US News ranking of Washington U. at St. Louis

College Search & Selection
21

<p>WUSTL student body is strong. </p>

<p>Objective - I did this from each school’s Common Data Set where they have correct data of their enrolled freshman class.</p>

<p>Here is the starting SAT scores of these universities’ top 800:
(Freshman student body SAT Strength 2012-2013)</p>

<p>R#800 M#800 W#800 R+M</p>

<hr>

<p>740.00 780.00 -------- 1520 Cornell
757.19 755.75 761.47 1513 Harvard
744.99 766.49 756.49 1511 Penn
739.48 759.48 746.91 1499 Northwestern
737.85 757.85 -------- 1496 WUSTL
739.35 753.41 747.48 1493 Stanford
729.34 749.34 719.18 1479 Vanderbilt
735.29 739.70 -------- 1475 U.Chicago
732.01 735.60 738.81 1468 Yale
728.88 738.88 738.88 1468 Princeton
729.41 733.09 733.09 1463 Columbia
711.91 741.91 727.67 1454 Duke
679.65 745.79 689.65 1425 MIT
706.04 710.64 720.64 1417 Brown
670.77 693.85 680.77 1365 J.Hopkins
674.71 684.28 684.71 1359 Dartmouth
650.50 693.89 670.50 1344 Emory</p>

<p>You can get all Common Data Set data from this following link and read my explanations from post #1 in the following link.
<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-admissions/1530349-ivy-league-other-top-schools-student-body-academic-strength.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-admissions/1530349-ivy-league-other-top-schools-student-body-academic-strength.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Good luck.</p>

22

<p>WUSTL (or “Wash U” as everyone I know, including alums of the school, have always called it) is a very good school, but it’s a prime example of a school that has risen dramatically in the US News rankings by manipulating the factors that go into those rankings. Median SAT scores are a case in point. </p>

<p>There’s little doubt schools like HYP could have higher 25th percentile SAT medians if that were a priority for them. It’s not. They fill up the bottom quartile of the class with people who are interesting to them for other reasons. Like recruited athletes. The Ivy League doesn’t allow athletic scholarships, but all the schools in the conference take athletic competition very seriously, and no one disputes that star athletes can often get a break in admissions. Athletic competition seems less important to Wash U. </p>

<p>The Ivies also probably take a certain number of “lopsided” applicants, e.g., the math prodigy whose CR scores are below the school’s norm but in math would be many multiples of 800 if the scale went that high; that student then shows up in the school’s bottom quartile on CR. You probably wouldn’t accept that student if, like Wash U, your goal was to maximize your US News ranking by maximizing your SAT medians. </p>

<p>As for Wash U’s strengths, its med school and its biological sciences are stellar. Apart from that it doesn’t have very many programs ranked in the top 10 or even the top 25, but it’s solidly in the 30-35 range in many disciplines. It’s fairly strong in political science and psychology, but apart from that its humanities and social sciences programs are a bit spotty. Its business school is quite good but some other Midwestern schools are better, including Michigan, Indiana, and Notre Dame; and even schools like Ohio State, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Minnesota are very much in the same ballpark. Similarly in engineering: most of the Midwestern public flagships are more highly regarded in engineering than is Wash U. The same is true in computer science. Notice, though, that none of this figures into the US News rankings, except possibly by way of the Peer Assessment ¶ rating, on which Wash U scores a very respectable but not stellar 4.1.</p>

<p>Perhaps because many Midwestern public flagships have more to offer their state residents in so many of the areas of greatest interest to students, Wash U doesn’t actually draw many students from the Midwest, apart from Illinois and Missouri which are in its immediate vicinity. In the fall of 2010, it drew 206 freshmen from Illinois, its largest source, followed by California (149), New York (142), Missouri (126), Texas (104), New Jersey (73), Maryland (70), Massachusetts (65), and Florida (54). Big Midwestern population centers like Ohio (47) and Michigan (27) are pretty far down the list. All told, Wash U drew nearly as many freshmen from the Northeast (450) as from the Midwest (526), but 332 of the Midwesterners were from just two states, Illinois and Missouri. I think it’s fair to say Wash U is more popular with Northeasterners than with Midwesterners outside its immediate neighborhood. But then, Northeasterners are generally more taken with the “prestige” of US News rankings, and also have a greater predisposition toward private schools because that’s how things stack up in their home region.</p>

23

<p>It’s a good private university, but it’s not great. It’s not an Ivy, or Stanford, MIT, Duke, Chicago, Johns Hopkins, Northwestern, etc. That there already includes 14 schools, and I haven’t even mentioned public universities yet.</p>

<p>Again, it’s not a bad school, but it likely loses a lot of cross-admit battles with the above universities, among others. But if your daughter likes it and she’d be happy there, I don’t see a reason why you shouldn’t go there.</p>

