<p>i just wanted to know, considering to apply there next year, but everyone on cc says wustl is wayyy overrated. why</p>
<p>its not overrated</p>
<p>Apply to a college because you WANT to go there, not because of its perceived reputation.</p>
<p>washu attempts to artifically lower its acceptance rate to raise its USNEWS rankings. it is a great school but undoubtedly too high on the rankings.</p>
<p>also, they count people like janitors as full-time faculty while other schools (pretty much all others!) do not. This lowers the student:faculty ratio and thus boosts WUSL's US News rankings. </p>
<p>Great academics, but it shouldn't be ranked nearly as high.</p>
<p>Wash U is great in pre-med (like JHU) but lacks any other great strengths. Olin the business school has avg 40+k salaries and the engineering program is not very impressive either. </p>
<p>Like bob said, WashU manipulates data and has mastered the use of the waitlist as well as "perceived yield" games to see whether or not an applicant will matriculate if admitted. </p>
<p>WashU also refuses to release certain waitlist and marketing data (its marketing budget has been said to be extremely high as it sends ads to numerous college-bound students in an attempt to get them to apply).</p>
<p>Olin's placement can be found here. <a href="http://www.olin.wustl.edu/wcc/pdf/AnnualReport.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.olin.wustl.edu/wcc/pdf/AnnualReport.pdf</a>
See page 8. This is comparable with many top schools, except Wharton, CMU, perhaps.</p>
<p>Gomestar, where do you get the idea that washu counts janitors as full-time faculty members? The cleaning and stuff like that were out-sourced many years ago.</p>
<p>cj - these boards! I'm not sure if it was exactly janitors, but non-teaching crappy jobs were being counted as faculty.</p>
<p>It's not really overrated so much as it's overranked. It is worth noting that whatever its faults, WUStL has a student body equal in caliber to most other top colleges. I am of the opinion that WUStL deserves to be ranked lower, but I would still put it in the top 20. </p>
<p>1) WUStL lacks discernible strengths. Its biology (very geared toward premed) and business programs are the only real standouts. </p>
<p>2) It showers high school students with pamphlets, applications, emails, and letters. Very few other colleges take such an aggressive marketing stance (or feel the need to).</p>
<p>3) It has strategic admissions. WUStL is notorious for waitlisting extremely qualified applicants while admitting other applicants.</p>
<p>4) WUStL is still relatively new. It loses many top professors to other universities, although it's quite good in extremely specialized areas (zooarchaeology, for example).</p>
<p>5) It lacks appeal. It's not in a very major city, it's not in the Ivy League, and it doesn't have major sports teams.</p>
<p>6) Many seemingly better colleges are ranked lower. UC Berkeley and Michigan are examples.</p>
<p>So we are now calling schools overrated because they market themselves? Hmm, think about that and tell me if that really does make sense.</p>
<p>Yeah, i just knew those dells were a piece of crap when I saw that they had a total of 4 commercials doing my favorite tv show!</p>
<p>WashU doesn't lack strengths. Its not the number 1 ranked in any field; however, its recognized for being strong overall. Yes, its mostly known for its pre-med program, but that doesn't mean its not good for its economics program. Yes, there are schools who are more renowned for certain programs and WashU doesn't have the prestige, but when did it make sense to equate prestige with quality without consideration of context. </p>
<p>WashU isn't new as it has been around since the 1800s. Yes, it has recently risen to national fame, but every school must do that at some point. Believe it or not, there was a time when Stanford was unknown and started to gain national prominence. There was a time when Duke was unknown and had to gain national recognition. WashU is experiencing the same now, and we are to punish them because they are simply becoming more well known? Professors switch among top schools all the time. This is not something that just happens @ WashU, so does that make all schools overrated?</p>
<p>It doesn't lack appeal. If it did, students would turn down, as someone put it, these "seemingly better schools" to come. WashU's appeal is its beautiful campus, its truly mid sized feel, the big enough city thats not too big, the merit money, the great food, the nice dorms, etc. WashU is academically overrated because its basketball team didn't lose in the NCAA tournament for the last 4 years in a row? It is academically overrated because it doesn't have the weather that you like? Now does that really make sense?</p>
