<p>Alexandre,</p>
<p>Hmmm, implying that WUSTL is only good if you “drink the USNWR Kool-Aid” is a bit of bashing I would say.</p>
<p>On par with Michigan - I’m sure WashU thanks you for that…</p>
<p>Of course I know this is a Michigan site. Just picked up on everyone saying that didn’t get in or got waitlisted at WUSTL but didn’t care because they would never go there over Michigan.</p>
<p>“Hmmm, implying that WUSTL is only good if you “drink the USNWR Kool-Aid” is a bit of bashing I would say.”</p>
<p>I assume you are referring to post #357. Read it carefully. It was a response to the following statement:</p>
<p>“Choosing Michigan over WUSTL isn’t that crazy.”</p>
<p>“It’s only crazy to those who drink the USNWR Kool-Aid.”</p>
<p>In other words, only people who follow the USNWR blindly would think that attending Michigan over WUSTL is crazy. I do not see how that’s bashing WUSTL.</p>
<p>I am also not sure how stating that WUSTL is on par with Michigan is insulting. </p>
<p>Anyway, some harmless jabbing is to be expected in any university forum.</p>
<p>Not that this means anything, but from our little sample here WUSTL would seem to be the tougher admit, and I mean WUSTL vs Michigan OOS. My kid got a W/L from WUSTL as well. No decision from UMich yet.</p>
<p>WUSTL is always a tougher admit than Michigan. So what? That doesn’t mean that someone who gets accepted to both schools is automatically going to go WUSTL.</p>
<p>“On par with Michigan - I’m sure WashU thanks you for that…”</p>
<p>They should be thankful. It was meant as a compliment…</p>
<p>That was certainly the case in years past finalchild. I am not sure if it is the case this year. Michigan is going to be pretty tough on OOS applicants this year. WUSTL and Michigan are very different types of schools though. It is rare that a student will find the two equally appealing. It’s either one or the other for most. They also have very different admissions philosophies. Both are great, but they are very different.</p>
<p>WUSTL has no essay requirements. People who are not very interested in the school still apply for the heck of it.</p>
<p>Alexandre, what are these different admissions philosophies that you speak of?</p>
<p>RJ, I would guess that at least 70% of OOS students with a choice between WUSTL and Michigan would in the end choose WUSTL, in part because if you are going to spend 50K+ per year there would be an inclination to choose the private over public.</p>
<p>All this waiting keeps some of us edge and looking for a decent argument. Can’t wait for the next 3 weeks to go by.</p>
<p>I might have started the argument - I was curious as to peoples thoughts. My D has been accepted to both and I think she will actually pick Michigan (OOS). Maybe somewhere else but Michigan over WUSTL…I’m not sure I would but I’m just paying…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Can you explain that, finalchild? I don’t get it. I think that if the private school meets 100% of need that might be preferable to a public that can’t do that for OOS students, but otherwise I don’t see why a private university is prima facie better.</p>
<p>“Alexandre, what are these different admissions philosophies that you speak of?”</p>
<p>For one, Michigan deemphasizes standardized tests while WUSTL seems to value them a little more. Also, Michigan has two distinct supplemental essays while WUSTL has none. When you couple that with the fact that WUSTL encourages many students to apply through spam emails while Michigan does not, WUSTL does what it can to enhance the size of its applicant pool while Michigan does not. </p>
<p>“RJ, I would guess that at least 70% of OOS students with a choice between WUSTL and Michigan would in the end choose WUSTL, in part because if you are going to spend 50K+ per year there would be an inclination to choose the private over public.”</p>
<p>While I do not have data to prove it, I would say that Michigan wins the cross-admit battle vs WUSTL, even in the case of OOS students. I have seen dozens of cases in CC over the years, and while it was close, more have chosen Michigan (I would guess 60% vs 40% in favor of Michigan. I saw actual stats on Michigan OOS vs Cornell a few years ago, and Michigan lost 40% to 60%. But Cornell is probably more popular than WUSTL. </p>
<p>Remember Finalchild, Michigan has the facilities and resources of a wealthy private university. Only a handful of private universities are significantly better off financially. Simply because it is public does not make it any less appealing. The undergraduate experience at Michigan is similar to that at a very good private university.</p>
