<p>Hey guys...I sort of stole this from the Columbia and eventually Hopkins thread, but I always hear so much good stuff about WUSTL. However, we all know that no college is perfect. Aside from the Princeton Review, there too many legitimate sources (if even the PR is considered legit) that talk about the negatives of college.</p>
<p>Anyway, I'd like to know some of the negatives about WUSTL. The only one I know of right now is the lack of school spirit. </p>
<p>-Lack of immediate name recognition outside the world of academia
-Some people say the school is overrated chiefly because of their marketing practicies, but personally I think that is a load of bullish</p>
<p>Other than that, can't really think of anything</p>
<p>"st. louis is considered kinda a boring city for one of its size"</p>
<p>is it really? wow...i never actually knew that; i thought it was a pretty big city considering it is the gateway to the west..well, i guess i just answered my own question...haha</p>
<p>st. louis is not boring, just more slow-paced than other large cities, being in the midwest and all</p>
<p>i think WUSTL's weakest aspect is that it is IMPOSSIBLE to get anywhere without a car - living at WUSTL for 5 weeks this summer, it was unbearable to try and get anywhere on public transport - it took nearly an hour and a half to get downtown (10 minute drive). this might be solved with the new public transit stop right on campus, but without it, it sucked - but again, there were hardly any people on campus so no parties either haha. the WUSTL buses are very helpful though, to get to Target and the mall</p>
<p>as far as it being a pain to get downtown... it's true, but people have cars soph year, and freshman year there's tons of stuff happening on campus and within walking distance/shuttle ride. (besides, there isn't THAT much downtown anyway... the cwe and loop are more interesting and accessible anyway)</p>
<p>The worst thing is probably the location. St. Louis is really, really lame. I had low expectations, but St. Louis was still worse than I had expected. Also, there are clearly new buildings that they build using very old architecture. This can definitely be pulled off, but the ones I saw just felt fake and tacky.</p>
<p>I love Wash U though. It's my first choice...too bad I got deferred ED2.</p>
<p>in response to the arch...it's not fun, it's a tourist trap, and yes it does sway. St. Louis is up and coming and will definitly improve over the next four years</p>
<p>I know I've heard numerous complaints about the pervasiveness of the Greek system (not even that everyone rushes, but that the sense is relayed by students that 'everyone's who's anyone rushes') and the fact that it seems like a lot of the students are upper class or upper middle class.</p>
<p>These are from friends and people from my school who go there, and not from personal experience.</p>
<p>i never once felt that there was too much emphasis on greek life, especially not that "everyone who's anyone rushes". if anything its only prevalent b/c people attend the frat parties on weekends... but it never felt to me like most people were greek. </p>
<p>as far as stl being boring - its been growing and improving a ton over just the past year or two, so there are good things to look forward to :)
the arch is cool the first time, just to see the city... most cities have something similar.</p>
<p>Being from Cincinnati, I think the slow pace is a positive. Most people are friendly and are willing to have a conversation. I have an obvious bias to the slow midwestern lifestyle, but I think it's great.</p>
<p>I also heard that St. Louis is like the ghetto. A lot of crime, etc. But Nanette assured me that WUSTL's campus is super safe.</p>
<p>How is "the fact that it seems like a lot of the students are upper class or upper middle class" a bad thing? Anyway WUSTL actually has a lot of scholarship students so I don't know how true that is.</p>
<p>hah wow, stl isn't the ghetto. obviously, like any city, it has its bad neighborhoods and areas that aren't safe, and downtown at night isn't the best, but there's much worse. The campus is definitely safe, and the surrounding areas are nice too.</p>
<p>The arch is not a tourist trap - it is far more interesting as a piece of architecture from the bottom. I would also recommend seeing the film about the building of the arch - old but still fascinating. </p>
<p>I don't agree with the comment about "anyone who is anyone is greek."</p>
<p>I do have to say that I agree with the comment about high income kids. Overall nice kids but my son, a junior has found it to be a bit of a struggle dealing with wealthy kids. They seem to have an air of entitlement, a lack of regard for other people's property ( mom and dad will just buy another one) and a focus on stuff. Wash U in general has smart kids but not particularly intellectually curious - they are there but difficult to find. </p>
<p>Professors and the personal contact are what makes Wash U top rate along with a beautiful campus. </p>
<p>I wish they would develop a residential system along with putting more emphasis on their arts and extracurricular groups. It's my observation that they've focused too much on attracting pre-med students and wealthy students from either coast - kids who probably can't make it into a top ivy but who want a similar education and are willing to pay top dollar. I think I've begun to understand the comment about it being overrated - People on either coast who see many students get into Ivy league schools are probably comparing the Wash U students with the Ivy league and they just don't measure up. On the other hand, I do think Wash U gets some of the cream of the crop in the midwest - probably other places too, but midwest students in general stay close to home and we don't have very many elite private colleges to chose from. So in summary, I think the "overrated" comment might come from evaluating the students that get in and not necessarily the quality of the education. They are still smart students but it's been our observation that there is not a huge contingent of intellectually curious or intellectually driven kids - students who like to learn for learning's sake.</p>
<p>I post this with some trepidation because I began my posting on CC by fiercely and somewhat defensively opposing negative comments about Wash U. I'm also a St. Louis native so I knew the city and the school well and didn't take kindly to people that had never set foot on campus criticizing it - I still don't. It is a top notch school and deserves it's standing.</p>
<p>One other thing I would add to my observation above is that I have no frame of reference to compare Wash U students to Ivy leaguers. We don't know Ivy league students - I came to that conclusion from reading comments here on CC. For all I know our observations about money and entitlement may be true at HYP as well. </p>
<p>My son and I have wondered if some of this struggle has more to do with being out of step with a generation of peers that are more focused on success as defined my money and accumulated experiences that money buys.</p>