<p>The glowsticks "fact" is actually fiction. Chancellor Wrighton did not invent the glowstick. But he was the Provost at MIT, so that says something about the level of administrators that WashU has.</p>
<p>And Harvard's currently considering him in their search for a new President, yeah?</p>
<p>yeah but i hear that he has said that has no intention of leavingn :-)</p>
<p>yeah that is because we RULE, obvi.</p>
<p>Actually, it appears that the job of Harvard president is quite unpopular, so WashU's president isn't being very daring here.</p>
<p>Avocado:
"...WashU as an overall institution may not have as big a name as its peers (keep in mind that WashU has been around only for 150 years).." </p>
<p>Chicago has than 120 years and many times more Nobels.</p>
<p>"...Being avid in science, I have known about WashU before I've known about Cornell, Dartmouth, or Caltech."</p>
<p>Weird, because before than Caltech in science is only MIT.</p>
<p>"...But WashU isn't only good at science..."</p>
<p>WashU is only a top school in Medicine.</p>
<p>"...The physics department is top-notch..."</p>
<p>WashU is not in the top twenty in Physics.</p>
<p>um, about your "WashU is only a top school in Medicine", WashU's school of social work is the number one in the nation....and the rest of the school is phenomenol too. You just obviously don't know enough about it.</p>
<p>And also your sentence "weird, because before than Caltech in science is only MIT" doesn't make any sense, and appears to be based on your opinion, not on any concrete evidence....</p>
<p>And also, what do you have against WashU? It's an incredible school. Why are you so keen on putting it down?</p>
<p>college2go, UChicago's been around for only 120 years, that also might explain why it's not that famous. To tell you the truth, I heard of UChicago way after I've heard about Caltech, Dartmouth, and Cornell. Though that does not mean UChicago's isn't a good school. </p>
<p>BTW, WashU has many Nobel Prize winners also, and yes they are very good at medicine and other fields of research. They rank fourth of all national universities in federal research endowments/ grants (eg. NIH). They get a lot of dough, not just from alumni, but also from the government for their scientific discoveries.</p>
<p>avocado, WashU is older than MIT and much older than Caltech.</p>
<p>" ...also from the government for their scientific discoveries."</p>
<p>Most Nobel Prize by University from 1901 - 2002</p>
<ol>
<li>Harvard University (MA, USA) - 28 </li>
<li>University of Cambridge (UK) - 23 </li>
<li>Max-Planck-Gesellschaft Munich (Germany) - 18 </li>
<li>Stanford University (CA, USA) - 17
University of London (UK) - 17 </li>
<li>Mass. Institute of Techology (MA, USA) - 15
University of Chicago (IL, USA) - 15 </li>
<li>Cal. Institute of Technology (CA, USA) - 14
UC Berkeley (CA, USA) - 14 </li>
<li>Columbia University (NY, USA) - 12 </li>
<li>Princeton University (NJ, USA) - 11 </li>
</ol>
<p>Most Nobel Prize by University. Last 25 years only.</p>
<ol>
<li>Stanford University (CA, USA) - 11 </li>
<li>Harvard University (MA, USA) - 10
Mass. Institute of Technology (MA, USA) - 10
University of Chicago (IL, USA) - 10 </li>
<li>Princeton University (NJ, USA) - 8
Max-Planck-Gesellschaft Munich (Germany) - 8 </li>
<li>Cal Institute of Technology (CA, USA) - 5
UC Berkeley (CA, USA) - 5
Columbia University (NY, USA) - 5
University of Cambridge (UK) - 5
University of Washington (WA, USA) - 5</li>
</ol>
<p>I don't know where you are getting your data....WashU had 21 Nobel prizes between 1901-2002, which would place it third on your first list.</p>
<p>Physics</p>
<p>1927:*Arthur H. Compton (1892-1962), Faculty of Arts and Sciences 1920-1923 and 1945-1962, Chancellor 1945-1953
Chemistry</p>
<p>1970: Luis F. Leloir, Faculty of Medicine 1944</p>
<p>1980: Paul Berg, Faculty of Medicine 1954-1959</p>
<p>2004: Aaron Ciechanover, M.D., D.Sc., Research Distinguished Professor of Biochemistry at Technion-Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa, Israel and Visiting Professor of Pediatrics 1987-
Economic Science</p>
<p>1993: *Douglass C. North, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, 1983-
Physiology or Medicine</p>
<p>1943: Edward A. Doisy (1893-1986), Faculty of Medicine, 1919-1923</p>
<p>1944: *Joseph Erlanger (1874-1965), Chairman, Department of Physiology 1910-1946</p>
<p>1944: *Herbert Gasser (1888-1963), Faculty of Medicine, 1916-1931</p>
<p>1947: *Carl F. Cori (1896-1984), Faculty of Medicine 1931-1984</p>
<p>1947: *Gerty T. Cori (1896-1957), Faculty of Medicine 1931-1957</p>
<p>1959: *Arthur Kornberg, Chairman, Department of Microbiology, 1952-1959</p>
