Why is WashU Yield So Low?

Colleges and Universities A-Z Washington University in St. Louis
1

<p>OK, I realize that this might not be the best time to ask this question, given that the admit decisions just came out and all of the emotionally charged discussion around the WashU extensive waitlisting, but ...</p>

<p>D has been accepted to Washu, and while we're waiting on the FA packages I'd really like to better understand why WashU has such a low yield relative to its "peer" schools. In the top 25 or so schools, there are few with a yield as low as the ~30% at WashU. And given that this incorporates early decision and the (suspected) use of the waitlist to manipulate the reported yield, a "normalized" yield may be even lower? Only Hopkins and Carnegie Mellon are in the immediate neighborhood. </p>

<p>Is there a good explanation for this? </p>

<p>I have skimmed through a very interesting study done in 2004 that compiled a "revealed preferences" ranking for schools, and WashU did not do well in this study relative to the caliber of schools with which it is normally compared - ranked #62, below schools such as GA Tech, Smith, UVA, Illinois, Maryland, and Connecticut College, for instance. Have things changed since this study, or has WashU really managed to manipulate the data to achieve a ranking as a much better school than it actually is? </p>

<p>I'd really appreciate some thoughtful responses to this question that will help D in her decision.</p>

2

<p>tjd</p>

<p>There are I believe a number of factors that drive Wash U's annually low yields.</p>

<p>Wash U has set the bar for marketing and advertising in the last ten years. This enormous effort has paid off with huge increases in applications year to year which has helped to push their selectivity rating through the roof, making their star rise with USNWR.</p>

<p>Interestingly, when you look at ED and RD stats, Wash U looks very different from what it sees as peer schools. The average GPA and SATs for ED admits over the last five years are substantially lower than those in the RD pool of admits, making ED an easier way in. Since most who apply ED are not concerned with financial aid and Wash U is need aware, they are willing to (and I say this carefully) relax their admissions standards to guarantee their yield in the one pool that they can. Most every other highly select school has much higher profiles and far more self selecting ED/EA pools making the early process far more difficult.</p>

<p>Wash U has an undeserved reputation for being generous with FA. While they do offer some very generous "name" scholarships, they are very selective and somewhat stingy with the rest of their aid. This is why I believe that their yield is as low as it is. When other acceptances roll in and FA packages are compared they end up losing many candidates to more generous schools.</p>

<p>When my son was admitted in 2004 he received one of the name awards that was in excess of $20 K a year. Yale offered him about $8K a year more and he ultimately ended up accepting the Morehead Scholarship at UNC. In his case he was told not to make money the deciding factor and we were very surprised when he took the Morehead over Yale which had been his dream school. In retrospect he had an amazing undergrad experience, got a great education, graduated debt free and is now a first year med student at a top ten med school so it all worked out very well.</p>

<p>I did find it of great interest to see that a great many of those put on the WL this year were also applying for FA, while the majority admitted (at least those posting on CC) were not. It will be interesting to see how their yield shakes out this year with money so tight for many families. </p>

<p>Good luck with the FA package, I really hope it works out for you and your D.</p>

3

<p>I don't see that WUSTL's yield is "so low" compared to peer institutions --- that is, highly ranked research universities that are not in the top 10 and don't have the "Ivy League" halo attached to their names. </p>

<p>USNWR 2009:</p>

<p>Yield , National University-Privates</p>

<p>79% , Harvard
70% , Stanford
69% , Yale
69% , MIT
68% , Princeton
66% , U Penn
65% , Yeshiva
59% , Columbia
56% , Brown
56% , Notre Dame
52% , Dartmouth
47% , Cornell
47% , Georgetown
42% , Duke
39% , Vanderbilt
39% , NYU
38% , Caltech
37% , Wake Forest
36% , U Chicago
35% , USC
34% , Northwestern
34% , Wash U
33% , Johns Hopkins
33% , Rice
32% , Tufts
30% , Emory
30% , Lehigh
29% , Boston Coll
27% , Brandeis
26% , Rensselaer
23% , Carnegie Mellon
22% , U Rochester
21% , Case Western
18% , Tulane</p>

<p>The "revealed preference" study is a sham, in my opinion, a non-peer review survey rather than a study with a preponderance of the respondents coming from prep and private schools, which of course, are heavily located in the NE/East Coast. No wonder Connecticut College is a preferred choice over WUSTL. GIGO, if you ask me.</p>

4

<p>By "yield" you mean accepted students who attend, correct? Not applicants admitted.</p>

<p>I've read a couple of reasons for this...
First, that WashU applicants also apply to Ivys, and select to attend an Ivy if admitted. There is a lot of discussion on this board about WashU using "interest" as a factor in their decisions to try and minimize this. I think that the comparable schools in jazzymom's list (Northwestern, Rice, etc) may have the same issue.</p>

<p>Also, that WashU is very expensive and doesn't provide much in the way of merit awards. Students who have been accepted may decide to go to a school where they received a scholarship.</p>

<p>DS is in the second group. WashU is his first choice, but we've been pretty upfront with him about the cost issues since he didn't become a finalist in the scholarships he applied for. It's going to be tough to spend $30k more per year than we would at any of his other choices where he has received merit awards. We're thrilled that he got accepted, but, depending on the FA info that's coming, it's going to be a difficult next few weeks!</p>

