<p>Just curious.
Since many people think that WashU is overrated, I'm wondering how you would rank WashU if you were coming up with the rankings.</p>
<p>well, this opens up a can of worms.....</p>
<p>if WashU did not have aggressive merit scholarships, my first thought is it would likely not be in top 20; as it is, it's tied with Cornell and ahead of Brown </p>
<p>on the other hand, most non-Ivy privates of stature have merit scholarships, so all benefit from a sea rise against Ivies</p>
<p>I therefore weigh in that it would nonetheless be in top 20. If the Ivies gave merit scholarships, they would all be in top 10, so it's not issue of what Wash U gives (altho it's aggression is well-known, including slicing class size in further ratings attempt) but fact that Ivies don't that keeps Wash and others as high as they are</p>
<p>(okay--ready for the coming flak...)</p>
<p>Low 20's range...........</p>
<p>If you're going to go by USNWR's methodology, then I think it's right where it ought to be with an 87-point overall score. If you start changing the weighting of certain ranking components, you could move it up or down. For example, looking only at PA, it would drop. Leave PA out or weigh it differently, and WU rises quite a bit. </p>
<p>I like where it's ranked now --- bias alert: S attends --- but if it were to switch places with Brown, JHU, or NU (cluster-tied at 14) it honestly wouldn't cause me any anguish. It deserves its spot in the top 20...okay, top 16 imo, due to the strength or the student body, the financial support for its programs, the attention students get from faculty in relatively low class sizes (at least in my son's courses to date), and the support given to student activities and lifestyle. In one international survey, it ranks in the top 50 of the world's research universities, which is not too shabby and is more than others in the top 20 can say.</p>
<p>Not Top 15. Maybe Top 20. </p>
<p>Should not be ahead of Brown, NU, JH.</p>
<p>10, behind HYP, Stanford, MIT, Caltech, Duke, Dartmouth and Brown but ahead of Chicago and the more professional and graduate-focused low Ivies.</p>
<p>Somewhere in the 30s with NYU is a nice place for WashU.</p>
<p>Washington University is a tad overranked at #9 or #12. However, it deserves a top 25 ranking for sure. It is comparable to Emory, Georgetown, Rice and Vanderbilt.</p>
<p>Let’s put a few facts into this discussion. USNWR has 5 major ranking categories that are based on objective, quantifiable data. Much to the dismay of some, Wash U has excellent results in these categories and those in the historical power schools like it least of all. Today, Wash U has a statistical profile that, based on the objective data, would almost certainly make it a Top 10 school and would rank the school ahead of all of the non-HYP Ivies. Consider the following ranks for Wash U:</p>
<p>4th Financial Resources
6th Student Selectivity
7th Faculty Resources
11th Alumni Giving
-3 Graduation Differential Score</p>
<p>Payback time from the world of academia, however, comes in the subjective category. Wash U scores at the 4.1 level for Peer Assessment (rank of 22nd and equal to U Wisconsin and U Texas). </p>
<p>So the decision about Wash U comes down to your view of the objective data and what factors you consider important and the same for the subjective PA score. </p>
<p>My personal view is that if Wash U were a member of the Ivy League, it would be hailed as one of the finest schools in the country and would be a fixture in the Top 10. Instead, what I read on CC is a view that this Midwestern school is fraud and one that the traditional powers cannot and will not accept as a true peer.</p>
<p>Top 20 for me...........good for pre-med...</p>
<p>I agree. WashU deserves to be in the top 25, but not in the top 10 or 15. It is, apparently a wonderful school, but it has built its own hype a little too much for my liking. I would put it in the Rice, Emory category.