<p>1959: Severo Ochoa, Faculty of Medicine 1940-1942</p>
<p>1969: Alfred Hershey (1908-1997), Faculty of Medicine 1934-1950</p>
<p>1971: Earl Sutherland (1915-1974), M.D. 42, Resident in Internal Medicine 1943-1945, Faculty of Medicine, 1945-1953</p>
<p>1974: Christian de Duve, Faculty of Medicine 1946-1947</p>
<p>1978: Daniel Nathans (1928-1999), M.D. 54</p>
<p>1978: Hamilton O. Smith, Washington University Medical Service 1956-1957</p>
<p>1980: George D. Snell, Faculty of Arts and Sciences 1933-1934</p>
<p>1986: *Stanley Cohen, Faculty of Arts and Sciences 1953-1959</p>
<p>1986: *Rita Levi-Montalcini, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, 1948-</p>
<p>1992: Edwin G. Krebs, M.D. 43, Resident in Internal Medicine and then a Research Fellow in Biological Chemistry 1945-1948</p>
<p>1998: Robert F. Furchgott, Ph.D. Faculty of Medicine, 1949-1956.</p>
<p>*Did significant portion of award winning work at Washington University</p>
<p>From what I understand, students that attended WashU as recently as 20 years ago would not recognize their old alma mater today. It was a strong regional university (and has been for more than a century) with most students coming from the area. Now it is a highly selective institution, nationally recognized drawing intelligent and creative students from all over the country (who had alternative choices on the East and West coasts) and it is still focused on its undergraduate population. Appreciate what WashU has become and how it is still developing. Wouldn't you rather be somewhere growing and changing to the needs of the students it now attracts than somewhere where undergraduates are considered a "necessary evil". The words "necessary evil" by the way, are a direct quote from an acquaintance in Harvard's doctoral program. No where at WashU would an undergrad be considered a necessary evil.</p>
<p>As to the Nobel, not to worry, WashU will continue to add names
to its list for the NEXT 150 years and beyond.</p>
<p>Well said, CopterMom. WashU has come a long way in the past few decades. Why do so many CC posters have so much trouble accepting that and feel a need to "bash" the school's accomplishments and ratings vis a vis the old standby elite schools? With the growing population, it's win-win for all good students if there are more elite institutions. WashU's rise is not going to hurt the Ivy's or other top schools' reputations, it just gives more top students another great school to choose from.</p>
<p>WashU is overwhelmingly voted the most overrated school</p>
<p>College2go, why are you so obsessed with "bashing" WashU? Did they reject you?</p>
<p>My exact thoughts, nervous 1.</p>
<p>No, I wasn't rejected. Actually, I got a full ride (Danfort Scholarship + National Finalist), but I turned down despite that I didn’t get any fin aid at MIT.</p>
<p>Don't bother to read through the over-rated,under-rated thread. It's all immature, unsubstantiated hogwash.</p>
<p>Nicely summed up by post #529: "...Here we have people who simply have....opinions. They don't seem to feel that it's necessary to actually have any facts or interpret those facts in any useful way. An opinion, however uninformed or ill-considered, is all that matters."</p>
<pre><code>WashU is often voted "overrated" not because of anything having to do with the quality of its academics or the opportunities available to students, but simply because it is in Missouri and many superficially minded people will decide it can't possibly compete in the big leagues for that reason alone.
Other Wash U bashers are fairly transparent if you check their other posts because they attend or plan to attend colleges that are ranked below or close to WU and they want to tear down WU's reputation to boost that of their own institution in the minds of others. A pathetic obsession with bragging rights, but that's the motivation IMO. That's why they will ignore or denigrate any facts, surveys or statistics --- numbers of Rhodes Scholars, productivity of professors, number of Nat'l Merit scholars, national or international rankings --- that support WashU's reputation as a respected and, dare I say it, prestigious university.
Anyone who would come onto a specific college forum to repeatedly tear it down....well, just be glad that that person is most likely headed elsewhere.
</code></pre>
<p>College2go, if you are MIT student, why are you still obsessed with Wash U? I really don’t understand, my S was happy to be accepted at the other three colleges he applied to and he already forgot about them, but you seem uncomfortable where you are, like you are still missing the opportunity of being part of the Wash U family.</p>