WUSTL: Underrated! (At Least On College Confidential)

Applying to College
41

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Are you saying that all the people who go to lower ivies are there just for prestige? And, what makes you say that WashU would provide any better education than these schools? This is insulting, to say the least. </p>

<p>Besides, many ivies - Cornell included, admit a very wide range of SAT scores. I saw numerous people on CC as well as in real life getting rejected from Cornell with near perfect stats. Cornell is unique in the sense that it has 7 undergrad colleges, while most colleges only have 2: LAS and Engineering. Cornell's Hotel school and Architecture school, in particular, are the best of their respective fields and the admission into these two schools is pretty intense, to say the least. Yet, these schools place more importance on factors such as work experience, leadership, portfolio, etc. rather than SAT scores for admission. </p>

<p>Same thing holds true for Brown. I scored 2300 SAT and 34 ACT, top 2-3% of my class, yet, I got rejected from Brown last year. Really, saying that "lower" ivies are less selective than WashU bc their avg. SAT scores are lower isn't a very good observation. The average accepted gpa for Harvard Business School is 3.5. The average accepted undergrad gpa at Wharton (MBA) is 3.5. Does this mean that these two amazing schools aren't very selective? Their admit rates hover around low teens. </p>

<p>Bottom line is that maybe these schools, like Cornell or Brown, don't weigh SAT's importance in admission as heavy as WashU does.</p>

42

<p>patlees88...don't take our word for it. Look at USNWR "Toughest to Get Into." </p>

<p>Brown actually is considered tougher to get into; however, Dartmouth and Cornell aren't. In fact, Cornell is...obviously...not even on their top 20.</p>

<p>1 Harvard College
2 Princeton University
3 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
4 Yale University
5 Stanford University
6 Brown University
7 Columbia University--Columbia College
8 University of Pennsylvania
9 Washington University in St. Louis
10 California Institute of Technology
11 Pomona College
12 Duke University
13 Amherst College
14 Williams College
15 Dartmouth College
16 Middlebury College
17 The Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art
18 Georgetown University
19 Haverford College
20 Swarthmore College</p>

43

<p>Let’s make some of these arguments moot:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Heavy yield management happens; if some are unable to accept the fact, perhaps look at the Naviance that Gaffe posted. The "lower" tier students are rejected, the “middle” tier is almost completely waitlisted, while the "upper" tier is accepted/waitlisted. (Furthermore, my school in Arkansas applies heavily to Washu, almost no one is rejected, always waitlisted; our valedictorian two years ago who is now at Princeton was rejected)</p></li>
<li><p>WashU simply plays the ranking game; it was ranked 23rd in 1988 and 12th in 2007. It is the only school in the top 20 that superscores ACT. Trying to boost its yield rate is an obvious attempt to boost rank/selectivity. WashU has a higher SAT than many schools; NO ONE in their right mind would say that a higher SAT score indicate a more selective or better school. Using only numbers to gauge selectivity and excellence is stupid.</p></li>
<li><p>Someone tell me an area of study WashU excel at beside medicine? (Despite having higher MCAT and GPA requirements than JHU and Harvard, two unarguably better medical schools)</p></li>
<li><p>But there is no doubt that WashU is a great school. It is definitely not underrated on CC (Imo, its rank should be around 20ish). Furthermore, it would be unfair to say that it is better or more selective than some of the schools mentioned in this thread. Let the USNWR ranking rest, it means nothing.</p></li>
</ol>

44

<p>Most of the accepted students at WashU don't end up at WashU, anyway. WashU has the lowest yield among top 15 schools. They initially would go for the best applicants, and waitlisting tons of people. But, bc of their yield rate, WashU ends up admitting many waitlisted students to fill their classes anyway each year. Their selectivity, it seems, is inflated by their waitlisting game thing.</p>

<p>Also, what significance does this selectivity chart hold in telling you about WashU? Sure, it tells that they only go for the finest applicants, but unfortuantely, these students end up at other places anyway in most cases.</p>