<p>"Seemingly Better" colleges are ranked low. It seems to me that our perception of colleges comes from names that we are familiar with. This has regional bias among other factors. What we, as high school students, college students, and recent college grads, see with our limited knowledge and experience is enough to make these judgements. In St. Louis, people think WashU is better than any ivy school. On the east coast, people think WashU is probably a junior college. Who is right? The point is, we aren't able to decide these things, thats why people who are professionals and have been evaluating schools for years and know more than we do are chosen to do these rankings. WashU isn't seemingly as good because it hasn't been well known for a while. Its reputation or lack of it makes it overrated? I think not, its not like the rankers simply pull names out a hat. These factors are based on statistical data and factors that we don't see the whole of. If several publications constantly have WashU ranked as high, then who are we to call question to these things?</p>
<p>Strategic admissons? What a crime, it admits the people who wants to go there. There are only 1350 spots in the class and they have the nerve to admit students who actually want to go to the school. So are you saying because I was admitted, im not as qualified as their waitlist? Get outta here with that. Ivy waitlist qualified athletes and admit "seemingly less qualified" ones all the time (legacies, recruited athletes, etc). Does WashU do it more or less, well we don't have proof of either so lets stop assuming. WashU is open with their policy of admitting students who show that they are interested in the school. This doesnt mean getting a WashU tatoo, but it simply means demonstrating that you are actually considering the school. WashU wants the top students in order to continue to rise to the top of the rankings and be known as an academic powerhouse. What sense would it make to waitlist them all and risk them going elsewhere? </p>
<p>In closing, WashU isn't overrated. No one said it was the end all and be all of colleges, the best in the world. No one said all its programs were the epitome of greatness. WashU is known for being one of the best academic institutions in the nation with happy students whom they spoil to death with the amount of resources they give them. This is where it is supposed to be. If anyone wants to apply to WashU because they like the school, please apply because i know you'll have time of your life here...but if you allow strangers on a message board to type nonsupported nonsense and let them how a say in the next four years of your life then please don't apply because that wouldn't fit in well with the students here anyway.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Yes, schools can rise but such rises should be because of job opps and academic prowess. Not because you were able to decrease acceptance rates and play the Us News game. </p></li>
<li><p>WUSTL is using its med money to advantage itself from other top schools who do not have such funds (Georgetown for example with its relatively low endowment).</p></li>
<li><p>WUSTL's job opportunities and recruiter rep has not changed much over the years and has shown nowhere the increase as its rankings would suggest.</p></li>
<li><p>We don't have proof because WUSTL REFUSES to release waitlist data and their marketing budget. Even so, it is impossible to hide their WL policies or marketing. Look at the prboards or my old school's books to see how they waitlist perfectly good RD applicants while accepting mediocre ED applicants (comparatively). WUSTL will even BLACKLIST high schools (Stuy in New York) who have been known to turn it down for Ivy Leagues and other schools. Many other top colleges do care about yield but they will still accept VERY qualified students in the hopes that they will attend. This is how America works (the most qualified and intelligent should be rewarded) BUT WUSTL has begun to change such a system by allowing those who WANT to get in to go get in over some more qualified applicants. If all top colleges did so, a lot of poor students would be at a disadvatange (those who were truly intelligent and aiming for multiple colleges because they had to COMPARE financial aid). It really just benefits the people who can afford to apply ED or not need an Ivy League's potential aid package. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>In closing, WUSTL is not overrated but overranked. No one said WUSTL had "bad" programs. But seriously compare it with some of the other schools ranked lower than it (Two Ivies, Northwestern, Uchicago, UVA, Georgetown, etc. ) What does WUSTL beat them all in except for pre-med? Have you seen the job placement and starting salaries between Cornell econ/business/engineering vs WUSTL's? </p>
<p>That said, I agree with your last paragraph the most. Apply to WUSTL and ANY college because you want to go there. If you are concerned about WUSTl's policies/academics then don't apply. If you truly like the school for what it is then go for it (apply ED if possible :))</p>
<p>In response to AcceptedAlready</p>
<ol>
