What exactly did WUSTL do in the rankings?

<p>

</p>

<p>nyccard, it looks like I need to clarify my use of the term “benign explanation”.</p>

<p>What I meant was that, to explain the mere fact of an unusually high WL rate, we need to consider the possibility that they are offering WL spots because they sincerely believe it makes applicants feel better to be wait listed than rejected outright (as a feel-good “courtesy”.) That is, they are not doing it to test which of the high-stat applicants sincerely want to attend WUSTL as a top choice, and which of them are merely using WUSTL as a back-up to an Ivy.</p>

<p>After all, another sure-fire test would be to accept those applicants outright, then wait and see who decides to matriculate. Since yield is no longer a factor in the USNWR rankings, why would they not do this to highly qualified applicants? </p>

<p>I don’t know if either of these explanations is correct, or if we are even accurately describing the admissions patterns. We’re getting a mix of statistics from public sources, anecdotal personal reports, and interpretations.</p>

<p>The idea that they are pumping up application numbers with mass mailings to unqualified kids, then wait listing en mass to cover their tracks, seems a little tortured to me. But I really don’t know; I’d like to see more solid data. Too bad no CDS.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>The former explanation seems much less plausible than the latter. </p>

<p>WUSTL must know that it is not generating goodwill by waitlisting so many applicants. A quick browse of the WUSTL CC forums will attest to that.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Yield rate affects PERCEPTION of selectivity.</p>

<p>Also, acceptance rate is technically only a small factor in the USNWR rankings. But the lower it gets, the more selective the school looks: a perception of which could ultimately affect the rankings directly.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Coincidence? I think not.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>So you confess that WUSTL practices yield management, which demonstrates that “the school is afraid that [top] students are using it as a backup for more highly ranked schools.”</p>

<p>Actually, nyccard, I don’t “confess” anything, since I don’t believe I am guilty of anything.</p>

<p>I was merely pointing out the fallacy in the use of the Hunterdon data to back up classicrockerdad’s statement that Wash U. waitlists top students and accepts less than top students.</p>

<p>My comments about the waitlist are speculative as I have no personal knowledge of Wash U’s practices. However, I think that Wash U., like almost every other school, would like to have a higher yield. Unlike you, I don’t feel that’s a heinous goal. Students like to go to schools that are desirable to others and Wash U would like to be able to increase its yield. Because Wash U. probably loses many top acceptees to HYPSM and other Ivies and Duke, I think that Wash. U. has been trying to figure out who is likely to attend. I wouldn’t be surprised if the ED acceptance rate is extremely high, because of this concern, nor would I be surprised if Wash U. had identified certain schools, particularly top private schools, where few students wind up accepting Wash U. and as a result, it is somewhat cautious in the numbers of students it chooses to admit from those schools.</p>

<p>However, once again, this is all speculation. I think that Wash U. is a terrific school and all the kids I know there are very very happy and receive an excellent education. My kids did not receive more mailings from Wash U than other schools, although others have had a different experience. I think that the main thing we all agree on is that Wash U. should make its CDS public.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>As I mentioned in my earlier post, in the Naviance data from my D’s school, all of the students who were accepted were around the A- range. You just have to believe me. Why would I lie. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>If every school did this, it wouldn’t even be effective for WUSTL. Nobody would get an acceptance before May 1, and then every one would ask to be on every waitlist, just starting the application cycle all over. As a results, I feel that they are taking advantage of their competitor schools. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Lighten up, I have no “animosity” toward the school and no skin in the game. I disapprove of these practices that lead to increased stress and uncertainty around college admissions. I was kind of joking when I wrote this, but there really is no evidence that they do read all those apps, and it would sure save them a lot of money on application readers and have the same net effect if they didn’t read them.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>You’re guilty of at least WUSTL parental bias, as are most of the WUSTL defenders in this thread.</p>

<p>Since I have no affiliation for or against WUSTL, I believe I am being fairly objective. I really have no horse in this race, but I can clearly see which horse is not racing under the same rules as the others.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>SDonCC, I believe you. What part of the country are you from. There were other Naviance plots in that link I gave which looked like what you describe, but not from the northeast.</p>

<p>northeast, and that’s all i’ll say! </p>

<p>Not sure what justification I have to lie on this! I guess I have a horse in the race in that I have a child who’s applied RD, but why that would lead me to lie is beyond me.</p>

