<p>I’ve heard it too–of course that doesn’t make it true. But since the charge is that WUSTL goes to tremendous lengths to inflate its app stats, I’m not sure how much its app stats will tell us. </p>
<p>[The</a> Missing WUSTL Admission Statistics The Washington University Alumni Council](<a href=“http://wustlalumni.■■■■■■■■■■■■■/2008/04/04/the-missing-wustl-admission-statistics/]The”>The Missing WUSTL Admission Statistics | The Washington University Alumni Council)</p>
<p>Huh, Duke must be even worse since their waitlist is twice the size of their freshman class, as pointed out on a thread in the Parents Forum.</p>
<p>@BearClub</p>
<p>I know someone with a 36 on their ACT who got waitlisted at WUSTL. I also know someone who currently attends Harvard who got waitlisted at WUSTL. I know these are personal anecdotes, but you asserted that it would be hard to find people who “go to Harvard” who didn’t get into schools of WUSTL’s level. Furthermore, WUSTL waitlists people who are top candidates they believe will matriculate elsewhere. If the applicant shows interest in WUSTL, and they have good stats, boom, they’re pulled off the waiting list. This makes them look more selective, while also allowing them to pick kids with solid stats from the WL that didn’t get in elsewhere. It’s all about yield to them.</p>
<p>Kiterunner, people who have 36’s on ACT’s aren’t “owed” admittance into WUSTL, Harvard or anywhere else. WUSTL is exactly where it should be on USNWR – it suffers from the dual disadvantages of being in a city that isn’t on the radar screen of Northeast elites, and not having big-time sports to make up for it the way Duke does. The hatred for WUSTL on CC is odd and weird.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s plenty hard to find them. Whose going to admit to that?</p>
<p>Well, it may be hard to find here since some won’t admit it. But around us, it’s pretty easy to find</p>
<p>@pizzagirl
I wasn’t trying to say that they’re “owed” admission, Bearclub just claimed that it would be hard to find someone who got into a top ivy, who got WL’d/rejected at a WUSTL level school. I just don’t see why people think WUSTL is so awesome. They clearly play the game MUCH MUCH MUCH more than other schools… </p>
<p>btw - I love how WUSTL people get all agitated on this board when someone calls their school out. Soooo funny.</p>
<p>I’m astonished at how many people on this thread have attended both Wash U and some of the other Top 20 universities so that they have some basis upon which to compare them. :)</p>
<p>I would say (not in a particular order)</p>
<p>Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Amherst, Williams, Dartmouth, UPenn, Swarthmore, Stanford, Pomona, Duke, Georgetown, Cal Tech, Columbia, Northwestern, Rice, Bowdoin, Middlebury, Carelton, Brown</p>
<p>(no, i did not forget about Cornell. Its overrated just because its in the Ivy League. Idk if I’d put it in the top 25. The other notable omission is UChicago)</p>
<p>^Yay for Carleton in the top 20!</p>
<p>@glasses: oh yeah, I have a big LAC bias. In terms of undergraduate education, they’re hard to beat IMO.</p>
<p>@drought
I agree w/you. Though, I’m attending a LAC next yr. :)</p>
<p>This inspired me to go a little crazy and post my top 30!</p>
<p>Top 20: Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Amherst, Williams, Dartmouth, UPenn, Swarthmore, Stanford, Pomona, Duke, Georgetown, Cal Tech, Columbia, Northwestern, Rice, Bowdoin, Middlebury, Carelton, Brown</p>
<p>Numbers 21-25: UChicago, Berkley, Virginia, Vanderbilt, Wesleyan
25-30 Michigan, Grinnel, Cornell, Johns Hopkins, Emory</p>
<p>Georgetown should be at the very bottom of this list. Their sciences are terrible in comparison to the others. Their law program is supposed to be so freaking fabulous, but they barely make top 14. I just don’t see what is so great. Emory, Vanderbilt, Michigan, etc>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Georgetown :)</p>
<p>Honestly, Helvetica is right…collegepadawan, your post suggest you have a very superficial idea of colleges… U Chicago should be higher… Emory, JHU, Cornell should be higher… Rice should be a bit lower… Georgetown should be way lower.</p>
<p>I know people like to harp on WUSTL, but for what its worth, UChicago sent me twice as much spam than they did, as well as my classmates…</p>
<ol>
<li>Harvard</li>
<li>Yale</li>
<li>Princeton</li>
<li>Stanford</li>
<li>Penn</li>
<li>Columbia</li>
<li>Williams</li>
<li>MIT</li>
<li>Amherst</li>
<li>Brown</li>
<li>Swarthmore</li>
<li>Pomona</li>
<li>Chicago</li>
<li>Dartmouth</li>
<li>Duke </li>
<li>Johns Hopkins</li>
<li>Berkeley</li>
<li>Cornell</li>
<li>Rice</li>
<li>Northwestern</li>
</ol>
<p>PABank, no CalTech?</p>
<p>I do agree with bringing in the 4 LAC’s , Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore and Pomona.</p>
<p>I would put MIT at #5 and CalTech at #6</p>
<p>Princeton, of course, tied with Harvard at #1</p>
<p>I think the LACs are a little high as is Berkeley.</p>
<p>^ I wonder why everyone on this forum overrates Rice.</p>
<p>Ive never seen Caltech ranked to high in anything other than “tech” stuff. Whereas MIT has great linguistics, social sciences, etc. A college can be great at one thing, but that doesn’t make it a great college (overall). MIT-liberal arts curriculum= Caltech has always been my opinion. But, by all means contradict my statements.</p>
<p>I have no quip with MIT at 5 though.</p>