<p>“Professional adcoms?” For many colleges, although I don’t know specifically about WashU, admissions committees consist of assorted faculty members, administrators, and sometimes even a few students. Secondly, (and I may just be idealistic) but I really don’t think that the committee cares to go to the trouble of “guessing” at your wealth - if the system is need-blind, that’s the honest thing to do, and I really doubt that they are “rewarded” somehow for being able to sniff out deep pockets. You’re right that their job is to serve “institutional priorities,” but i’d be willing to bet that they’re serving that better by admitting promising students. WashU, for instance, has a reputation for obsessing over rankings, not profit.</p>
<p>@angryasianman - good choice of a nickname… we just had Lela Lee speak at WashU a few weeks ago actually. And yeah, trying for top-20 schools is frustrating.</p>
<p>Again, Wash. U. does not even pay lip service to need blindness. It is proudly need aware so the adcom there, professional or casual, does not need to guess or infer, they just look at whether the student requested aid and how much.</p>
<p>Other top 25 colleges, except Hopkins, claim need blindness. One wonders how sincere that is in the face of the recent endowment devestation.</p>
<p>you don’t seem to share my sense of optimism :)</p>
<p>My view of the situation is that colleges that claim to be need-blind, are need-blind. If they’re need-aware, they are just barely need-aware… As opposed to being either barely need-blind or blatantly need-aware, one or the other. Not that there’s much way to prove things either way. This forum could use a good rousing rendition of the Happy Days theme song.</p>
<p>Either there is some other effect I’m not seeing, or the effect of the need-awareness is pretty significant. You have Wustl even wealthier than schools one would associate with “old money” and others that offer merit aid.</p>
<p>to be need-aware and have 2% fewer Pell-grant recipients than Princeton, or 4% less than NorthWestern, isn’t too bad in my opinion. Maybe Wustl just gives such awesome financial aid that nobody wants Pell grants. lol, I wish.</p>
<p>Princeton’s extremely generous aid for the middle class and Northwestern’s preppy reputation both suggest that there are more people applying who aren’t eligible for the grants. And this is a 25% difference if you feel like bending the numbers that way. The gap probably also exists when you move up the scale from the average $20,000 income of a Pell grant recipient to people more solidly in the middle class.</p>
<p>Like people have stated before, this is really crazy. I know three people who got in. Two were plenty qualified and should have gotten in. One student I know who got in did decent on his ACT (low 30s), but he had zero clubs/extracurriculars (he played a sport but quit before junior year), took a very easy courseload compared to most other WUSTL applicants from my school, was an average writer, and was a B student who demonstrated little interest in class. He had no hook except he visited (which I guess might be a hook at WUSTL). </p>
<p>I can see a reason to waitlist seemingly perfect candidates. Except my friend was one of these people and WUSTL was his number one choice (legacy, visited, applied for scholarships) and he’s really upset now about not getting in. That’s not fair at all. I am glad that I didn’t apply to WUSTL, because I wouldn’t want to go to a school that wailtists very, very qualified and interested applicants and accepts people who demonstrated almost no interest in learning or in challenging themselves in high school.</p>
<p>Look at how many % of those people with “LOW” GPA got in!
THIS IS USA! It’s not all about numbers! If you think that schools have to accept you because you have all the numbers, then you should apply to schools in Asia or UK. (No offence).</p>
<p>For those who say that WUSTL looks at what other colleges you’ve applied, I say this: I applied for ** 21 universities ** and was accepted by WUSTL. For 16 universities, I asked for aid and submitted the College Board something something and the FSADFDFDASDFDF something.</p>
<p>^ the css profile is wayyy worse. it takes foreva do to, and a lot of the info is irrelevant
the only thing i really hate about the fafsa is that u can only use it for 10 schools</p>
<p>you can use the fafsa for more than ten schools…you just have to call them and have it sent to additional schools. i did that this year cause i applied to eleven.</p>
<p>Just because “perfect” candidates were waitlisted means nothing. The kids who retake SATs over and over to get a perfect score can often be pretty one-dimensional and are seldom well-rounded individuals…getting a 2400 doesn’t necessarily mean you’re good at reading, writing or math. </p>
<p>It means that you’re good at taking the SATs. </p>
<p>When 23,000 people apply for 1,400 spots, with I’m sure 80% being more qualified to attend and perfectly capable of doing well at WashU, the admissions office is going to have to take other things into consideration. Creativity, talent, essays, and yes, how easily you can afford to attend.</p>
<p>lissmrt - Not to be a wiseguy - but technically your data means nothing. How many applied to MIT and how many to WUSTL? Knowing that will make it meaningful, yet possibly still irrelavent. Maybe 30 tried for MIT and 4 for WUSTL. You get the drift.</p>
<p>@fallenchemist, I’m sure lissmrt wrote that as an anecdote, rather than a statistic. As an anecdote, it does have relevance–perhaps only as much relevance as does any anecdotal evidence, but nonetheless, it has relevance.</p>
<p>Lol, this thread is so funny! I remember I SO wanted to go to WashU last year (after I visited) and was on this WashU forum constantly until decisions came out, but I got rejected and everyone was like, “Nobody ever gets rejected to WashU.”, etc…I was really depressed, and really losing hope, but then I got my decision from Stanford on March 31st and, somehow, I got in! I’m going to Stanford University baby! Thanks for making the decision easy WashU!</p>