<p>We have to admit Wash U is one of the top schools in this country and it’s getting better; all the conspiracy theories are given for its location since nobody understands how a university in the middle of nowhere has that high rank and it’s increasing its applications and selectivity year after year.</p>
<p>To ST2: Times change. The line that was long last year may be shorter this year. One would hope. But would you stand in a line at 8 pm (RD) with a low probability that you would be seated (and they wouldn't tell you how long the wait is) if you knew you had a better chance for a meal at 5 pm (ED)? We all know that waitlists are for managing yield. But WashU's use of the waitlist has been excessive in the past. </p>
<p>To Nervous1: WashU is a great school. Perhaps in the future we won't have to have this discussion. I certainly hope so. In the meantime, I will be curious to read the postings next spring and to find out from the parents of this year's seniors at our local hs whether WashU put an excessive number of qualified RD applicants on their waitlist with no prospect for admission.</p>
<p>Peace.</p>
<p>brainsprain - That is why it is very important to choose your lines wisely. Do the research calculate your viability as a candidate and then choose. If indeed WashU is your first choice, then go ED - if you are not sure then again look at your viability - show interest - visit (if possible) and go RD. RD worked out very well in our case, since there was no obvious first choice. All things considered WashU ended up being the best choice. At the same time there is no "best" school for everyone. It is about best fit for each individual student. In our case WashU ended up being the best choice - that may or may not be the case for other people. Remember RD is not just about WL - the majority of succesful applicants are admited in the first round of RD. Two years ago WashU accepted nobody from the WL. Nobody is forced to stay on the WL - if that is not acceptable then choose another offer.</p>
<p>...awww :( brainspan is right .... (at least as far as how I am personally
thinking....)</p>
<p>To be where it is geographically and still be considered one of the
premier institutions WUSTL obviously is a super great academic place.
I was hoping WUSTL being rated so much higher than Tufts that there
were some other reason for my school's admit stats .....waitlist and
denials of (> 2340 SAT I, ~4.0 GPA, comparable ecs) and acceptances
of (2150-2270 SAT I, ~3.75 GPA, comparable ecs)</p>
<p>...in the area I want to specialize in, WUSTL is indeed a good place to
be; However my application will be viewed definitely with suspicion since
additionally I will not be able to travel to St. Louis and I abhor lying in
general and to educational institutions in particular and am not about to
throw away money when the probability of being waitlisted is sky high.</p>
<p>oh well...I'll :D and bear it <em>----:)----</em></p>
<p>...as the OP on this thread , I also wanted to state that I have the
deepest respect for WUSTL and the graduate/post grad level research work
being done there.... this was a genuine attempt on my part to
see if I should use my scanty cash reserves on an application to
WUSTL knowing what happened at my school in the near past (the
waitlisted went to H,P etc)</p>
<p>Those of you who are at WUSTL or have your kids there kindly
do not take offence :). As brainspan said Peace
...and Thank you very much for sharing your thoughts!</p>
<p>To those in constant complain mode, if you dont change your attitude and you always believe that your goodness if not enough to be accepted, dont apply, it shows up. To those who are ready to affront the college application process with optimism trusting in what you did, what you accomplished and knowing where you want to go, apply with no remorse, it shows up too.
If you feel you are exceptionally good, be ready to find other 1,300 as good or even better than you are and accept the challenge. Only looser see the grapes are not ready when they dont have teeth to eat them.</p>
<p>Sam - the US News category says "Freshman in top 10% of class." Do you think that means admitted or enrolled?? (Hint: to be a Freshman you usually have to enroll!)</p>
<p>Brainsprain - ever hear of early decision? Most schools practice it - it's a way of accepting only kids who are interested in your school. Do you think that discourages everyone else from applying regular decision?</p>
<p>I was clearly talking about SAT, not freshman in top 10% of their class. Just because it's true for one doesn't necessarily mean it applies to another. You have to take freshmen in top 10% in class with a grain of salt as well since in many schools, as much as half (or more) of the applicant pool doesn't submit class rank. All I am saying is I can't tell which stats they are using as there's virtually nothing available to confirm. I am not concluding anything and you shouldn't either.</p>
<p>Sam, you make a lot of assumptions on your own. If US News uses Freshman enrolled of class rank do you think they then switch to accepted for SAT scores in the very next column?? Wishful thinking on your part. What you should realize is that all these schools are very smart and sophisticated and are going to do everything in their power to enhance their rankings. You focus on Wash U all the time but go look at Yahoo College (again - remember I told you about Harvard's lack of SAT scores over 700 ranking before because of weakness of legacy scores) and now tell me what Brown's endowment is. Don't see it do you? Maybe that's because it's about half of the next lowest Ivy League school and a few billion less than Wash U's to boot. Given their record of taking off beat kids of parent's with money (to enhance their endowment), how aggressive do you think their reporting is?? Face up to it - the kids are voting with their feet and going to the school with one of the best academic/advisor programs, one of the best campuses, and one of the best locations on the planet. Relax and enjoy it!</p>
<p>jim, I wasn't making any assumption. I was questioning if you were making a fair comparison. Questioning isn't the same thing as making conclusion. </p>
<p>
[quote]
If US News uses Freshman enrolled of class rank do you think they then switch to accepted for SAT scores in the very next column?? Wishful thinking on your part
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The US News has no control of the data, so they couldn't have switched it. The US News simply publishes whatever schools give them. Did WashU give them mixed data? That's what I was questioning. You seemed to assume the answer is no without knowing that's actually the case. Wishful thinking? Well, things like that did happen. Emory was an example few years ago though it looks like that was an honest mistake and they have since submitted the enrolled stats (Emory has Common Data Set available on their website).</p>
<p>I don't like legacy either. But as far as stats goes, Brown publishes them on their website. <a href="http://www.brown.edu/Administration/Admission/gettoknowus/factsandfigures.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.brown.edu/Administration/Admission/gettoknowus/factsandfigures.html</a>. Note how the admitted pool has significantly higher percentage of 800 than enrolled pool even for a school with a very decent yield (it's likely Brown lost them to HY).
