<p>Two final cents: USNWR's PA --- the grading of reputation by those who supposedly know --- as it is determined in a flawed and controversial process has very limited credibility as has been discussed many, many times. It does not deserve a 25 percent weight in the overall score, let alone a near 100 percent consideration for ranking these universities.</p>
<p>Top 10. Top notch students, financial resources, world class research, outstanding college experience with happy students.</p>
<p>top 30..........</p>
<p>top 15...no matter what anyone says</p>
<p>Right around Emory/Vanderbilt high 10's and low 20's.</p>
<p>
[quote]
world class research
[/quote]
Not sure where you get that impression. I think we can all agree that "research" is more related to the graduate side of the university. Please tell why WUSTL doesn't have many high ranking graduate departments (other than medical related) with its "world class' research?</p>
<p>Math(40), Computer Science(39), Physics(48), Chemistry(43)
Economics(36), English(39), History(39), Psychology(NR), Sociology(NR)
Education(38), Engineering(46), Business(25)</p>
<p>I think we can all agree that research and faculty credentials are key factors in graduate departmental ranking. Please tell why WUSTL doesn't do better if they indeed do "world class" research.</p>
<p>I think it's in the right place in the rankings.</p>
<p>Honestly, I don't see how WashU is better than universities like BROWN, Northwestern, or Johns Hopkins... but maybe that's just me</p>
<p>~20 range</p>
<p>Good quality of students. Simply not enough strong departments. It's peer assessment score is hurt by this fact. Accademics aren't going to give a crap about a school's acceptance rate or avg. SAT score like HSers do. They care about the quality of academics and students that come out of the school at the end of 4-years.</p>
<p>milkmagn and others questioning Wash U's strength,
There is no denying that the school's profile is lower than the non-HYP Ivies, Northwestern, etc. However, is a media-driven perception an accurate reflection of the quality of the school? For those advancing the idea that Wash U is overrated, please provide something to back that up other than just a general opinion. </p>
<p>We can carp all day or longer about the Wash U's admissions practices, but I think that there is little doubt about the quality of their student body. The students there are terrific (and probably equal to and possibly superior to the non-HYP Ivies, Northwestern, etc.) and I have yet to see any evidence that disproves this. </p>
<p>About the only criticism that I see is coming from those in academia (what upstart is EVER well received by the academic status quo) and those who rank colleges based on their ability to get their students an investment banking analyst job in NYC.</p>
<p>norcalguy,
I accept your points about the perceptions of academics towards Wash U, but I would strongly disagree with your statement that they are holding these judgments based on the quality of the student coming out of there. Academics could care less about the quality of the graduating students and frankly, they have no way of knowing anyway.</p>
<p>While I like WashU, I think the argument that PA score is bringing them down could be countered by the fact that they're pretty well known for playing admissions games to achieve a very low acceptance rate and a high yield rate. If they just accepted the best applicants they recieved they would probably have a lower yield rate and therefore need to have a higher acceptance rate. That could lower their rankings.</p>
<p>kmatimber- no school just accepts 'the best applicants.' That's why you see Harvard (or wherever) turning down 4.0's with 2400's. And 'best' is highly subjective as well.</p>
<p>Yield means a lot when you want your freshmen class to be a certain size. If you overenroll (as WashU did for the 2010 class), you've got space issues.</p>
<p>kmatimber,
For the calculation of the USNWR rankings, admissions rate is a tiny part of the ranking (only 1.5% of the total score) and yield is not a factor at all (0%). By contrast, PA score makes up 25% of a school's ranking.</p>
<p>Hawkette, you're going to fall over, but I completely agree with you.
Wash U is exactly where it should be, IMO, and the only objection people seem to have is that it a) rose too quickly for their liking and b) it's in St. Louis which is off the radar screen of the East Coast elite. It was an outstanding regional school 25 years ago and now it's an outstanding national school. It's certainly equivalent to the Northwesterns et al of the world.</p>
<p>And when a student gets into WashU and the dreaded "non-HYP ivies" which one do they pick?</p>
<p>Bam.</p>
<p>
[quote]
they're pretty well known for playing admissions games to achieve ... a high yield rate.
[/quote]
[quote]
And when a student gets into WashU and the dreaded "non-HYP ivies" which one do they pick?
[/quote]
WUSTL's yield is rather low...around 30% to 32%.</p>
<p>I would say WUSTL should be around #20. Its yield in recent years has been more in the low 20% range. One reason its SAT median is even close to Yale, Princeton, Dartmouth is because those three are smaller schools that are fielding D-I teams so their non-athlete median SATs are not going to be as close to WUSTL as it is one of the only top 25 national universities that only fields D-III sports teams.</p>
<p>WUSTL is D-III? ouch.</p>
<p>Seeing as how we base most of our judgements on USNews, and seeing as this is a judgement, we should as a consensus put it exactly where it already is. :)</p>
<p>
[quote]
And when a student gets into WashU and the dreaded "non-HYP ivies" which one do they pick?</p>
<p>Bam.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I got into Brown with a scholarship and I chose Wash U. I have a friend who turned down Stanford and Harvard, and another who turned down Yale.</p>
<p>
[quote]
WUSTL is D-III? ouch.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Wash U students care more about academics than sports</p>
<p>
[quote]
While I like WashU, I think the argument that PA score is bringing them down could be countered by the fact that they're pretty well known for playing admissions games to achieve a very low acceptance rate and a high yield rate. If they just accepted the best applicants they recieved they would probably have a lower yield rate and therefore need to have a higher acceptance rate. That could lower their rankings.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And no one is blaming Harvard, Duke, Stanford, MIT et. al for slashing tuition fees? It's a game, and Wash U is playing it along with all the other top schools to remain competitive.</p>
<p>Wash U owns your school, end of argument.</p>