<p>I’m not saying it’s better. I just have a hunch many might feel that way about the money. I may be wrong. And I certainly hope my D gets in Michigan and I would be glad to pay whatever we can to get her there if that’s the choice in the end.</p>
<p>Let me give you an example closer to home as a former NC resident. If I was applying OOS I think I’d instinctive be more inclined to spend 50K+ at Davidson or Duke over UNC. Just sayin. Partly because if I lived in a state with a good public I might just as soon go there instead of a comparable or even slightly better OOS public. [I’m not in NC now.]</p>
<p>Alexandre, I’m not necessarily talking about what’s actually true. I’m talking about how people think instinctively. And I’m guessing that with the type of money we are talking about most would assume as a gut reaction that they would get a somewhat more personalized (= more quality?) education at a WUSTL than a school as big as Michigan. And like I said in the other post, whether the state you are from has a prestigious public might influence things because then you can choose quality plus major cost savings.</p>
<p>finalchild, we touched on this briefly. Whether fair or not, Michigan is considered slightly better than UNC and Duke is also considered slightly better than WUSTL. In other words, as far as perception is concerned, there is a gap in quality between Duke and UNC that does not really exist between Michigan and WUSTL. Davidson is another animal altogether. I would not be surprised if major publics lost the cross-admit battle against elite LACs because students who apply to LACs will generally have a preference for such institutions.</p>
<p>I agree about the mass marketing by WUSTL and WUSTL carefully managing image, ranking, etc. And it is an easy app to throw in without supplemental essays. I’m not sure what they do with scores. This year the data on CC suggest that MANY very high scorers did not get in and frankly it is hard to tell exactly what WUSTL is using as a deciding factor. Some have said demonstrated interest but then numerous kids have posted who got in with no interest shown. Are you saying scores don’t matter as much at Mich even for OOS kids? I was guessing Mich is pretty tough in that regard because of not superscoring.</p>
<p>Alexandre, you may be right. I don’t know. My sense is that WUSTL is more fluid and perhaps rising than the others mentioned in terms of status. I know just from the data on CC that a decent number of kids already with acceptances or likelies from Harvard, Yale, MIT, Penn, etc got waitlisted or rejected at WUSTL. One kid had a 2380 and 4 800s on subject tests and the usual outstanding ECs.</p>
<p>“Are you saying scores don’t matter as much at Mich even for OOS kids? I was guessing Mich is pretty tough in that regard because of not superscoring.”</p>
<p>Relatively speaking, Michigan does not value test scores as highly as other criteria, such as GPA, high school curriculum etc… Michigan is more likely to accept an applicant with a 4.0 GPA and a 1900 SAT /29 ACT than a applicant with a 3.7 GPA and a 2200 SAT / 33 ACT. Of course, as Michigan’s applicant pool continues to grow at 15%-20% annually, it is going to have to rely on other means to sift its applicant pool to size, but until now, Michigan has clearly not placed as much weight on standardized test scores as many of its private peers.</p>
<p>Perceived scarcity makes a good seem more desirable; I think that WUSTL is trying to use that to their advantage in their quest to attract a higher-quality student body. I am by no means saying that WUSTL is not a fantastic school, I’m just stating an idea that I had.</p>
<p>“I know just from the data on CC that a decent number of kids already with acceptances or likelies from Harvard, Yale, MIT, Penn, etc got waitlisted or rejected at WUSTL. One kid had a 2380 and 4 800s on subject tests and the usual outstanding ECs.”</p>
<p>Admissions is sometimes random finalchild. WUSTL is an elite university, and they will reject very highly qualified students. No doubting WUSTL’s formidable reputation and appeal. But Michigan is pretty solid too! ;)</p>
<p>thatrunner, I think you’re right…although I don’t think there’s any question that they have a top-flight student body. You can tell that just from the types they accepted and the level of folks getting waitlisted and denied. The question is whether WUSTL is overly manufactured and constructed out of an overly self-conscious orientation. I don’t think I like some of their tactics, especially in the wake of a waitlist decision :), but there can be little question that it is a superb school with extremely well-qualified students.</p>