<li><p>How is WashU's rise not because of job placement and increasing academic prowess? WashU releases their info about job placement and it seems to be perfectly fine and comparable with other top schools. If we're looking @ starting salaries, do we also look @ Cost of living? We can't take one variable factors and think that tells the entire story. WashU is ranked high simply because its programs, job placements, grad school placements, etc are comparable with its peers.</p></li>
<li><p>What a crime, the school is actually using its endowment and other funds to make themselves better? Strip away their acreditation i tell you!</p></li>
<li><p>In BusinessWeek, WashU's business school has been said to be one of the most responsive to what recruiters and jobs say they want. True, WashU doesn't have the best recruiting in the world, but its not **** poor. They released a list of the people who recruit @ WashU, and there was a long list of good companies on there as well. And, people don't seem to understand that the USNews rankings are for undergrad. Don't dispute the undergrad rankings by taking into account their grad school factors. The USNews rankings are for overall undergrad programs. I think WashU is a highly ranked school for undergrad; however, I don't believe it is as such for grad school and rankings reflect this. You all say, oh WashU should be ranked higher than School X...but do you realize this is an undergrad ranking? Perhaps School X's reputation and academic prowess is in its grad programs and not its overall undergraduate program.</p></li>
<li><p>Again, what is wrong with marketing? I was under the impression that you should let people know about something if you want them to utilize it. All schools, get this, all schools waitlist great applicants and some seemingly less qualified ones get in? Do you deny this. Also, we must take into account that ED acceptances are relative to the ED pool. The alleged advantage of applying ED is that the ED pool isn't as overall compettive, therefore there is less competition for being the top. This isn't a knock on WashU, but its just the reality of who decided to apply ED. Mediocre students get into great schools all the time. Hooked applicatants are everywhere, not just WashU. People, this isn't the first school to waitlist a valedictorian and admit a 3.6 GPA student with a 2200 SAT. There is no proof that WashU does this the most either. Simply, people are reaching for things to nitpick over in order to justify their emotion driven claims that WUSTL is overrated.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Again, bringing up what WUSTL "beats" them in? The rankings, especially USNews, is about overall academic program. Perhaps this implies that WashU is more balanced that the schools that are ranked lower than it. Yes, School Y has the #1 Econ department, but sucks in a lot of other places while WashU might simply exhibit a better balance of programs which would certainly mean it was a better undergrad education overall. </p>
<p>In closing, don't say WashU is overranked without looking @ what the rankings measure. In deperatment rankings and grad school rankings, WashU is where it is supposed to be. In the USNews rankings of overall undergraduate programs, WashU is where it is supposed to be. Don't say WashU is overrated because who are any of us to judge the professionals that rank these schools.</p>
<p>Addition (In response to AcceptedAlready's addition to #4)</p>
<p>Your point about WashU merely rewarding people who are less qualifed and can afford to apply ED is nullified by the fact that A)Nearly all schools (except need blind ivies) openly state that a student who doesn't need aid is at a slight advantage in certain scenarios than one who does need aid. Therefore, WashU isn't the only guilty culprit amongst its peers in the Top 25, but nearly all of them are. B) WashU offers a boatload of merit scholarships. In fact, the Ervin scholarship, one of their biggest full tuition ones, is offered where there is a set number for ED applicants and a number reserved for RD applicants so that RD applicants who do have to compare aid can be given a fairshot. And further proof that poor people are not put @ a disadvantage in going to WashU is their scholarship policy and financial aid procedures. Outside scholarships don't reduce university grants/scholarships. If an RD student needs more money, they are always told "Go talk to Bill." From MC weekend, I know at least 6 people went to talk to Bill and were giving 35,000-40,000 in aid off the top. So, please don't saying that WashU makes it where poor people who are qualified but can't afford to apply ED are at a disadvantage.</p>
<p>You keep taking the stance of defending WashU by itself instead of comparing it against its competitors. It is VERY easy to defend WashU without comparisons since it is a GOOD school. However when you start comparing avg starting salaries and recruiter rep VS. schools lower than it you can start to see why it is "overranked". You state that WashU's economics is "good". Well yes it is "good" but compare it to Cornell/Brown/NU/etc. Compare engineering/business too or almost any other non pre-med field.</p>