5

<p>^ If you look at the recent decision threads, I'm going to go ahead and confidently predict that a higher percentage of waitlisted CCers will get into Ivies than accepted CCers. I'm biased, of course, but our average stats seem notably higher :)</p>

<p>WashU has more merit scholarships than almost any top tier school (have you seen the giant brochure, for crying out loud?!)</p>

<p>Their normal FinAid, however, is terrible.</p>

<p>P.S. Awww, look, WashU is close to its psychological buddy, Tufts! ;)</p>

6

<p>The people thst are the most bitter are often the ones that were the most enthusiastic before decisions came out. I guess that is just an inevitable fact of life.</p>

7

<p>^ Not true in my case. I did visit (only because they paid for it; I never would've even considered it otherwise), and I did write a favorable review of *the campus<a href="note:%20we%20never%20sat%20in%20on%20a%20class,%20and%20my%20roommates%20were%20boring">/I</a>.</p>

<p>However, WashU has always, always, always been precisely my 7th choice school, behind, in order:
Yale
Princeton
Harvard
Stanford
Duke
and Vanderbilt.</p>

<p>I've never made any claims to the contrary.</p>

8

<p>not many people want to go there, cause the got into someplace better</p>

9

<p>Then I guess it must be time to move on and let it go. Otherwise one begins to wonder about the motivation. Hanging around the bwashU thread with negative posts - you begin to wonder about the importance of a WashU acceptanxce, or lack of.</p>

10

<p>^ Alex's response to the OP, although brief and grammatically poor, is somewhat elegant in its simplicity.</p>

<p>WashU's yield is low because very, very few people would choose WashU over HYPSD if they got into both.</p>

<p>...and my motivation lies in the future applicants for the classes of 2014, 2015, etc. We've got to warn them about WashU's chicanery.</p>

11

<p>hookem - if WashU was indeed so low on your list, then it is time to let it go and move on to the schools higher on your list. This constant negative posting is only taking away from the great future I am sure that you have.</p>

12

<p>^ Did you read my last post? It's important to me to let OTHERS know. This isn't about me anymore.</p>

13

<p>It's in Missouri.</p>

14

<p>^ hahahahaha. Well, FWIW, I will say that St. Louis is the best city within Missouri, but I tend to agree.</p>

15

<p>hookem - yes I read your last post and personal crusades are usually that - personal. It makes no difference to me. but for your own sake, I believe it best to move on. I realize that you are dissapointed - but in the end I am sure that you will end up at a school that is a better fit for you. Better to concentrate on that and build something positive than to waste a lot of time on negative energy. In the end these things all tend to work out for the best. I wish you all the best, understand your frustration and certainly am symphathetic. I just hate to see you waste all this time and negative energy, when I am sure that you could be connecting with a much more positive situation.</p>

16

<p>^ Well, I have to have SOMETHING to do until March 31st ;)
I have to wait until then for any sort of "positive situation"!</p>

17

<p>Because the name makes it sound cheap</p>

18

<p>For the OP: </p>

<p>Here's another study measuring university performance and interestingly, WUSTL ranks sixth among top private research universities in the U.S., ranks 15th if you count the privates and publics together. Some hard data here instead of the biased viewpoints of people who have decided they just don't like WashU, or St. Louis, or MO, or whathaveyou. </p>

<p><a href="http://mup.asu.edu/research2008.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://mup.asu.edu/research2008.pdf&lt;/a> (see pages six and 10)</p>

<p>I believe that it provides evidence that WUSTL is not ranked where it is, either in this study or in USNWR, because of chicanery or manipulation. Tweaks and twinges in admission rates could only impact a part of the USN rating system that amounts to 1.5 percent of the total points measured. (AR is 10 percent of student selectivity, which accounts for 15 percent of the overall ranking.) IOW, WUSTL could not be ranked where it is unless all the other elements measuring excellence were also in place: high quality students, a high quality faculty, resources to support the faculty, financial endowment to fund opportunities for students, etc. etc. </p>

<p>Whether WUSTL is the right university for your D is something she will have to determine after comparing academic programs, research and travel opportunities, and so on at the colleges she is considering. Also, her own determination as to the fit and feel of the campuses, whether she is comfortable with the other students and can see herself being happy for four years there. And the right choice is not, for all students, going to necessarily be the Ivy or the "better" ranked uni. It wasn't for my kid.</p>

19

<p>hookem - I am sure that will happen. It is all about the best fit and I am sure that will occur for you. I am sure you are a very well qualified applicant and for the right school you will be perfect. </p>

<p>bay-area - you might want to consider the same approach. All people have a certain energy - it is an individual choice as ti if it is used in a negative or positive way. For your own benefit, you might want to use it in a positive way. But then again, that is your choice.</p>

20

<p>Wrong name, wrong state, less prestigious than HPY ... none of this makes sense, because these don't change after the application is put in. Presumably people who apply would actually want to go there if it is their BEST option. (well, maybe not overqualified hookem).</p>

<p>Does a larger percentage of WashU admits just have more better options than similarly ranked schools? Well, maybe that depends on how "better" options are determined. If you normalize for numerous mitigating factors, such as cost, which the "revealed preferences" study did, then if WashU is perceived by students as less prestigious than peer schools, that would likely result in a lower yield than similarly ranked schools.</p>