<p>I recently went through my school's 3 year statistics regarding WUSTL.</p>
<p>Anyone with a GPA close to perfect AND SAT I sores > 2340 (1550 in earlier
years) has always been waitlisted and usually denied.</p>
<p>A bunch of folks with GPA not in the top 10 at our school
and SAT I scores below 2300 (>2150) seem to be accepted.</p>
<p>Has any one else come across this kind of data at their high school
regarding WUSTL?</p>
<p>...and yes the ecs were comparable across both groups....</p>
<p>WashU is notorious for rejecting/waitlisting overqualified applicants. They do not want to be seen as a safety.</p>
<p>I would like to see the overqualified kids that they "don't accept", since 93% of the freshmen were in the top 10% of their HS class and the middle 50% of freshmen scored 1370-1530 on the old SAT. Not too bad for "underqualified" students.</p>
<p>arwen15, WashU doesn't flat out waitlist "overqualified" candidates, but what they DO do is waitlist candidates who are obviously qualified but haven't shown much interest in actually attending the school. At our school, most of the HYPS...etc. bound students "throw in an application to WashU". Alot of them never visit the school and aren't really seriously interested, they just know it's a great school and that it's an easy application to complete since there is no required supplement. About half of our "cream of the crop" students who applied to WashU were accepted and half waitlisted. My guess is that the half who were accepted actually visited the school and had some real interest. </p>
<p>WashU wants kids who really want to be there, and the wonderful, positive atmosphere on campus is proof that their admissions approach works.</p>
<p>SATs and GPA aren't the only things WashU looks at - ECs and perceived interest in WashU are important, too.</p>
<p>Also, the business school at WashU has the 2nd highest average SAT scores out of ANY undergraduate business program in the country. MIT is #1 with 1478 (old scale), and WashU is #2 with 1443. Wharton's average is a 1430. I don't think that Olin could have the 2nd highest average SAT score without admitting students with stellar scores.</p>
<p>The kids waitlisted or rejected at D's school either 1)were using washu as a safety or only trying to get a BIG scholarship(ie didn't want to go there if they weren't given a BIG scholarship), 2) weren't qualified or 3) thought very highly of themselves and felt they should get in anywhere they applied and if they didn't the school must have rejected them because they were "over qualified"...any school that rejected them did so because according to them they were "over qualified"--and their essays were about how GREAT they were.
The kids I know that go there all have >2260 SAT's and were in the top 5%(actually more like 1-4%) of their HS....but all visited and showed interest.</p>
<p>If WashU admissions rejected as many qualified applicants as they waitlisted, I don't think you would read so many complaints. The word this year is that if your kid has the grades and scores, don't bother applying RD. That should cut down on the number of top applicants considerably, especially those seeking merit aid.</p>
<p>Interesting thread...Can any of you provide your Naviance links for this? There is way too much consensus on this all over the country; it's hard to figure out who actually gets admitted RD.....Lack of CDS doesn't help.....Does anyone know of an accepted student thread from last year as well???</p>
<p>Extremely well qualified applicants from our local high school (competitive New York public) have been rejected at WU and accepted at schools I thought were harder to get into (I don't know how much they wanted to get in). Was it named as a US News "best school" last year?</p>
<p>Sorry, our public h.s. doesn't provide Naviance. I think it's more of a private-prep school thing. </p>
<pre><code> Maybe WashU was particularly interested in students from CA and the West in 2006, but the kids my S knows who applied and got in all fell on the high side, if not above, the 25-75 percentile SAT range and had good grades, solid ECs, strong recommendations, the works. Some of the accepted students he knows chose other colleges, including his GF, who went to MIT. A couple from his h.s. applied and were WL or rejected. As I recall, they did not have as high SATs or class rank as my S did. So sorry, no data points to add to your research project.