<p>It’d be such sweet irony if your (RD) child gets waitlisted.</p>

<p>^ In which case I’d doubt that you’d defend WUSTL’s admissions practices so enthusiastically.</p>

<p>Of course, I wouldn’t wish the WUSTL waitlist on my worst enemy.</p>

<p>nyccard</p>

<p>None of my children have attended or are attending Wash U, so I’m not sure what you mean by WUSTL parental bias. I happen to think it’s a terrific school, and I’m not sure why you think it’s playing under different rules. Many, many schools have used varying tactics to encourage applicants (i.e., VIP Apps, free applications, no essays, going to the common app, mailings, e-mails) and to increase rankings (i.e., lowering numerous class sizes to 19, saying certain faculty who have received honors are full-time staff members when they’re not etc.) and I guess, if true, I don’t see an excessive use of the waitlist to be the worst thing a school has done. I don’t think that Wash U. is taking advantage of competitors (because most of their true competitors have higher yields and are probably not that concerned with what WU does) and while there might be some slightly lower-ranked schools where kids who have already accepted an offer ultimately chose to accept a Wash U waitlist offer (the domino effect), the effect at any given school is probably negligible.</p>

<p>classicrockerdad,
I did not mean to suggest that you were lying about your child’s school. I’m absolutely sure you were speaking the truth. I was just talking about the Hunterdon stats themselves.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>No prob. It’s a common mistake. No biggie :-)</p>

<p>There is a reason why WUSTL doesn’t release their Common Data Set (CDS) you know hehe. I’m just speculating of course.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Fair enough, but there’s a difference between “use” and “abuse.”</p>

<p>One would have to bury his or her head in the sand to not recognize that WUSTL’s admissions practices are markedly different than those of its non-ivy peers (Emory, Vanderbilt, Carnegie Mellon, et al.).</p>

<p>Tell me why these other schools aren’t accused of Tufts Syndrome (to the extent that WUSTL is). Why would so many CC posters pick only on WUSTL and not other schools? Why aren’t the Emory, Vanderbilt or Carnegie Mellon CC forums filled with threads about their schools’ questionable admissions tactics? Don’t these schools lose cross-admits to the ivies and care about their yield as well?</p>

<p>“Tell me why these other schools aren’t accused of Tufts Syndrome (to the extent that WUSTL is). Why would so many CC posters pick only on WUSTL and not other schools? Why aren’t the Emory, Vanderbilt or Carnegie Mellon CC forums filled with threads about their schools’ questionable admissions tactics?”</p>

<p>Because those schools are still ranked below the ivies. WashU has been ranked higher than at least 2 of the Ivies in the USNEWS ranking system for several years. Just look at Duke and UChicago thread and you can see several hate post.</p>

<p>nyccard: "It’d be such sweet irony if your (RD) child gets waitlisted. "</p>

<p>and ridiculous if everyone in his/her kid’s school were admitted with over a 1450…RD; it would be the only HS in history to claim that…</p>

<p>Interesting SDonCC. </p>

<p>What do you think the explanation is? </p>

<p>Does your school have a long history of kids actually going there? </p>

<p>Are you pubic vs. private, urban vs. suburban? Maybe there is some profile that we can deduce. </p>

<p>Maybe they just hate our school because so few kids actually matriculate.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Is this kind of stuff really necessary to have a really good discussion?</p>

<p>You may have misunderstood the intention behind my statement. My point is that the position of WUSTL supporters is highly contingent upon whether they are WUSTL students/alums and/or WUSTL parents (or parents-to-be).</p>

<p>No disrespect was intended.</p>

<p>nyccard</p>

<p>Nope, my position on WUSTL is not based on the fact that I am a Wash U alumni, parent or parent-to-be. I just think it’s a good school that gets unfairly maligned by a lot of people. </p>

<p>Classicrockerdad Our Northeast public school has a fairly high percentage of kids who get into Wash U (don’t have the scattergrams, so I don’t know the scores). I have always suspected that Wash U favors our school because approximately 40-50% of the accepted kids have wound up attending the school, which is probably unusually high for Wash U. And given Wash U’s yield problems, I would not be surprised if it looks at things like school history in making admissions decisions (although I’m sure that the admissions office would deny it).</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>That’s why I said “highly” not SOLELY contingent. Fwiw, I don’t believe that Wash U is being “unfairly maligned.” Neither do many of the impartial posters in this thread.</p>