<p>
[QUOTE=applicannot]
Frankly, I’m not torn up that those people hadn’t heard of WashU.
[/quote]
Exactly, it’s a good thing. Unlike the Ivies, WashU isn’t full of snobs.</p>
<p>The reason that the admission rate is low is because the stats are somewhat manipulated.</p>
<p>Adcoms put some highly-qualified (read: more likely to go to another school) applicants on a waitlist, and when they do decide to go to a different school they are not included in the school’s acceptance %.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As interested students consider this oft-repeated criticism of Wash U’s admission practices, they might want to consider the other side of the same coin:</p>
<p>Wash U will indeed waitlist some statistically highly-qualified applicants. Often, this occurs when the combined experience of the Adcom suggests that certain applicants are less than serious about Wash U as a preferred landing spot, but are instead using Wash U as something of a “safety.” Wash U has no obligation to function as a “safety school” for the so-called “highly-qualified” applicants of the world. It’s no accident that for going on fifty years, Wash U has had a reputation for having a particularly happy, satisfied, and engaged student body. A very large percentage of Wash U alums simply gush about their time at Wash U. Are their admissions practices different than you’ll find at many other top research universities and LACs? Absolutely. But then again, Wash U doesn’t have the benefit of the “Ivy League” tag, or the East Coast cachet, but instead attempts to overcome geographical disadvantages (and an unfortunate and geographically ambiguous name) by developing marketing and admissions strategies which work for them.</p>
<p>Wash U absolutely waitlists some highly-qualified applicants. So what? Like other schools, they also deny many highly-qualified applicants too. And, they also accept many highly-qualified applicants.</p>
<p>Students interested in Wash U should consider the entire picture. Bottom-line is no school is for everyone.</p>
<p>^^ That’s *the most *cogent, thoughtful, and well-written answer to a question that has become irksome in its frequency. Either people just don’t get it, or they enjoy being ■■■■■■. Stupidity, and/or having nothing better to do with your time, always makes a poster look pitiful.</p>
<p>DudeDiligence, I’m copying your answer, and the next forty times some variation of this same hyped-up nonsense emerges as a new thread, I’m going to lead them right back here.</p>
<p>Well done, Dude. ;)</p>
<p>Thanks heyalb (post #24). I’m certain that this preoccupation with Wash U’s admission practices must be one of the top-5 discussed issues in all of CC-land. Like planets orbiting the Sun, it resurfaces every college season, with all of the predictable give and take. From my perspective, it’s one part ■■■■■■■■, one part those who are either inexperienced about the process generally or not looking at the process other than superficially.</p>
<p>I get it, I get it … the high-achieving college applicants of the world desperately want an outstanding private school where their stats and incredible achievements alone guarantee them an invite. Of course they want this. Who wouldn’t? Many flagship State unis essentially offer this to their in-state high-achievers, but this bunch wants a top private offering the same guarantee. Got it. But, you know what? Why would a self-respecting, forward-thinking, high-achieving school in its own right want to fill the niche of being some sort of safety school for the stars? Wash U has a proud and somewhat unique history. They don’t want this role and their admission practices prove it.</p>
<p>I’ve got long enough experience with Wash U to know that they’ve been a simply outstanding school since the 1960’s. High-achieving pre-meds (primarily) flocked there despite having no national profile. As the world began to “discover” Wash U (thanks in large part to their own marketing efforts), you see a sense of “entitlement” to a Wash U invite that you’d never see at an Ivy or at a top East Coast Uni or LAC. There’s no crying in baseball – there’s no entitlement in top school admissions! Instead, any applicant that really wants to attend Wash U (ANY applicant, no matter the stats), must convince Admissions that their interest is real, genuine, and sincere. Are there exceptions to this? Do people fall through the cracks? Of course things don’t work perfectly in numbers this large. But, in my opinion, to chalk up admissions practices as being a way to simply “game the USNWR rankings,” rather than understanding the historical context of Wash U as a once “hidden gem” now gone national, is an incredible misreading of going on fifty years of Wash U history.</p>
<p>Everything about their admissions process reflects they want students who want them too. These are the kind of happy and energized students who make a given campus a great place to be. As I mentioned before, Wash U has long had a reputation for having this kind of campus. Talk to alums from the '60’s, '70’s, '80’s and '90’s. Watch as their eyes glaze over and they almost drool as they express their love for their alma mater. Not all of them do this, but a huge percentage do. And, today, admissions is very clearly and deliberately doing what they can to insure this same kind of feeling for the future (despite the rather selfish “Ivy-safety” role that some want them to take on). And if these admissions practices coincidentally work to their benefit vis a vis the “sacred” USNWR ranking system – GREAT. Nice fringe benefit for them! And nice fringe benefit for all of us who believe that it’s always good to help reduce this incredibly misplaced reliance on a magazine’s “ranking system” that was originally conceived as a nice “add-on” to helping to evaluate the subjective college experience, but has somehow become perceived as a be-all, end-all objective scoreboard.</p>