<p>You also misunderstood the yield argument because certain kids will apply to multiple schools to compare financial aid so just because he/she doesn't show "interest" and may answer truthfully to an interview about where he/she applied does not mean he/she deserves to be auto waitlisted/rejected. If every top school worked like this it wouldn't just be financial aid that takes the burden.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Okay lets compare WUSTL to other top schools. How exactly are we comparing the programs? Are we doing it on the size of the faculty? The grades the students get in the classes? How exactly are we determining that these institutions have better programs outside of what we've heard? This isn't necessarily a shot @ you, but i've always wondered this. Does 2+2 not equal 4 everywhere? In my opinion, schools with superior programs mostly have that perception because they are a known name. If we cite research, then WashU certainly ranks at the top compared to others in terms of research done. Again, lets compare average salaries, but do we also hold the students accountable in getting the grades to get these salaries? Do we factor in cost of living? Or do we just simply determine that the school and the school alone is responsible?</p></li>
<li><p>I didn't misunderstand the yield argument. I am aware that many students apply to schools to compare packages. No one has to lie in their interviews in order to be accepted by WashU. People hear one or two cases about someone supposedly not showing enough interest and getting waitlisted and they run with it and accuse WashU of devious practices. I know a boatload of people who got into WashU and didn't even visit the school. Also, your argument assumes that students applying to multiple schools don't show equal interest in terms of visits to these schools. I could halfway understand your logic if WUSTL had an application question asking what other schools the student was applying to, but they don't. Also, in both of my interviews, the question of other school that I was applying to didn't even come up. So, this notion that RD applicats are waitlist bound is crazy. Also, do we even consider that certain students are rejected and waitlisted @ schools because they don't fit the mold of the school or the student body? This happens @ ivies all the time, getting into Harvard but not Princeton? One must be a joke then right? No, schools are trying to build classes of personalities and they admit students who they think can contribute academically and socially. So, how are RD kids put @ a disadvantage?</p></li>
</ol>
<p>I can't comment on rankings, or quality of programs,etc.</p>
<p>But I will say that the kids from my daughter's high school class that went to Wash U are really good students and good people. In the very same pool as the kids who went to Northwestern. </p>
<p>In our area, within a 7-hour drive from St Louis, Northwestern has a little more cache, IMO, but I couldn't tell any difference based on who wound up where.</p>
<p>My daughter didn't really even consider Wash U, based on a pre-conceived "ivy league wanna-be" notion. But after the fact she visited some friends who were taking summer classes there. She was impressed with the dorms and the campus. And she saw which of her classmates are actually going there. And she now says she should have taken a closer look at Wash U.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What a crime, the school is actually using its endowment and other funds to make themselves better? Strip away their acreditation I tell you!
[/quote]
No, but unless I'm mistaken, they are not need-blind. Some similar universities with smaller endowments are. They may be in practice (60% of students are on financial aid, relatively high), but I don't think they've made it an official practice. Correct me if I'm wrong, though. As for strategic admissions, well, you said it best. ;)</p>
<p><a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?p=1426698%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?p=1426698</a>
<a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?p=1706608#post1706608%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?p=1706608#post1706608</a></p>
<p>monydad, that was the first thing I addressed in my post. </p>
<p>I do not intend to bash WUStL. It is one of the strongest universities in my field, and I'm considering it for graduate school. However, I simply do NOT understand how it can be considered on par or above Cornell, Johns Hopkins, or the University of Chicago.</p>
<p>ehh, its not "overranked" in usnews. washu just happens to fit well with what usnews thinks qualifies a good school.</p>
<p>btw, some missinformation is on here. washu can't manipulate its student/faculty ratio. theres actually concrete criteria for determining the student faculty ratio - and the survey all the schools fill out is the same. now unless the school just made up numbers on its survery, which i highly doubt it did, then you can't say they're manipulating data.</p>