Other examples:
Tufts: <a href="http://admissions.tufts.edu/?pid=196%5B/url%5D">http://admissions.tufts.edu/?pid=196</a> (enrolled)
<a href="http://admissions.tufts.edu/?pid=121&c=111%5B/url%5D">http://admissions.tufts.edu/?pid=121&c=111</a> (admitted; ~40-pt difference between the enrolled and admitted students).
Duke: <a href="http://www.admissions.duke.edu/jump/applying/who_2011profile.asp%5B/url%5D">http://www.admissions.duke.edu/jump/applying/who_2011profile.asp</a> (admitted)
UPenn: <a href="http://www.admissionsug.upenn.edu/applying/profile.php%5B/url%5D">http://www.admissionsug.upenn.edu/applying/profile.php</a> (admitted)
Cornell: <a href="http://admissions.cornell.edu/downloads/EnteringClassProfile.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://admissions.cornell.edu/downloads/EnteringClassProfile.pdf</a> (enrolled)
Northwestern: <a href="http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2007/03/state.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2007/03/state.html</a> (admitted)
<a href="http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2007/10/admission.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2007/10/admission.html</a> (enrolled; 40-point difference between the enrolled and the admitted) </p>
<p>I was trying to find things like those above for WashU on their website or any WashU article but I couldn't find any. But for WashU to have the stats listed on US News, it means it somehow retains many high scorers while having a fairly low yield. It's possible but also rather unusual. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Face up to it - the kids are voting with their feet and going to the school with one of the best academic/advisor programs, one of the best campuses, and one of the best locations on the planet.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I am sure WashU provides one of the best educational experience. But if you are going to tout WashU's stats as comparable to HYP's and higher than Stanford's, I think it's only fair if you know for sure you are comparing apples to apples (enrolled vs enrolled).</p>
<p>Sam, US News asks the same questions of all the schools - by now I suspect each school knows the exact terms and definitions of each question. It is possible that any school can falsely submit scores or not answer the question that US News asks (whether or not they post their scores on their website). We can't control that. But we do know that when US News adds up the data they receive to the questions they ask, they rank Wash U number six in selectivity and the SAT scores that Wash U reports are higher than the SAT scores that Stanford reports. You just have to live with that. You can argue all day long that Wash U's information is slanted and I can argue all day long that the other school's information is slanted - no one's going to win that argument.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You can argue all day long that Wash U's information is slanted and I can argue all day long that the other school's information is slanted - no one's going to win that argument
[/quote]
</p>
<p>well, i can kinda tell what many schools reported by digging up various sources like i just did. stanford sent us news the stats for enrolled: <a href="http://www.stanford.edu/home/statistics/#admission%5B/url%5D">http://www.stanford.edu/home/statistics/#admission</a>. since stanford has over 70% yield, the difference between the enrolled and admitted is likely insignificant for them anyway. i also just found UPenn's admitted stats are almost identical to last year's found on US News. here's one possible one giving admitted stats to US News.</p>
<p>Sam, you're doing good work and I must complement you on the reasoned manner in which you present your material. Here is another interesting tidbit: even the best Liberal Arts Colleges have US News stats that fall behind a large number of universities. (Students seem to prefer universities to LAC's.) Many of the LAC's have agreed to a pact to not report their information to US News anymore - wonder why? It is really impossible to know if each school is reporting accurately and I suspect each school (lets call it) "markets" its information in the best possible light.</p>
<p>This whole discussion started from the claim that WUSTL waitlists or rejects "overqualified" students. This strategy would significantly lower the stats for both admitted and enrolled students at WUSTL. Since that is not the case, obviously WUSTL accepts plenty of 2300+ scorers.</p>
<p>I am sure that claiming to be "overqualified" makes waitlisted/rejected students feel better, but it does not make their claim to be true.</p>
<p>I believe Wash U doesn't even publish a data set (if they do, please correct me).</p>
<p>I think that speaks loads about what the op is trying to point out.</p>
<p>do you really feel Wash U is more selective than Harvard or Stanford?</p>
<p>YES!!
Just last year, I had two good friends who were wait listed even though many of them were accepted into many other colleges of similar or higher rank such as Duke and Johns Hopkins. Their rec's include 2310-2380 SAT scores, 18/900 ranking, tons of math/science awards, numerous volunteer activities, club presidents, tons of SAT II subject tests perfect scores, both of them got 5's on every single seven or so of the AP tests they took </p>
<p>Instead, the people who did get in took much easier classes, has much lower GPA and rank, as well as lower score on SAT's </p>
<p>It's just weird!!! >< </p>
<p>I hope the same thing would not happen when I apply</p>
<p>1) WashU is a great school with an outstanding student body.</p>
<p>2) One data point in response to OP's question: son was accepted to Harvard, MIT, Princeton, and Stanford, waitlisted at WashU.</p>
<p>And your S is majoring in what? Hard to believe his choices, and harder that you are still mad because Wash U didn’t think he was that special to accept him. Many kids here were accepted to MIT, Cornell and Caltech, but they never would think to apply to Harvard.</p>
<p>There, there, I didn't say I was mad, and I'm not, I was just providing a data point that responds to the OP's question.</p>