<p>That’s my opinion anyway. Reasonable minds may differ. My only interest here is cautioning people who are new to college admissions to read beyond “headlines” and determine what truly makes sense.</p>
<p>While all that may be true, you can’t deny the results of WUSL’s conscious effort to rise in the USNWR rankings. It may be noble, it may be justified, and it is certainly a great school, but it was a conscious effort to skyrocket up that ranking methodology that doesn’t sit well with a lot of people. That’s both a legitimate criticism from those who don’t like to see schools game the system as well as a legitimate pursuit by WUSL seeking to be the best it can be and receive recognition for it.</p>
<p>Studies show that for each increase in ranking, there’s a significant percentage increase in applications for any school.</p>
<p>Applejack … I can’t disagree with anything you’re saying. I’m certain the folks at Wash U are conscious of how their marketing and application procedures benefit them – both in quality and quantity of applicants – and how all of this helps them achieve this dual result of bringing top kids to their school who want to be there while also achieving a high place in the USNWR rankings (thereby insuring quality and quantity applicants in the future).</p>
<p>Wash U admits and enrolls their share of top students. The school continues to have a reputation for having a significant percentage of happy and satisfied students. Their admissions practices seem deliberately designed to uncover the students with genuine interest by almost forcing students to take the extra steps to show that interest. Their practices clearly work for them – getting their share of top students who truly want to be there. Personally, I find these practices to be within the bell-curve enough that it doesn’t offend me and I’m content to let them do their business their way. Contrarian and cynic that I am, I don’t find any USNWR gamesmanship to be offensive, I find it frankly humorous and necessary (in a sort of “helping to point out how silly this over-reliance on USNWR really is” kind of way). But that’s me. If such practices don’t “sit well” with some people, then these people are within their rights to avoid Wash U and cast their lot with other schools instead. We’re fortunate that there are an incredible number of great schools in the U.S.</p>
<p>Anyway, these issues are debated each and every year and I don’t believe I have any unique insights. I have my opinions and my intention was to simply present the other side of the “Wash U is bad because it games the system” (the USNWR system!!!) coin.</p>
<p>^^^ This Dude knows whereof he speaks. All those considering WashU (as well as those intent on dissing WashU) should read, and re-read, DudeDiligence’s posts.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>At last, one of WashU’s very own fully admits that their school has “Tufts Syndrome.” Now if only other WashU apologists stop lying and denying the obvious…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But WashU does have an obligation to ensure a reasonably fair and transparent admissions process, which it sorely lacks.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Neither do schools such as the University of Chicago or Northwestern, but they do not engage in similar, questionable admissions practices.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So…you must be proud.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No applicant is asking for a guarantee of anything. But s/he should at least have a reasonable expectation that his or her “stats and incredible achievements” are not going to count against them in the admissions process to the extent that they’d be waitlisted for their over-qualifications. Given that WashU clearly uses a candidate’s likelihood of enrollment as a criterion in admissions, then it behooves the school to state this openly. Otherwise, WashU’s just cheating highly qualified applicants of their time and money, not to mention using them as pawns in its rankings game.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s because the ivies and their peers have actually produced notable achievements and graduates. Who was the last WashU (undergrad) alumnus/a to have, say, become President, served on the US Supreme Court or won a Nobel Prize??? (Hint: this is a trick question.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>UGH?!?!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How exactly do WashU’s admissions practices “help reduce this incredibly misplaced reliance” on the US News rankings??? Everything WashU does by gaming the rankings only further exacerbates it. No school relies on its US News rankings more dearly than WashU. Being #12 is its one shining moment.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>By virtue of acknowledging that this is a contrarian position, you’re admitting that most people (especially applicants and their parents) find WashU’s “gamesmanship” to be highly offensive. Why do you think? If it weren’t offensive, then why doesn’t WashU come right out and say that it games the US News rankings? Or, why do WashU apologists continue to lie and deny that such gaming exists? I am glad that you find this so “humorous” though.