24

<p>

Comparing WUSTL to Ivies, WUSTL gets a much larger percentage of its students from midwestern states. And Ivies get a much larger percentage of students from northeast states. However the rate in some midwestern states, while far above ivies, is not much above what one would expect based on population. This may relate to students in those state favoring local state schools and not applying or may relate to the student distribution. For example, a comparison of WUSTL and Brown is below (I chose Brown because it has the most similar freshman class size). The expected values are based on percent of US population in those states.</p>

<p>States Near WUSTL
Missouri – 8 Brown vs 126 WUSTL (~30 expected)
Illinois – 48 Brown vs 206 WUSTL (~60 expected)
Minnesota – 13 Brown vs 37 WUSTL ~25 expected)
Tennessee - 9 Brown vs 30 WUSTL (~30 expected)
Kansas – 2 Brown vs 15 WUSTL (~15 expected)</p>

<p>States Near Brown
Rhode Island – 57 Brown vs 2 WUSTL (~5 expected)
Mass – 168 Brown vs 65 WUSTL (~35 expected)
Conn – 56 Brown vs 20 WUSTL (~20 expected)
New York – 196 Brown vs 142 WUSTL (~100 expected)
Pennsylvania – 54 Brown vs 37 WUSTL (~65 expected)</p>

25

<p>Students have better stats than the faculty. Faculty is solid but not outstanding save a few areas–mostly medical related</p>

26

<p>^ @ Data10,</p>

<p>I think your metric has some validity, but to use it correctly you need to look at a larger sample of schools and a larger sample of states. There are very few schools that draw as heavily from outside their home region as Wash U. Duke comes to mind, but that’s only because (and this is conventional wisdom), Duke is as much a Northeastern school as a Southern one. Similarly, Wash U is as much a Northeastern school as a Midwestern one–more Northeastern, if you look beyond Illinois and Missouri. </p>

<p>When you use such a small sample of states as you do in post #25, you introduce a conscious or unconscious selection bias. For example, why include Minnesota, which is not particularly close to Wash U (Minneapolis-St. Louis = 561 miles) rather than Wisconsin (Milwaukee-St. Louis = 373 miles) or Indiana (Indianapolis-St. Louis = 242 miles) in your selection of states “near” Wash U? Despite roughly similar state populations (per 2010 Census, Indiana 6.5 million, Wisconsin 5.7 million, Minnesota 5.3 million), Minnesota sent more freshmen to Wash U (37) than did either of its larger sister states (Wisconsin 28, Indiana 18), even though the latter two are much closer to Wash U. There will inevitably be such anomalies, but their effects are magnified if you choose such a tiny sample, and it may result in misleading information.</p>

<p>Similarly, Kentucky (Louisville-St. Louis = 262 miles) is closer to Wash U than is Tennessee (Memphis-St. Louis= 283 miles, St. Louis-Nashville = 309 miles), yet you choose Tennessee rather than Kentucky as the state “near” Wash U. What’s up with that?</p>

<p>Here’s the kicker: the major population centers in Michigan are actually closer to Wash U (Grand Rapids-St. Louis = 447 miles; Detroit-St. Louis = 551 miles) than is Minnesota (Minneapolis-St. Louis = 561 miles). So is most of Ohio (Cincinnati-St. Louis = 358 miles; Columbus-St. Louis = 420 miles; Cleveland-St. Louis 560 miles). Yet Michigan and Ohio send really quite small numbers of students to Wash U relative to their populations. By choosing Minnesota in your sample of 5 states “near” Wash U–and by excluding 4 Midwestern states that are both nearer and larger in population–you introduce an (intended or unintended) bias into your analysis.</p>

27

<p>The most important states for the comparison are the ones that are far closer to WUSTL than Brown. Ohio doesn’t meet this criteria well. It’s only slightly closer to WUSTL than to Brown. A similar argument could be made for Michigan. However, Minnesota is 2-3x closer to WUSTL than to Brown, yet a similar distance from St. Louis as Ohio and Michigan, making a better comparison state. Indiana and Kentucky are fair enough. Both states show far more students at WUSTL than Brown, but less than one would expect based on population unless you consider an average of several years. For example using the median number of students during the 9 years for which I have data, I gives the following:</p>

<p>Indiana – 7 Brown vs 33 WUSTL (~30 expected)
Kentucky – 4 Brown vs 21 WUSTL (~20 expected)</p>

<p>If I use this same median methodology on the other states, the values seem a bit more consistent with expectations based on distance, with Kansas increasing and Minnesota decreasing.</p>