<p>Also, the whole waitlist/yield protection thing is really a crock. I hope you guys realize that. washu isn't a public school where it has to admit student x because he has over x sats and x gpa and lives in missourri. they can admit whoever they want. they choose to admit the candidates whom they feel are most likely to attend. </p>
<p>The school gets 20,000 applications for 1400 spots. Look at its SAT ranges, 1360-1520. that means 25% of its student body gets over a 1520, 75% get over a 1360. Schools you are all saying are "better" than washu all have comparable sat scores (chicago, northwestern, cornell, brown, columbia, ect.). How is it that washu gets SO many better applicants than these other schools - where it can just waitlist the best students and take the middle of the pack...and still have student bodies that score just as well as all these 'better' schools.</p>
<p>the real problem i think with people on this board (because i've never heard or seen anyone else say washu is over rated until i came to these boards) is that a lot of people got waitlisted or rejected that thought they should have gotten in. It gets them because washu isn't a big name school. They don't care that duke rejected them, because hey, duke gets to the sweet 16 every year in the ncaa tournament so it must be hard to get into. They don't care that cornell rejected them, because hey, cornell is an ivy and must be hard to get into (despite the fact that it has lower average sats and a higher admit rate). They don't care that notre dame rejected them because hey - notre dame vies for the national title in football every year - forget the fact that they release practically 0 information regarding their admissions criteria.</p>
<p>my feelings on the matter - i don't really care that much. I don't go to washu, i'll never even see the school in person. but bitter people are obnoxious. theres no 'program strength' rating in usnews. so stop arguing that its overranked.</p>
<p>I don't think it's overrated, at least, not more so than any of the other CC top universities or ivies. The only time a university would be overrated would be if students think it is the perfect fit for everyone, or the university markets itself that way. No college is a perfect match for everyone, so if WUStL is a good fit for you (the OP), by all means, go for it. Many of the universities that are looked down upon on CC (yes, they are) provide wonderful educations, so don't worry about it. Who cares what other people think? When they graduate in debt, you could graduate debt-free thanks to the big scholarship WUStL gave you. That's being smart, in my humble opnion.</p>
<p>jags, your correlation between sports and admissions thoroughly befuddles me. Duke has a good basketball team, so that makes it selective?</p>
<p>WUSTL is a great school and is not OVERRATED. It is "overranked" by Us News (in my opinion which I have already explained due to recruiter rep and job opps as well as comparisons of program strength across the board with other universities ranked lower; if such criteria do not matter for you then definitely disregard my posts). </p>
<p>My first post was to APPLY to a college because you like it. Don't apply because you think it is underrated/overrated etc. People should always look at their individual needs and statistics (and many people truly belong at WUSTL). </p>
<p>WIth that said, I'll just list some things I find wrong with Mr. UVA's post :)</p>
<p>"they choose to admit the candidates whom they feel are most likely to attend. "</p>
<p>DId anyone find this funny? Basically contradicted Jeff's argument. Anyways, we should make it clear that many of those who say WUSTL is overrated/overranked were not rejected by the college. This is quite an absurd argument.</p>
<p>Also, there is a "program" strength rating on Us News and you don't see WUSTL's business/engineering program topping any lists.</p>
<p>I was gonna end it there but I got 3 more minutes so here goes:</p>
<p>"Also, the whole waitlist/yield protection thing is really a crock. I hope you guys realize that. washu isn't a public school where it has to admit student x because he has over x sats and x gpa and lives in missourri. they can admit whoever they want. they choose to admit the candidates whom they feel are most likely to attend. "</p>
<p>Right, they admit who they want to climb the ranks of Us News; thus they are "overranked". </p>
<p>"How is it that washu gets SO many better applicants than these other schools - where it can just waitlist the best students and take the middle of the pack..."</p>
<p>By mass marketing. </p>
<p>"ehh, its not "overranked" in usnews. washu just happens to fit well with what usnews thinks qualifies a good school."</p>
<p>Right, by specifically taking actions that would boost its us news ranking.</p>
<p>I (and pretty much everybody else I know in person) considers WUSL on par with schools like Emory, Vanderbilt, Tufts, etc. NOT Cornell, Brown, Dartmouth, Chicago, Rice, etc...</p>