<p>I am curious about this.
I read the following post from a poster known as truazn yesterday:</p>
<p>
[quote]
At the end of the day I think the general concensus is something like this:</p>
<p>Is WashU, with regards to the bigger picture, a good school? Definitely yes. It legitimately belongs in the top 20 probably.</p>
<p>However, is it as GOOD as Cornell, where it's USNews rank suggests it is? Definitely not. Its reputation and overall caliber of students are nowhere as good as the Ivies. WashU loses HORRENDOUSLY in all cross-admit battles. There's a good Ivy-inferiority complex up there at WashU (friend goes there) whereas on the other hand WashU isn't even on the avg Ivy student's radar.</p>
<p>It's overrated respective to its USNews rank.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Whether WashU has an 'Ivy inferiority complex' I'm not sure.. I never applied because my parents said they wouldn't let me go to the school since 'they never heard of it' till I brought it up... certainly this would likely be true relative to HYP.. however, what about the other Ivies?</p>
<p>The reason why I bring this up is.. entirely in terms of academic merit, is Wash U really less selective than some of the others?</p>
<p>The reason why I ask this is take a look at SAT averages.</p>
<p>Cornell's median SAT is 1385, not horrible... but WashU's is 1450! WashU rises above Penn, Columbia, and Brown as well and ties with Dartmouth. This is a difference of sixty-five points between Cornell and WashU. I am confused by how Wash U can have a 'lower caliber of students in every way'.. if Wash U pwns Cornell in test scores. Is it simply that Wash U gets a lot of smart midwestern kids as Duke gets a lot of smart southern kids... and the northerners (NORTHEAST W00T!!!) are what truazn considers to be 'average Ivy students'</p>
<p>I think it is the most underrated school on College Confidential.</p>
<p>Cornell doesn't equal Harvard.
End of story..</p>
<p>SO beyond agreed. I thought about posting a topic similar to this. People always get all huffy about WashU's odd admissions process, but the truth is (along with yield-protection, I will admit that I feel washU does this), WashU does NOT want students that would rather be in some stuffy northeast school that has a bigger name to it. They want students who simply want to learn but not be competitive and don't need their school to have a well-known name to know its an amazing school. Academically, WashU is INCREDIBLY well rounded, even past the medical school, WashU does not have many weak points (perhaps arguably engineering though the biomedical engineering program is great). People who bash WashU simply don't know enough about it. Thanks, Mondo, for pointing this out!</p>
<p>WashU is so much more selective than the lower Ivies. People (especially on CC) just don't respect it because it doesn't have a name attached to it. But really, who cares? That just means that people wanting to get an education will go there, whereas the people out for nothing but prestige will go to the lower Ivies.</p>
<p>I also found WashU's average SAT to be a compelling argument against accusations of their "Tufts syndrome" practices. I mean, if they're rejecting so many obvious Ivy admits, why are their scores so comparable to those in the Ivy league?</p>
<p>From my perspective (recent admit to WashU and a 34 ACT...i know...weak for CC), I'm glad that WashU is looking beyond their applicants' test scores.</p>
<p>I always say that one needs three things to be successful. First, they need the ability (test scores). Then, they need the drive (ECs, volunteering, research, etc.). And finally, they need the opportunity to display these things (WashU and other great universities around the world).</p>
<p>I think so many people who are accusing WashU of "Tufts syndrome" are neglecting the criteria of the drive or passion to succeed. Just because you can succeed, doesn't mean you will. You've got to want to, too. Maybe that's what WashU is looking for.</p>
<p><em>note</em>...I've some UCLA decisions this year that may be following this trend as well. Also, I read somewhere on CC that USNWR don't even use percent yield in determining their rankings any more...I can't confirm this, though.</p>
<p>We are from the NorthEast - NJ actually. And my d is seriously considering WUSTL. We went out for a visit, and the campus is beautiful, everyone was incredibly friendly. St Louis seems like a nice city - not too big, but still, stuff to do. Reasonable weather - UChicago & NorthWestern are great schools - but cold. We went to Boston in June to check out BU, BC, Harvard, NorthEastern - it was raining for 5 days straight - and in the low 50s !!! Around here a lot of kids want to go to Columbia or NYU - but NYC is very expensive, and my d already spends a lot of time there, so she wants a change of scenery. She went to UPenn for a summer pgm, but didn't want to apply there.</p>