<p>Missouri – 8 Brown vs 169 WUSTL (~30 expected)
Illinois – 37 Brown vs 177 WUSTL (~60 expected)
Kansas – 3 Brown vs 25 WUSTL (~15 expected)
Tennessee - 6 Brown vs 36 WUSTL (~30 expected)
Minnesota – 11 Brown vs 25 WUSTL ~25 expected)</p>

28

<p>"My daughter has an interest in WUSTL, and has it on her short list. It was one school on the list that I knew had a good reputation, but that I knew less about than some of the others. I was told that US News ranked it as equal to Brown, better than Cornell, and that WUSTL students test scores match all top schools. I thought we should visit the school and learn more. "</p>

<p>So now you visited the school and know more. What is the issue? </p>

<p>You know, CC is full of people from other countries who are “sure” that HYPSM are the only schools worth attending, because they seem to think “having heard” of it is an important criteria. They don’t do the homework. </p>

<p>You’ve done the homework. What’s to question? So you never heard of it, or know less, because you’re not in that geographic area. So? People growing up in Missouri don’t hear a lot about, say, Dartmouth either. That doesn’t make Dartmouth unknown. It just means that their horizons were narrow, and now they’re expanded. So now you’re in the same situation. You have found absolutely nothing that has indicated other than it’s among the top schools in the country. Please don’t make the ignorant mistake of thinking what’s known in your backyard is the definition of “known.”</p>

29

<p>Looking at the rankings over the past 15 years, there is an interesting parallel. </p>

<p>What schools engaged in mass marketing? Washu, Tulane, and Chicago. Potential applicants have seen their mail and email boxes flooded by those three schools. Do they count postcards, visits, incomplete apps in their numbers? You betcha? </p>

<p>Can an applicant dig deep into the CDS of Washu and Chicago? Please smile here, and think what Lee Stetson, Penn’s famous admission director would have said about releasing information publicly, and releasing … accurate data. </p>

<p>The bottom line is that Chicago and Washu are still havens for HYPS rejects. Very few students will have those schools as their first choices, and they will attend after exhausting all the more prestigious options. All in all, many applicants toss an application as a “what if” I get in and might some money! </p>

<p>As far as the rankings, along the Morningside Heights champions, Chicago and Washu did learn to play the game and maximize the USNEWS model. It worked well for Washu, and spectacularly in Chicago. Of course, the fact that an obscure Illinois state senator parlayed its oratory skills and dubious connections in a better gig did yield even better dividends for Chicago. Washu did not have such rare luck.</p>

<p>If it carried any importance, HBS could have written compelling cases to challenge its students to discover the art of marketing, market signals, and … manipulation.
Of course, they were too busy writing about the juicy details of the empires built by Barry Minkow and Crazy Eddie. Same difference!</p>

30

<p>Xiggi,</p>

<p>I’ll have to come to the defense of UChicago here - wasn’t it ranked very highly in the 80s and early 90s? (I believe it was #5 or #6 when the US News rankings first came out.) </p>

<p>Also, when you say it’s a haven for HYPS rejects, well, doesn’t that really describe ALL non-HYPS schools (Columbia, Duke, etc.)? Most top students would prefer a HYPS school to any non-HYPS school.</p>

<p>In terms of “gaming” the rankings, isn’t this working well for UChicago because it only lagged in the items that are easily manipulable, such as acceptance rate? The reason UChicago moved up in the rankings even more than Wash U or Duke or Penn (other schools that have, traditionally, focused heavily on these rankings) is because it’s more immutable figures (e.g. the academic peer assessment scores) are already quite high. </p>

<p>In what way is UChicago’s “product” weak or disingenuous? It has great students, a superb faculty, and significant resources. It’s not on the level of the very tippy top, but if the product couldn’t back it up, by now, the marketing would fall very flat. </p>

<p>Also, I’m not really getting the dig against Wash U. It’s a great school, and I don’t see any particular problem with it being in the same tier as Brown, Rice, etc. The market has responded to its advertising, and it seems just about where one would expect - a great school with recruiting efforts that still struggle against the “bigger” schools on the coasts.</p>

31

<p>If the early 80s reference is about the original USNEWS ranking, just remember that that ranking was based on everything that is still wrong with the current methodology. It was purely based on the opinions of a few and had zero objective data. It was a pure beauty contest without specific rules and was not specific to undergraduate education. </p>

<p>Miss America beauty pageant is more specific than such a joke of the 1983 ranking.</p>

<p>I am not sure why you write about weak product. I have not used such word. I talked only about data manipulation and the changes in reporting by schools such as Washu, Columbia, and Chicago. I have nothing but respect for the specific education provided by Chicago. It might not be as comprehensive as other universities, but the school excels in the subjects it decided to focus on. On the other hand, I have little respect for the incessant marketing, cheerleading, and low self-esteem displayed by its fanboys. Neither did I have any affection for the obnoxious “uncommon” message. </p>

