<p>Phead: you beat me to it…</p>
<p>tk: please post CDS from Wash U…</p>
<p>WOOPS! This is embarassing - I was citing figures from the University of Washington’s CDS, not WUSTL’s.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.washington.edu/admin/factbook/cds.html[/url]”>http://www.washington.edu/admin/factbook/cds.html</a> </p>
<p>So sorry to mislead the discussion, folks.
Good call by Phead and rodney.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>From the WUSTL CC Forums:</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/washington-university-st-louis/423146-legit-school-marketing-scheme.html?highlight=wustl+marketing[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/washington-university-st-louis/423146-legit-school-marketing-scheme.html?highlight=wustl+marketing</a></p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/washington-university-st-louis/853830-like-freakin-phonebook.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/washington-university-st-louis/853830-like-freakin-phonebook.html</a></p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/washington-university-st-louis/819525-washu-course-listings-book.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/washington-university-st-louis/819525-washu-course-listings-book.html</a></p>
<p>From the WUSTL student newspaper:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.studlife.com/news/2009/10/02/sustainability-groups-question-admissions-office-practices/[/url]”>http://www.studlife.com/news/2009/10/02/sustainability-groups-question-admissions-office-practices/</a></p>
<p>[How</a> to advertise the University in the recession | Student Life](<a href=“http://www.studlife.com/news/2009/09/21/how-to-advertise-the-university-in-the-recession/]How”>How to advertise the University in the recession - Student Life)</p>
<p>CRD: wow, Hunterdon had 3 acceptances first round…that’s alot more than we had…</p>
<p>2008: 35 apps/1 acceptance/2 denies/ 32 waitlists…nobody accepted the waitlist…acceptance is attending elsewhere…and yes, we had a denial of a 2350, 4.3 weighted ranked 6 in the class…and our val was waitlisted as well…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No worries. Lots of people make this mistake. That’s why WUSTL sends the spam mail that it does.</p>
<p>Both WashU and USC rocketed up the ratings by throwing money at high test scores. It’s one of the easier things to change in USNews – assuming that you have the money. USC, for example, offers automatic tuition discounts to NMSF’s, regardless of gpa. USC also has one advantage in that California tends to be a test-happy state with lotsa high testers, who are happy to attend college close to home.</p>
<p>Yield is no longer a factor on USNews’ rating, so WashU’s use of the WL should have no direct impact. It may just be an after-the-fact marketing ploy, however, on top of WashU’s pre-app marketing. Instead of rejecting all of those kids (who had no chance in the first place) but were lured to apply by the ‘have lunch on Nanette’ e-mails, WashU WL’s them instead. It’s kinda like some of the Ivies reportedly do to borderline legacy kids – instead of outright rejection, they get waitlisted so the parents don’t feel as bad. For the most part, the WL is really just a polite rejection. </p>
<p>OTOH, WL high stat kids (who use will lose in a cross-admit battle to any ancient NE college) makes good sense. If I was an adcom in that league (WashU, Chicago, Emory…), I’d probably do the same.</p>
<p>classicrockerdad</p>
<p>The Hunterdon acceptance stats don’t seem to prove your point. First of all, the stats are over a 5 or 6 year period, so it’s hardly that dramatic in a given year. Secondly, if you look at the kids who are accepted, they all seem to have relatively high SATs (average accepted student SAT scores are 1535, which is incredibly high, in fact higher than Princeton, which I also looked at). In addition, the accepted students all had close to or above a 4.0. Moreover, none of them were ED admits. It certainly doesn’t look as if Wash U is afraid to accept top students or practicing some sort of yield management.</p>
<p>Furthermore, the vast majority of the waitlisted kids had much lower boards and grades.</p>
<p>WUSTL will admit high SAT scorers if and only if the school is fairly certain that they are not ivy material. For example, these students may not have outstanding extracurriculars, non-curricular talents and abilities or some other intangibles that you’d normally find in ivy admits.</p>
<p>If WUSTL is not practicing yield management, why does the school allegedly waitlist thousands of applicants?</p>
<p>I say “allegedly” only because WUSTL refuses to make its waitlist #'s public. What is WUSTL trying to hide?</p>
<p>^ I think the benign explanation already was offered above. They are “courtesy” offers.</p>
<p>It’s two things: </p>
<p>1) enrollment management – (which is no different than a college like Chicago that requires “quirky” essays or Emory that requires/recommends a ‘Why Emory?’ essay.) – all colleges below HYPM will show more love to those who reciprocate.</p>
<p>2) The pre-app mass marketing only works if applicants believe that they have a real chance. Thus, the “chance” is solidified in the student’s mind by the WL. Instead of outright rejection, WashU wait lists a bunch of kids who have zero chance of admittance, (and had zero chance months prior to the app). If such kids were outright rejected every year, eventually GC’s would discourage such kids from applying, and the pre-app marketing program becomes a lot less valuable.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They waitlisted 83% of their applicants! 18 applications, 3 decisions released on decision day. Heck, they probably don’t even read most of the applications until you agree to be on the waitlist. I find this practice objectionable. What would happen if every selective college did this.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s not much of a “courtesy” to mislead prospective students. I don’t find such a practice to be so “benign.”</p>
<p>nyccard: agree wholeheartedly…and add to that they “say” that demonstrated interest is a relevant factor and then admit the kid(s) who showed absolutely no interest…but this is an old story, IMO and most people who apply to Wash U already know the score…</p>
<p>I even know kids who have applied ED from the same school and the kid who showed the least interest, lowest stats, weakest Ec’s was admitted…talk about a crapshoot…</p>
<p>So to conclude: either WUSTL is practicing yield management (this is the malign explanation) or it’s misleading and giving false hope to waitlisted students (this is the “benign” explanation).</p>
<p>Oh, those WUSTL admissions officers are such fun people!</p>
<p>from our school, every single person with 1450 and above was accepted! Waitlist only to those with lower stats. A few people with lower stats also got in.</p>
<p>^ Please provide naviance (or any) data to support your claim.</p>
<p>no, i am not going to supply it. I keep my identity private. Don’t believe me if you don’t want to!</p>
<p>How convenient! Why bother to bring up something you have absolutely no intention to support?</p>
<p>I bet I am not the only one who doesn’t believe you. And I won’t.</p>
<p>classicrockerdad</p>
<p>You have made two allegations about Wash U. The first is that it is not accepting top students, because the school is afraid that those students are using it as a backup for more highly ranked schools. As you stated:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The Hunterdon data does not support that claim.</p>
<p>Your second claim, which I tend to agree with, is that Wash U. puts a very high percentage of kids on the wait list, rather than rejecting them. However, I think that Wash U. does this because of its traditional problems with yield. Unlike the HYPSM schools, Wash U. has a fairly low yield rate, under 30%. I think that it probably accepts fewer students and waitlists more because of this, as the school wants to increase its yield numbers. While you might object to this, I don’t think that most students are as troubled because students generally prefer not to be rejected flat out (and as you yourself noted, kids who are not interested simply decline the waitlist). In addition, since Wash U. does use its waitlist, the kids on the waitlist do have a shot at getting into the school. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This statement seems completely unwarranted and I’m not sure why you have such animosity towards the school.</p>