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The problem is that many people don’t understand or know about WashU’s admissions practices. WashU is certainly not forthcoming about them. The WashU apologists tell prospective students otherwise. (Just read some of the old posts in this forum; they’re truly laughable if they weren’t so dishonest and misleading.) Seriously, if highly qualified applicants really knew the intent and extent of WashU’s admissions practices, why on earth would they bother wasting time and money only to be waitlisted??? Obviously, they’re misinformed and WashU truly likes to keep them that way.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sorry if I don’t buy the “WashU is good because it games the US News system” argument. Nice try!</p>
<p>InterestingGuy (post #29) …</p>
<p>“One of WashU’s very own” … “WashU apologist?” Hardly. Instead, I’m just a midwesterner who has known perhaps 10-12 close friends and relatives who have attended Wash U since the early 1970’s. While I enjoyed a perfectly satisfactory Big 10 college experience, I visited Wash U numerous times, swapped notes, and witnessed first-hand how this “hidden gem” of a school (and that’s how it was perceived “back in the day”) provided an altogether different kind of overall college experience. When it came time to consider colleges for my kids, Wash U was a must-see. Pre-med oriented son attended; daughter wanted something else. Son had a great college experience in every possible way and Wash U certainly helped prepare him for success in medical school.</p>
<p>Briefly:
*Comparing Wash U to NU or U of Chicago – Wash U doesn’t have close to the all-important East Coast name recognition as NU or U of Chicago. Nothing wrong with them adopting admissions practices suiting their circumstances, rather than the circumstances of these other fine schools.
*I’d counter that Wash U’s admissions practices are absolutely “reasonably fair and transparent.” Anybody with open eyes understands that idiosyncratic Wash U handles admissions in a slightly different way. HS college counselors all know this. It’s very rare when a highly-qualified applicant who demonstrates real and genuine interest (as Wash U requires ALL of its applicants to do) is waitlisted. If you want a Wash U acceptance, follow their well-known rules. Just because a segment of the college applying public wants this school to function as a guaranteed auto-admit for the highly-qualified applicants of the world does not mean Wash U has to accept this dubious role. Why would they when they are clear about wanting students who want them, and they’ve had a few generations of incredible success balancing fine academics and a very happy student body?
*As for being “proud” of any idiosyncratic waitlisting practices – I could not care less. The observant applying public knows what Wash U requires in admissions. Their mission should be to continue with their own brand of successful college education. More power to them if the well-known way they conduct their admissions also sticks it to the silly USNWR ranking system.</p>
<p>Seriously, there is no point continuing to use CC’s bandwidth arguing points which have been argued ad nauseam on CC. For my money, it’s an Occam’s Razor kind of thing. Rather than seeing a conspiracy theory of Wash U as a black-hatted, ill-intentioned manipulator of the all-powerful USNWR for the purpose of bolstering their bottom-line (and messing with the highly-qualified applicants of the world), I prefer to use my 35+ year knowledge of this fine school and see the simpler explanation of an unusual, yet well-known admission practice as their very legitimate way to continue with the spectacular success this out-of-the-way little school has achieved (success measured by a great faculty, incredible facilities, disproportionately large endowment, and a legion of satisfied current students and alums).</p>
<p>So, it seems as I spent a little time responding to InterestingGuy in Post #29, I now see a gentleman who wants a full-fledged, point-by-point debate. Sorry. It’s not worth my time.</p>
<p>These issues have been discussed to death and it’s abundantly clear that Wash U has somewhat of a polarizing effect. Great. Then, have nothing to do with the school. Or, fight the noble battle for the benefit of all and expose Wash U’s nefarious practices in the full light of day. Your choice – it’s a free country, man.</p>
<p>My position is pretty clear. Just as clearly, you have a different position. So be it. My original intent was to make certain that folks new to this college application experience understood that there is another side to the “big, bad Wash U” coin. I’ve done that. I choose to see a fine institution who does things their way for entirely worthwhile reasons. You see something far more sinister. Neither one of us is going to convince the other.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE=interestingguy]
That’s because the ivies and their peers have actually produced notable achievements and graduates. Who was the last WashU (undergrad) alumnus/a to have, say, become President, served on the US Supreme Court or won a Nobel Prize??? (Hint: this is a trick question.)</p>
<p>
[QUOTE=DiligentDude]
Watch as their eyes glaze over and they almost drool as they express their love for their alma mater.
