some really good applicants who would otherwise contribute back to the University after their graduation.</p>
<p>just a thought...what do you guys think?</p>
<p>"She said that there is a silent agreement in the admissions world that WashU is accepting students who they feel would attend their school"</p>
<p>Really? Isn't that what every school does?</p>
<p>Althought I previously thought that WUSTL's yield protection was BS, I asked my college counselor about it today and she laughed and nodded. Then she called them (WUSTL's adcoms) shamelss. </p>
<p>And come to think of it, the kids from my school who go apply ED. WashU does waitlist its topnotch applicants.</p>
<p>And not all other schools would. Most schools would just throw money at you in the hopes of enticing you to go. And the Ivies are, for the most part, just competing with each other.</p>
<p>Sorry, if I came across as harsh, Mallomar. </p>
<p>Regarding WashU's grouping, I would again assert that it is not yet at the level of HYPMS. I understand that this might garner some flack, especially on this board, but I justify my reasoning as follows:</p>
<p>1.Most students who gain acceptance to HYPMS or WashU would choose the former, provided equal financial aid.
2.HYPMS have a lower admissions rate lending some credence to the idea that they are more exclusive [I am not even going to touch yield rates].
3.HYPMS are recognizable in terms of course difficulty, professor accolades and admission difficulty across the country and world. WashU is definitely known in academic circles as a good program, but admission rigor is not so much known across the country.
4.Similar to WashU, are the "lower Ivies" [don't bash me] or good but not universally known schools, like Rice, Northwestern, UChicago, Dartmouth and Cornell.</p>
<p>I am of the firm belief that NONE of these schools can rise to the level of HYPMS. The elite western institutions that immediately come to anyone's mind are: Harvard, Yale, Princeton, MIT, Stanford, Oxford and Cambridge (maybe LSE). In that list, one would not, generally, add Penn or WashU or Northwestern. It would take a great deal of accomplishments by a particular school, i.e. further growing significance of Wharton for Penn or a rise to prominence of the UChicago Econ program for a gain in prestige to the HYPMS level. That will necessarily be difficult as those schools are at such a high bar-they're sitting on universal name recognition. Harvard is as well known in Thailand as it is in Boston. WashU is not definitely so. It is the difference, in basketball terms, between Michael Jordan and Gilbert Arenas. Michael Jordan will FOREVER be known. Gilbert Arenas is well known among those who follow basketball (at least a little), but if you go to Australia, people may not know who he is. Should he continue dropping 50 point games, then maybe he might gain more fame. But, only if he becomes a prolific scorer and wins championships and earns more name recognition can he ever dream of approaching Jordan-like status. That level of difficulty, I believe, is what it will take the schools right under HYPMS, or even just HYP, to earn a similar level of prestige.</p>
<p>Hope that makes sense. What do y'all think?</p>
<p>Shramleon - Well said!</p>
<p>dearsiryes, I was agreeing with your previous post. So no, you weren't being harsh at all. I don't know if I agree with everything in your latest post, but that's irrelevant.</p>
<p>dearsiryes:</p>
<p>I happen to agree with your analysis. There is not much chance of anyone knocking the acknowledged kings (HYPSM) off the top of the mountain, particularly in international rankings, and that includes some very fine institutions. The schools whose acceptance rates are closing in on 10 percent, and even approaching single digits, are in their own league and their admission policies and decisions reflect that. Also the reaction to those decisions. While there is disappointment, no one waitlisted or rejected from these few schools acts as though they were denied something they considered guaranteed with the submission of their app and fee. </p>
<p>shramleon: </p>
<p>No institution in the world is above reproach. It is a matter of opinion whether the practices Washu follows in its admissions decisions are going to be considered manipulative or reasonable, smart or devious, shamelessly unethical or good business in a competitive environment. If you're on the outside, looking in, it's certainly tempting to take the more negative view, particularly if one is affiliated (or was affiliated) with a rival institution.
[quote]
My counselor was an admissions officer with another prestigious midwestern college...
[/quote]
If you're on the inside looking out, it's tempting to defend Washu's practices as the attempt by people in a tough job trying to make the best choices to serve the university as a whole. That's how I prefer to look at, and I am, admittedly biased. </p>
<p>National rankings are very important to Washu and don't kid yourself, to every college not at the very pinnacle of the mountain peak. The USNWR rankings, however, no longer make yield -- the number of admitted students who accept -- a heavily weighted part of the ranking formula. The ranking components are these:</p>
<p>Peer assessment: 25 percent
Retention: 20 percent (how many students return after freshman year)
Faculty Resources: 20 percent (teacher-student ratio and class sizes)
Student Selectivity: 15 percent</p>
<pre><code> Within this category, the biggest part is standardized test scores for 50 percent, then percentage of students who were in the top 10 percent, 40 percent, and the acceptance rate (no. accepted out of applications,) 10 percent.
