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.
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
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: http://www.stanford.edu/home/statistics/#admission. 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.
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.
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.
I am sure that claiming to be "overqualified" makes waitlisted/rejected students feel better, but it does not make their claim to be true.
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
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
It's just weird!!! ><
I hope the same thing would not happen when I apply
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.
Another data point, daughter accepted to Harvard, Stanford, Duke and Caltech, waitlisted by Wash U.
Advice: if you think you qualify for the above schools and want to go Wash U instead, you need to convince Wash U that you really have wash u as your top choice. Wash U does not want the yield to go down because of you.
D is attending Harvard (junior), she was accepted at Wash U. Niece is sophomore at Wash U, she was accepted also at Harvard and Yale and two state universities. Nephew is also at Wash U; he applied and was accepted at Princeton and Cornell (Wash U gave him full merit scholarship).
Wash U don't care about yield, they don't care about these discussions either, they got what they want and that's it.