<p>PS Note that I am ALWAYS amused by the spirited defense presented by the Chicago fans, including the utterly asinine cheerleading in the Chicago subforum. I am sure you know what type of posts I am describing. :)</p>

32

<p>Xiggi,</p>

<p>I generally take issue with the idea that schools should somehow be above data manipulation or making administrative decisions based on the rankings (as Columbia, UChicago, Wash U, etc. all do). I have no problem with incessant marketing as long as there aren’t any misrepresentations or false promises made therein. (And, usually, if there are any falsehoods contained in the marketing, the market soon becomes aware of such practices and responds accordingly.) </p>

<p>Your post implies that there’s something wrong with the marketing tactics and techniques these universities use to move up in the rankings. Given the significant reach and impact of these rankings, in my view, these universities are acting exactly as they should. Why critique UChicago for marketing a great product, or for Wash U to do the same? The market has responded as one would expect. </p>

<p>Put another way, you can hate the nature of the game, but why hate specific players? They are all tightly bound to these rankings, and they really can’t do anything about it. So, they market and devise techniques to be as high as possible. If you’ve seen some errors in UChicago’s marketing (or Wash U or Columbia or whatever), that’s noteworthy. Otherwise, what’s the problem?</p>

33

<p>

</p>

<p>All 4 of them, in Chicago’s case?<br>
Unless a Chicago applicant applies to every one of the higher-ranked schools, it’s likely that few other schools on his application list are clearly more prestigious/selective than Chicago. Ditto for a WUSTL applicant.</p>

<p>It’s true, though, that HYP have always been more socially prestigious. In the years when Yale’s mission was to graduate “1000 male leaders” each year, Chicago was a midwestern outpost that welcomed women and Jews, banned football, and educated legions of college professors. Chicago (and WUSTL) no doubt still enroll many students rejected by Harvard, Princeton, Yale and Stanford. That would be true of many other T20 national universities and selective LACs. </p>

<p>As for the marketing frenzy, I’m sure many old school Chicago alumni have had misgivings about this (even if they welcome the recent bump in the rankings and drop in admit rates). For many years Chicago was content to be a “self selecting” school akin to Reed. The increased marketing efforts followed a major increase in undergraduate enrollment targets in the 1990s, which was done largely with an eye to the financial bottom line. The admissions director for many years was an insider (a long-time Philosophy professor) who avoided even the Common App. The new guy is more of a professional administrator (and former IT industry man) brought in from RPI.</p>

34

<p>To be fair, Chicago has cranked out Nobel Prize winners by the bucket-load for years. WashU has had a few, but is nowhere in near the same league.</p>

<p>FWIW, Obama was not a product of Chicago, he was a lecturer there - never a professor at any level.</p>

35

<p>I see nothing wrong with marketing, mass or otherwise. Every school does marketing. Every single one.</p>

36

<p>^^</p>

<p>Not every school does it with such obsessive determination. And not every school is so determined to disclose as little as possible.</p>

37

<p>I don’t see the supposed dig of “HYPSM rejects”. It’s not as though HYPSM rejects are lesser beings or losers. Anyway, how many people apply ED? That’s a great measure of “how many people love you.”</p>

<p>And of course there is the tired northeast provincialism that everyone everywhere elevates the Ivies and thinks every other college is sloppy seconds. The whole point of living in the northeast is to be sophisticated - so it’s time to show some sophistication regarding understanding that college preferences, including those for Ivies, are regional.</p>

38

<p>How many schools deliberately engage in mass marketing to artificially inflate their US News ranking?</p>

<p>That said, Chicago’s certainly a top-ten university in its own right. This has been confirmed by a number of different rankings, and will likely be echoed in the new THE rankings due to come out on October 2nd.</p>

39

<p>

</p>

<p>Although I agree that most schools nowadays are casting a wider net and spending more on marketing, I also agree with xiggi about these three being the institutions that stand out for their aggressive marketing over the past decade or so. Having said that, so what? WashU and Chicago are both fine schools I would be proud to have one of my kids attend.</p>

40

<p>

</p>

<p>Mass marketing helps getting more applications, with many from students who do not really stand a chance in the early phases of the campaign. While the selectivity index portion brought by the increase in application only accounts for a paltry 1.5 percent, it DOES help the schools that were perennial laggards in that category. Be it by design or because of the not-so-positive perception of the well-educated marketplace. Mass marketing helps filling the application tills with the less educated. After a while, the real dividends start to pop up, as the school reaches a plateau similar to its new peers. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Great, I am sure that a ranking that is mostly relevant to graduate schools and research will shed lots of light on the question posed by the OP, which happens to be about the ranking of WUSTL/WashU in the USNews.</p>