45

<p>Aardvark, that simply isn't true. After college job placement puts you on a fast track that can take years to overcome. Many industries (particularly high finance) the only way in is after college or a top notch MBA. Also, those that get the best jobs after college tend to get into better MBA programs. Its hard to explain, but if you want to play at the top levels of business your undergrad school does matter. In my MBA program (a top 5), the students who had great jobs before college were at a significant advantage. And the truth is that the best business jobs are much tougher to get if you're not in a "consideration set" school like HYP, Columbia, Dartmouth, Duke, etc.</p>

<p>As for an education, I am arguing that WashU doesn't do as well as any of the top 10 schools. Its not undergrad focused, but yet as a research institution its not top 10 either. Grad placement is not top 25, at every top list I've ever seem WashU isn't that high up on placement (see a couple below). WashU is a good school, but its not top 10. Often on a per student basis its not in the top 25, WSJ had it at #41.</p>

<p>Harvard Law School
2006-2007 # of Students Undergraduate Enrollment
Harvard 241 6,715
Yale 113 5,303
Stanford 79 6,391
Penn 57 9,730
Princeton 54 4,775
Brown 48 5,798
Cal-Berkeley 48 23,863
Columbia 46 5,593
Cornell 45 13,523
DUKE 41 6,259
Ucla 39 25,432
Dartmouth 35 4,005
Georgetown 32 6,587</p>

<hr>

<p>Yale Law School
2005-2006 # of Students Undergraduate Enrollment
Harvard 89 6,715
Yale 86 5,303
Stanford 42 6,391
Princeton 34 4,775
Columbia 18 5,593
Brown 17 5,798
Cal-Berkeley 16 23,863
DUKE 13 6,259
Dartmouth 13 4,005
Williams College 12 1,965
U of Virginia 10 13,440
Amherst 9 1,648</p>

<hr>

<p>U of Virginia Law School
Class of 2007 Profile # of Students Undergraduate Enrollment
U of Virginia 48 13,440
DUKE 19 6,259
Princeton 13 4,775
William & Mary 10 5,651
Cornell 10 13,523
UNC 10 16,706
Georgetown 9 6,587
Penn 9 9,730
Emory 8 6,546
Dartmouth 7 4,005</p>

46

<p>I'm sorry. I didn't realize that the only way to judge someone's success after college was based on their business degree/job. I actually thought that some people make a living in other fields that don't necessarily require an MBA. If we restrict the discussion to only business and only high-powered I-banks, then I guess my MD (went to BigStateU for undergrad and top 10 med school) really won't be in the discusson. After all where did Michael Dell get his MBA? How about Condaleeza Rice?</p>

<p>Not to be so sarcastic, but in most arenas what you know (and your work ethic) gets you farther than the name of your college.</p>

47

<p>While graduating from a top school is not a prerequisite for success, its absolutely a strong indicator and it provides a boost through better post graduate opportunities. The ivies and the other top ten do a better job at post graduate placement according to every survey of graduates available.</p>

48

<p>My school has a similar graph for WUSTL as the one posted by gaffe and
indicated by thissideup. Diamonds (Waitlist) on the top right, acceptances in
the middle and rejections to the left. But the ones onthe right, just sent
in their apps and did not visit WUSTL.</p>

<p>This year, students who did demonstrate interest (Couple of visits-in Summer
and during Fall) who fall in the top right corner (high GPA+high SAT) were
sent acceptance letters breaking the trend from past years.</p>

49

<p>hmmm, i think y'all are taking the whole yield management thing too far. then again, just as those people who have been rejected/waitlisted are biased, i was accept early notification and thus, am biased. however, i have also not yet received a single rejection and have been accepted to Duke, Rice, UC Berkely (to name the well-knowns out of the ten i've been accepted too) and thus, think i'm one of those people who WashU should have thought was "too qualified" for their school. instead, they are paying for my airfare to visit, have given me a 30K scholarship, and have literally sent me information about the school everyday since my acceptance. just as a case study, i don't feel that I fit the generalizations some of y'all are trying to make.</p>

<p>also...i am not trying to get into a top-school for job placement or graduate school placement. maybe i'm a sentimentalist but, i'm going there because i really enjoy learning and i really want a school with interesting people, classes, and an intellectual atmosphere. i honestly thought that was the reason these schools are great - because they really foster a love of learning.</p>