And, btw...a PA of 4.1 is excellent.</p>
<p>~20-25 10char</p>
<p>Bill:</p>
<p>By objective criteria --- look at all the categories of the USNWR ranking components --- WashU's peers are clearly Cornell, Brown, JHU, and NU. By percentage of classes under 20, by faculty-student ratio, by SAT scores of enrolled students, by percentage of students in top 10 percent of their class, and by financial resources rank (endowment.) PA is one piece of the puzzle for ranking, but it is neither quantifiable nor trustworthy enough to base the entire ranking structure on, which is what some posters would like to do. That's why in USNWR, there are many measures of academic quality counted into an overall ranking. </p>
<p>WashU's overall ranking is 87 --- two points away from Dartmouth, tied with Cornell, one above Brown, JHU and NU and seven points above Emory and Rice, eight points above Vanderbilt and thirteen points above Georgetown. It is fairly ranked with its peers among the top 15, in my humble and well-supported opinion. And it's also "good" for a lot of disciplines. It was a respected UG liberal arts college for a long time before it grew into a well-endowed top-ranked research university. Again, my two cents. </p>
<p>By the way, it's listed in the top 15 of all American research universities as compiled, objectively, by the center for Measuring University Performance at ASU. see page 8 of <a href="http://mup.asu.edu/research2006.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://mup.asu.edu/research2006.pdf</a>.</p>
<p>^^ while those criteria are objective, are they worthy to be included in a ranking? See the thread on what's 'useful' in the USNWR ranking.</p>
<p>It does well in every objective measure, whichever particular ones you think are valuable. The only objection people seem to have is that WUSTL give a lot of scholarships to good students. So, basically, compared to their school, it has smarter students and it is more likely to give you a scholarship, and that somehow makes it worse.</p>
<p>cherokeejew,
You hit the nail on the head.</p>
<p>For example, for Critical Reading, the average at Wash U is 710 (tied for 9th with Stanford, MIT and Columbia). For Math, Wash U students averaged 740 (tied for 4th with Princeton and Yale). Overall, Wash U posts a 1450 (tied for 7th with Dartmouth). For those who claim that the student body at Wash U is not Top 10 material are either in denial or worse. </p>
<p>For the other quantitative measures, Wash U scores better in these categories than nearly all of the non-HYP Ivies, eg, Financial Resources rank is 4th (tied with MIT and behind only Yale among the Ivies. Also, Faculty Resources rank is 7th (tied with Northwestern and behind only U Penn, H and P among the Ivies). Also, Wash U Alumni Giving is strong with a rank of 11th (6 Ivies are ahead, Columbia and Cornell are behind). </p>
<p>As for the PA score which hurts Wash U most, does anybody think that there is anything Wash U could ever do to raise its score to 4.5 or higher? I can't see the academics ever letting that happen. But no worries as the students will enjoy an exceptional undergraduate experience in St. Louis and the Wash U students and alumni will get on just fine while the folks at the traditional power schools will go on denigrating the school.</p>
<p>I don't subscribe to the "academic conspiracy" theory as so many Wash U adherants do. If, indeed, we were talking about school reputation among those who know best (not the parents, not the students, but those actually involved in teaching and research) Wash U falls to the twenties or thirties. Good giving, aggressive merit scholarships (essentially bribes to take students away from more expensive, higher rated competition) vault it to where it is. That most everyone agrees it doesn't "belong" there does not diminish the apparently high quality of satisfaction that its students and their parents feel, or in their cognitive dissonance, wish to feel, about it.</p>
<p>The Alumni Giving is a good example of how dubious the numbers are. In total funds raised WashU is a meek $119 Million putting it 37th in the US. Also in faculty stars it only has 41 NAS members (24th) many of whom are in the Medical School. It did better in faculty winning major awards at 10th.</p>
<p>42 has a nice ring to it</p>
<p>
[quote]
and those in the historical power schools like it least of all.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>As always, I'm curious about your source on this. You seem to have this all-knowing insight into the emotional lives of the officials at top schools, and I'm all agog to know where you got this scoop.</p>
<p>And who, exactly, are the ones who like it least of all? Do you have any specific people in mind? Tilghman? Faust? Levin? Hennessy?</p>
<p>And given that Wrighton came from one of those kinds of schools, did you think he needed a special kind of deprogramming to accept the chancellorship?</p>