</code></pre>
<p>My S applied RD and was admitted despite his NMF status ( 2310 SAT) and 35 ACT and top 2 percent class rank. He was an admitted Regents Scholar at UCB and UCLA and was also admitted to Cornell CAS and Northwestern and chose to go to WashU because it offered him everything he wanted academically and he felt comfortable and relaxed there. </p>
<p>I don't think WashU's admission policies are any weirder or more unpredictable than a lot of the other top colleges that are also spreading out across the country to look for high-achieving students who will make a good "fit." Some of MIT's and Brown's decisions are pretty strange if you ask me.</p>
<p>Actually the US News report shows Wash U taking 95% from the top 10% of the class which is higher than all but MIT (97%) and H and Y (tied at 95%) of the schools higher in the rankings. At 1370-1530 (25-75) Wash U's SAT's are higher than Stanford's at 1340-1540 so they are obviously getting the cream of the crop. The most logical explanation is they are going for qualified students who show an interest in Wash U which is the same policy you'll find at any school. They can wait list well qualified's who don't show interest and try to pick them off later if H,Y, or P do not accept them (after all chances of that are pretty good) if there is room on the wait list. I'd call that a good strategy.</p>
<p>Ultimately a self-defeating strategy, as more qualified applicants learn the truth and send their RD applications elsewhere.</p>
<p>jimb7,</p>
<p>Do you know if they are scores for the admitted or enrolled? I don't think anyone here can confirm one way or another. There's no admission stats on their website. ACT hasn't been brought up in this thread but someone wrote on CC before that they superscore ACT. So I'd take their stats with a grain of salt until I know what they actually are.</p>
<p>The scores are what was in the US News stats in this year's release. Schools that did not report this year's stats are footnoted (and last year's stats are used.) Wash U's results are not footnoted therefore one would presume they are this year's class. Admitted or enrolled/superscored or not - does it ever dawn on you guys that every school is doing its best to report in a manner that makes them look best? (Hello? Do you think schools report in a manner that makes them look worse?) Does it ever also dawn on you guys that just about every school except HYP has some strategy to their admission process to select/recruit (ever hear that word) the kids that are most likely to come? That strategy is hardly self-defeating in fact the opposite argument could easily be made and I would agree with it! Do you also not think that HYP admit some well under qualified legacies whose parent's happen to donate millions of dollars? Go to the H Yahoo college web page and tell me what percentage of their SAT scores are over 700? Can't find it? My buddy whose daughter goes there says its because the leagcies bring the scores so far down - they don't want it out. Maybe that's should be called "super-scoring." Maybe that strategy would be self-defeating (but I'll bet they don't think so when they look at their endowment.)</p>
<p>It would appear that WashU's strategy is not to recruit those most likely to attend, but to recruit those most likely to apply. No qualified applicant will apply RD to a school that seems more willing to say "maybe" than "yes" or "no." It's like standing in line at a restaurant that won't take reservations, but buys lots of advertising. It gets old real fast. Save your admission fees, time, travel cost to St. Louis and aggravation; look elswhere.</p>
<p>People are more than willing to stand in line at restaurants when they feel the quality offered is worth the wait. Seems that the same is true at WashU. As for the above statement about recruiting - just the opposite is true. WashU looks for students that show interest in attending. Do they look to attract the best potential pool of applicants - I would hope so - but so do most schools that have their act together. As for "Save your admission fees, time, travel cost to St. Louis and aggravation" - that may be true if the student is not qualified - If the student is qualified and interested, then that statement makes no sense.</p>
<p>Brainsprain, the real recruiting at Wash U is when they really want an exceptional student and they waive the application fee and they invite him/her to visit the campus all expenses paid even when they know that student is applying to the best schools in the country and he/her would be accepted in those schools as well.
Everyone applying to Wash U or other top university has the best qualifications to be accepted, but with only 1,300 in each class, those applying to top universities should show more than great GPAs and scores; they must have something no one else has, and the applicant that is able to show his/her uniqueness, it’s the one accepted.
BTW, if you are a North Dakota student you have a great chance to be accepted next year since no one from that state is represented in the 2011 class ;).</p>
<p>Brainsprain, we go through this discussion every year! WashU is one of the few top ranked universities that does not have high name recognition among the general public. It needs to "advertise" and get their name known so that top students put WashU in their consideration set. Granted, schools like HYPS..et al don't have to advertise to attract students, but why don't you tell qualified top students to save their application fees and not to bother visiting New Haven since Yale is are only going to accept 6% of the thousands of qualified students applying?</p>
<p>jimb7,</p>
<p>Actually, schools are supposed to report the stats for enrolled students, not admitted students. What other schools have is they have websites or articles telling which are which and you can check them against what's on US News. Emory reported theirs for the admitted students few years ago and their selectivity went up all of a sudden. Like you said, WashU's stats are higher than Stanford's. That to me is possible but at the same time, a little surprising. I just can't find anything about WashU's stats to confirm one way or another. In general, schools that are considered WashU's peers have admitted stats almost comparable to top Ivies. However, once the cross-admits turn them down for the top Ivies, the stats for the enrolled drop quite a bit (can be as many as 50 points). How much the drop is seems to correlate strongly with the relative yield. It's possible that the situation at WashU is just somehow different despite the fact their yield is on the low side among top schools.</p>