<p>One big advantage with WashU is the flexibility in double majors - they seem really willing to make it work, and to help you get out in 4 years. She got accepted into the Engineering School & Art & Design. At UMich, you can't even apply for the second major until Soph year. I guess Brown has a simlar open curriculum - but my d was deferred ED.</p>
<p>^Milkmagn- where are you getting that it has "horrible" placement and weak academics outside of medicine? It is very academically strong all around.</p>
They're rejecting many obvious HYP admits, not admits of the lower Ivies. The two most qualified students from my school who applied to washU were waitlisted while 8 or 9 other students got accepted. There's no way this would've happened if it weren't for washU's obsession with yield.</p>
<p>Well, I know my d capabilities, and there is no doubt in my mind that she will be successfull in work or grad school, regardless of the school's official placement rate and "weak academics." So much of college is what you make of it. If the student does not have initiative & ability, no placement office will be able to help them. And if they do, then they are well situated to take advantage of the placement office, but also search out their own opportunities.</p>
<p>Think about it...in 4 years this huge demographic bulge will be hitting the work force all at once. Historical placement data may not be applicable, given the nature of this highly competitive, highly qualified pool of top 20 (or top 50) applicants. Also, with the current economic turmoil, the top players may not be the same 4 years from now. 20 years ago, who thought IBM would someday be a bit player ? And what about Bear Stearns - pretty hot 3 years ago. How about Arthur Andersen -- remember the Big 8 Accounting ?</p>
<p>But Cornell is a great school also, and I am not so sure there is much difference betweem # 5 - 20 on the USNWR lists. The best thing is to find a school that works for you, so that you have a happy, fun, successful college experience.</p>
<p>
[quote]
They're rejecting many obvious HYP admits, not admits of the lower Ivies. The two most qualified students from my school who applied to washU were waitlisted while 8 or 9 other students got accepted. There's no way this would've happened if it weren't for washU's obsession with yield.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There is an Ivy League in Philadelphia which is even more infamous for this practice in admissions. However, I don't know what it will be like this year since it got a new dean of admissions. However, both of these schools manage to get very strong, if not equal, classes.</p>
<p>"They're rejecting many obvious HYP admits, not admits of the lower Ivies. The two most qualified students from my school who applied to washU were waitlisted while 8 or 9 other students got accepted. There's no way this would've happened if it weren't for washU's obsession with yield. "</p>
<p>We were warned by BC that admission decisions may not make any sense b/c we, as outsiders, do not see the whole app. If you didn't see the recs, essays, or supplements, you do not really know why the "top students" were rejected,or if indeed if they are actually "top students."</p>
<p>I question the whole "top student" consensus. Many time popular opinion on who the top students are is very subjective, and inaccurate. The people that are judged top students by the other students, are actually outgoing or argumentative, self-promoting or sterotypes- in our HS most people (incl teachers) assume Asians are better students, when that is not universally true. Esp at a large school, there can be many high achievers who are not even on the radar screen for the group think.</p>
<p>slipper...maybe it is, but don't you think it's getting to be a bit of a monotonous argument here on CC? It seems like so many people getting rejected from WashU and other top schools are just complaining about how they're "overqualified."</p>
<p>However, what happens when so-called "top students" get rejected from HYP? No one says that their partaking in "yield management," and the rejects then have nowhere to turn. Everyone knows how random HYP can be, so why can't more people accept the fact that maybe WashU and other schools are actually just having to choose from thousands of great students too...hence the arbitration? </p>
<p>I think this yield management thing is just getting blown out of proportion, even if it does exist to some extent.</p>
<p>If there is no regard to yield management, then explain to me why on my school's Naviance plot, there are almost twice as many kids waitlisted than accepted or rejected combined. Then explain to me why all the accepted kids are concentrated in the middle of the plot, not at the upper right corner.</p>