Financial resources: 10 percent (endowment and per-student spending)
Graduation rate: 5 percent
Alumni giving rate: 5 percent
Washu is not the only college that wants to see demonstrated interest in applicants and I think the reason is the "retention" part, not so much the acceptance rate part, which is after all, only 10 percent of a category that counts for 15 percent of the ranking score. The "show me the love" or "why washu" part of the equation is important not only because happy students tend to be productive students, but because it does the university little good to admit too many students who begin to pine for their other choices and end up transferring. Not only does that potentially hurt the college, but that admission-turned-transfer has essentially taken away an admission spot from another student who really wanted to come and stay at Washu all four years.
</code></pre>
<p>I am not in a position to say whether Washu passes on too many of the top-notch applicants or fails to woo as many as it should. Look at the recent threads and note how many of the waitlisted students openly acknowledge that they would not accept admission if it were offered. Are Washu adcoms being smart or self-defeating in some of these decisions? It's impossible to say. Last year, Washu waitlisted a lot of applicants, yet they were overenrolled and no one came off the waitlist, so I don't see how that would have affected the acceptance rate. </p>
<p>Sorry for the long post.</p>
<p>Yes everyone, trust your HIGH SCHOOL counselor regarding UNIVERSITIES! They know everything, didn't you know? Their words should be taken as the gospel truth!</p>
<p>Well mine said the same thing and he used to work as a college admissions officer/application reader...</p>
<p>Would you believe it if your brother's ex-girlfriend's bagger at the grocery store said it? That's basically what's going on here. I am just so TIRED of all the whining by a bunch of juveniles who feel that they are somehow entitled to attend WashU. Guess what, if you weren't accepted, then you just aren't what the adcoms were looking for! Don't take it personally, don't whine that you're "over-qualified," just move on! I'm sorry for the ranting, but I am just sick of all this...</p>
<p>Bagger at the grocery store? Ouch. Perhaps my counselor's salary needs re-examining.</p>
<p>MallomarCookie, school counselors are also biased. My children’s counselor was a well-known football player from the past, and he had his “you must apply” universities. He was against Wash U because he said that no kid he knew got in, and my kids proved him wrong. He also told my kids that they should apply to all the Ivies because they were very good; my S apply to one that have the courses he wanted to take, my D didn’t want to go to the Ivies or any other school around there and the counselor was very upset.</p>
<p>People like Shramleon, who think that the only reason I got in was because I wasn't good enough for better schools, **** me off. The people who got in were just as good (and apparently better) than the people who didn't. Get over yourselves. I should be allowed to be proud of my accomplishment instead of being told that I'm mediocre.</p>
<p>^ i agree with that, it's not just the whining that's annoying, it's the fact that many of the waitlisted applicants are saying, "the only reason i got waitlisted is because I have better stats than you, and am more likely to get into Harvard and reject WashU." The truth of the matter is, if you can get into WashU, you have a great chance at every ivy league school. </p>
<p>but it doesn't matter, i'm going in for premed, and washu's preparation for premeds is one of the best, if not the best, premed program in the nation. Besides, an excellent grad school is the real point of a good college education, no?</p>
<p>At my daughter's school, only two (of many) got into Wash U this time.</p>
<p>One is a track athlete. Relatively low SAT, zero AP courses. No known ECs except for track.</p>
<p>Other was not even a NM Commended. But she was born in a foreign country. </p>
<p>To me, things like this send a bad message about Wash U. If a good high school (and this is) sees its best seniors getting waitlisted, and two less-than-stellar candidates get in, the kids scratch their heads and wonder why they applied in the first place. </p>
<p>I know, I know, the knee-jerk Wash U apologists on this board will jump in and defend Wash U's "unique" selection policies, but gimme a break. Perception will become reality if Wash U isn't careful in the future.</p>
<p>Few days ago you said that Wash U was well known for rejecting the best students, why did you let your D apply and why did you spend money visiting Wash U if you knew that?
I clearly don’t understand; if I feel a school isn’t for my child, I would be very upfront with her.</p>
<p>Another thing, it isn’t nice to talk bad about you D’s classmates, if they got in, they must worth something. I don’t think those girls’ parents would appreciate what you just say about them.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Perception will become reality if Wash U isn't careful in the future.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Doubtful. At this point, as WashU experiences 22,000+ applicants (just shy of the numbers applying to Harvard) and rejects stellar applicants, its selectivity is likely to increase; as someone said on another thread, this is what Brown did awhile back to turn it into an extremely selective school: reject some of the best because it could.</p>
<p>Which is certainly not to say that only mediocre students got in, as we've seen from the acceptance threads. But WashU's actions will probably keep its reputation among HS students as extremely hard to get into.</p>