<p>As we know, Collegeboard has the notorious admittance rate listing for the majority of the colleges in its database. Now, I've assumed that rate is applicable only the incoming undergraduates. </p>
<p>UW's acceptance rate is 65% on Collegeboard, but when I looked at my friend's rejection letter, they said that "more than 20,000 applicants were competing for around 5,500 spots in the incoming class of 2008". That's a 28% acceptance rate. EH?!</p>
<p>They accept many more than enroll, but that still seems to be a strange discrepancy.</p>
<p>Yes, that's a mere yield rate of 40%. To accept 13,000 students and have only 5,500 attend is strange.</p>
<p>Semantics.</p>
<p>UW themselves say 16571 applied, 11339 offered, and 5475 enrolled. That means 11339 people got accepted, but more than half of these people ended up not going. They have to send out more acceptance letters than they have room for, simply because most of those who get accepted go somewhere else.</p>
<p>May I ask what your friends stats were?</p>
<p>They were rather average; nothing special. I estimate 1700+ SATs, 3.3 UW GPA, don't know about essays, few ECs: very active in band, a few other clubs.</p>
<p>My niece just received her rejection letter. </p>
<p>She has a 3.7 gpa taking AP courses. Her SAT isn’t as high as we would have liked to see, but still approximately 1600. She had two friends who also received rejections with gpa’s near or above hers. </p>
<p>Is there anything to the claim that they have lowered the number of resident acceptance letters sent to increase revenue through out of state tuition fees? </p>
<p>I dont understand the level of competition for a state school when this is the result. Surely, undergrad isnt that competitive here. </p>
<p>I graduated in 1992, but certainly would have had to go to that other school if the UW had been rejected these kids then.</p>
<p>This thread is old…UW’s acceptance rate last year was 57%. They accept more OOS students to help their budget. UW accepts like 12,000 people each year but the actual number that attend is roughly 5500, which is called the yield rate.</p>
<p>From the Seattle Times: Acceptance rates for 2011 and article about how straight A’s may not get in state students into the U.W.</p>
<p><a href=“http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2011/04/02/2014670565.pdf[/url]”>http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2011/04/02/2014670565.pdf</a></p>
<p>[Local</a> News | Why straight-A’s may not get you into UW this year | Seattle Times Newspaper](<a href=“http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2014670294_admissions03m.html]Local”>http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2014670294_admissions03m.html)</p>
<p>^^ read it and weep 
The article tells a stark truth that many people had begun to suspect through anecdotal evidence. WA is a major exporter of academic talent, thanks in part to the state budget, and thanks in part to the limited options available - both public and private. </p>
<p>Yet UW remains a great school, but for a dwindling number of state residents. The school attracts highly qualified students, and Washington’s legislature just isn’t willing to fund UW at the level necessary to keep offering the highest caliber education to a whole bunch of state residents who would now be considered only basically qualified.</p>
<p>Sorry, but a student with a 1600 SAT is several hundred points too low, I suspect, absent a really high GPA and/or some startling talent that the UW needs.</p>
<p>@FauxNon: the same thing is happening in CA. Our kids cant get in to our schools with amazing grades either. My daughter was rejected at UCSB with 4.1/ 1800 SAT / and tons of community service, and extras. So we go to UW and pay $42,000 a year while WA kids probably do the same in CA. Messed up for sure.</p>
<p>It’s sad but not really messed up. Like the article says, out-of-staters are subsidizing in-state students. If they didn’t take so many out of state, they’d have to cut down on the in-state students. The system is backward but it’s only going to be worse next year, I can virtually promise that.</p>
<p>I guess if you think of it as subsidizing in state students then it makes more sense.</p>
<p>Maybe it’s not messed up, just an example of the chickens coming home to roost. The Legislature (i.e. Washington citizens) doesn’t have the will to fund higher ed at the level it should, so there are many of those same citizens whose kids now can’t go to UW. They are understandably disappointed - a multi-generation Husky family assumes the tradition will continue if their kids do reasonably well in school. But there’s not enough money to make that possible unless we change our funding priorities.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, ontcob, my 2 kids both love their California colleges 
Happily, this was by choice, not because of a UW rejection.</p>
<p>It’s also easier to cut education without consequence in the WA Legislature because the younger voting population is the least likely to vote, while the older population (55+) votes the most. It makes sense from a political standpoint, it’s just super unfortunate because there’s little that can be done or that’ll change. They aren’t going to allocate more money to the UW anytime soon.</p>
<p>I’m very surprised that no one has mentioned that UW’s president was recently profiled (in the NY Times, 4/3/2011) as being the second highest paid in the country. Blame can be placed with legislators (for keeping UW funding static), certainly; blame can also be placed with Washington’s citizens (for rejecting tax increases); but don’t you have to apportion some blame to Mark Emmert, for drawing a salary of $905,000?</p>
<p>Emmert isn’t UW president anymore, he left to go be the president of the NCAA. I’m pretty sure last years’ pay for him was set in his contract when money was rolling in at the UW</p>
<p>Has anyone read the stats for UW? The average number of years to graduate as an undergrad is 6 years! This school has an excellent medical school and some other graduate programs but their undergraduate program leaves something to be desired! The extra expense of two additional years of schooling is costly.</p>
<p>WSU is a much more conducive school for undergraduates and taking classes seriously. Go to UW for grad school.</p>
<p>Graduating is up to the student. UW is one of those schools with lots of kids taking their time, working and in no rush to graduate. Also the average is not 6 years either. They use that to give overall grad rates for a class. The average time is 4.4 years. You read it wrong so FAIL.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.washington.edu/admin/factbook/OisAcrobat/2010_timetodeg_campus.pdf[/url]”>http://www.washington.edu/admin/factbook/OisAcrobat/2010_timetodeg_campus.pdf</a></p>
<p>Also, a lot of students decide to change majors late into their undergraduate life. If you switch from a biochem major to … say, an english major for whatever reasons, you’ll have to take a bunch of other courses that you didn’t plan on taking earlier.</p>
<p>And those are single majors (also the stats in the pdf barrons linked to are single majors)</p>
<p>Many students double or triple major. A friend of mine is a quadruple major right now, planning on graduating in 5 years. Then again, 3 of his majors are pretty similar in terms of sciences/engineering. As long as you know exactly what you’re going to do and have a plan, stay proactive, request overloads for classes if you can’t get in for some reason, talk to advisors, you can graduate in four years.</p>
<p>“WSU is a much more conducive school for undergraduates and taking classes seriously.”</p>
<p>lol</p>