<p>
[quote]
Wash U students care more about academics than sports
[/quote]
WHAT???? And hawkette still likes it??? :)</p>
<p>You see the same phenomenon with the med school as well...a 30% yield. This is even more embarrassing for WashU Med because most applicants only get into 1-2 med schools and thus med school yield rates should be high. Yet, WashU Med has by far the highest avg. GPA/MCAT of any med school, much higher than Harvard or JHU Med. Whether it's because the school is actively trying to climb the rankings or whether it's because the school is numbers-focused, it's certainly not because the school is getting the best applicants. Head to head the med school and the undergrad loses out to peer institutions. So, despite the high averages of its incoming freshman, you'd be hard pressed to say that WashU is more selective than a Duke or Northwestern.</p>
<p>I don't think Wash U is more selective than Duke or Northwestern, they are all very selective, competitive schools. Maybe it's more selective in Northwestern purely because Northwestern is a bigger school and has a lot more programs, so logistically Wash U can't admit more people.</p>
<p>I also don't see how the number of admitted people who enroll is a reflection of the selectivity or strength of the institution, more so the latter than the former. I think there's a relatively low yield is due to 3 reasons:
1. Same reason as the general attitude of this thread, Wash U. is a relatively new power player so it's not as established yet
2. Wash U attracts the same caliber of students who get into schools like the ivies. A lot of people (me being an exception) picked the ivies.
3. There are a lot of factors other than the quality of the school that people look at to decide where to go. I bet a lot of people didn't want to be in the Midwest.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Wash U owns your school, end of argument
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hmm, I doubt it ;)</p>
<p>Here's a list from another thread that might shed some light. Seems like most boosters on here point to the quality of the student body itself in assessing its worth rather than the school's programs. The programs seem to be lagging behind their perceived peers. But, I don't know how many programs the school offers overall.</p>
<p>No. of programs in top 10 (1-10)/top 20(11-20)/top 30(21-30)
Stanford 14-0-0 (14)
Harvard 13-0-1 (14)
Berkeley 13-0-0 (13)
Yale 9-4-0 (13)
Chicago 9-3-1 (13)
Princeton 8-3-0 (11)
MIT 8-1-0 (9)
Michigan 7-7-0 (14)
Columbia 6-7-1 (14)
UCLA 6-7-0 (13)
Penn 6-5-3 (14)
Caltech 5-0-0 (5)
Cornell 4-10-0 (14)
Northwestern 4-6-4 (14)
Illinois 4-2-5 (11)
Johns Hopkins 4-1-5 (10)
Wisconsin 3-8-2 (13)
Duke 2-6-4 (12)
WUSTL 2-2-1 (5)
NYU 2-1-3 (6)
Virginia 1-3-3 (7)
UNC 1-6-4 (11)
USC 1-1-1 (3)
Texas 0-9-3 (12)
Vanderbilt 0-2-2 (4)
Emory 0-1-5 (6)
Georgetown 0-1-1 (2)
Rice 0-0-4 (4)
Notre Dame 0-0-1 (1)</p>
<p>Wait, what do you mean by programs? Are you talking about undergraduate or graduate programs/schools?</p>
<p>person who compiled that list wrote that they were graduate programs in the major conventional disciplines (engineering, biology, etc...)</p>
<p>At most top-20 schools, the vast majority of undergraduate courses are taught by the same professors who teach the grad students, especially the more advanced courses taken as part of a major. The distinction between graduate and undergraduate departmental quality at this level is a bit of a fallacy.</p>
<p>
[quote]
At most top-20 schools, the vast majority of undergraduate courses are taught by the same professors who teach the grad students
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So you're saying that Wash U professors aren't among the top in the nation? Ha ha ha ha ha. If you read any medical journals or even care slightly about scientific progress, you will know that a ton of groundbreaking research was and still is performed by WUSTL professors (Arthur Kornberg- discoverer of DNA polymerase I and a bunch of other stuff I can't remember from the top of my head, Viktor Hamburger- leading researcher on development, Arthur Compton- nobel prize for Compton effect, Douglass North- nobel prize winning economist, etc etc etc.)</p>
<p>I don't know/care about who posted the other rankings, but according to this source from 2007, Wash U is top 10 in 19 graduate disciplines. Record:</a> WUSTL is top 10 in 19 disciplines</p>
<p>The guy quoted in there makes a pretty good argument too: "Reputations, which are commonly distorted by a variety of biases and which take decades to build, are not considered. This enables recent improvements in unfamiliar institutions to be fully appreciated," Thach added."</p>
<p>I don't think that's what 45 Percenter was saying at all.</p>
<p>
No, what I said is that the distinction often made on CC between graduate and undergrad departmental quality with respect to the top 20 or so schools is a fallacious one. I didn't even mention Wash U.</p>
<p>And from your post, it appears that you agree with me on that.</p>
<p>By the way, the most widely respected rankings of graduate programs are those compiled by the National Research Council (NRC). The last NRC rankings were published in 1995 and are now a bit dated, but an updated edition is scheduled to be released in September of this year. In the 1995 edition, Wash U did not rank in the top 10 or 20 in very many fields:</p>
<p>NRC</a> Rankings in Each of 41 Areas</p>
<p>It's possible that's changed significantly, but we'll have to wait until September to find out.</p>
<p>Cool I think I see what you're saying now.</p>
<p>BTW then those rankings have to be totally outdated, 2008- 1995 = 13 years, which to me is a huuuge gap. Wrighton was elected chancellor in 1995, he since had 13 years to work his magic.</p>
<p>Likewise for St. Rodin..</p>
<p>top 30
washu waitlists more people simply to drive down its admission rate and be higher ranked on the USNR rankings...washu is living off its manipulative admissions practices...and unfortunately people are falling for it</p>
<p>tony,
I understand the sentiments about their waitlist practices, but your statement about its ranking benefit is just false. Admission rates account for just 1.5% of the total USNWR score. It is not even a minor factor. By comparison, Wash U’s crappy (relative) ranking with those in academia counts for 25% of their total score. It's quite a feat that they've been able to overcome that (IMO inaccurate) view and reach the ranking level that they have.</p>
<p>30-35 or maybe on the LAC list</p>
<p>USNEWS is lame they completely disrespect the mission of the public universities. Here are my national rankings</p>
<p>1) Harvard
2) Yale
2) Stanford
4) Princeton
5) Berkeley
6) MIT (too one dimensional)
7) Cal Tech (see above)
8) Columbia
8) Chicago
10) Michigan
10) Penn
10) Brown
13) Johns Hopkins
14) UCLA
14) Virginia
16) Cornell
17) Northwestern
18) Duke
19) Wisconsin-Madison
20) UNC-Chapel Hill</p>
<p>Dartmouth is an LAC in IVY clothing</p>
<p>^^^
Wrong thread. This one isn't about how you would subjectively rank various schools. It's about WashU.</p>
<p>yeah, how is MIT too one dimensional, they have a top 5 business school and a great economics program. not as good in the humanities, but still above yale and bezerkely overall.</p>