[/quote]
UGH?!?!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Please try to stick to things you know about, interestingguy. For starters, there have been 22 Nobel laureates associated with Washington University, 9 of whom did the major part of their research here. (wikipedia much? … and yes i know the 22 are mostly faculty, while you refer to alumni, but nobody’s arguing that WashU has always been a top 20 school since the 1920’s or something - if it had, it would be an ivy now…)</p>
<p>Secondly, that alumni have a positive opinion of their alma mater is kind of a good thing, despite your ingenious and constructive response. Because most people, when looking for a college, want to make a choice they won’t regret. </p>
<p>
[QUOTE=interestingguy]
The problem is that many people don’t understand or know about WashU’s admissions practices.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh so true. Including you? Or were you still planning to respond to the 4-5 times you’ve been asked for your association with WUSTL (or <em>any</em> college for that matter) at some point in the future?</p>
<p>I still maintain that the only “evidence” for WashU doing anything resembling gaming the system or “shady admissions” is the rumors that wind up on CC. Please do not add to these rumors (which come up every year when decisions come out) unless you have first-hand experience with the school, because the burden of proof will be on you. Does WashU waitlist well-qualified students? Yes. Why? Because the school can only admit so many people. WashU is no different from any other competitive school in this regard - decisions come down to splitting hairs, and not everyone who thinks they ought to get in will get in. Plain and simple.</p>
<p>Sorry for my terseness, but I’m a bit bothered to see legitimate and helpful posters being attacked by posters like “interestingguy” who spend their time doing nothing but deriding schools like WashU, Columbia, and Duke, without ever producing reference to a shred of actual experience with any of them. If this seems like an unfair accusation please check his posting history here: <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/search.php?searchid=18940386[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/search.php?searchid=18940386</a></p>
<p>WUSTL student:
</p>
<p>WUSTL parent:
</p>
<p>WUSTL student:
</p>
<p>WUSTL parent:
</p>
<p>Translation: WUSTL possesses “Tufts Syndrome”!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Translation: ZERO Nobel Laureates received their undergraduate degrees at WUSTL.</p>
<p>If WUSTL is to be bashed for “waitlisting well-qualified students,” then there are a ton of other schools that would need to be added to this list! There are also a ton of schools that blanket us with mailings, and some of them trumpet their emphasis on environmental sustainability.</p>
<p>Translation for virtually everything IG is saying on this thread: I won’t rest until everybody sees things my way.</p>
<p>This isn’t fight club, you know? Make your point, counsellor, then give it a rest and let the “jury” decide. Some will be more than content to let a school follow its own path (particularly when according to many, said school is successful and a fine place to receive a college education). Others may demand compliance with the way other schools do their business, or cry foul or manipulation about this or that, or just generally argue “overrated.” Fine. There is room on the opinion bus for all of us. Thank you in advance for giving others on CC the courtesy and respect to make up their own minds.</p>
<p>We are just starting down the college admissions road, but can someone point me to a place we WUSTL’s odd addmissions polices are articulated?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>LOL, they’re articulated in pretty much any of interestingguy’s posts.</p>
<p>There are also maybe two or three other frustrated posters, like interestingguy, who seem to know way more about WUSTL’s admissions policies than they know about how to check out a book at their own library…or study…or many other things they could be doing to help themselves and/or others. Interestingguy, in particular, has an axe to grind, although he’s been silent on where he goes to school. My guess is he was rejected by WUSTL (and Duke and Columbia, two other schools he frequently bashes). Hence, his posts clearly display his somewhat understandable frustration, although a mature poster with some life experience would have moved on a long time ago.</p>
<p>I see this is your first post…you will quickly learn who proudly belts out dribble.</p>