Johnson181

I'd hardly say it's remotely legit.
So what about the general population? The general population could not get in to washu. Students who are applying to top schools have of course heard of washu, and are capable of forming their own opinions.

Either way, the general population doesn't know about schools like Dartmouth either. Most would probably have no idea that it's even an ivy, unless they live near it or know someone who goes there. I'd wager that half of my high school class didn't know it was an ivy until one girl applied- and I went to a really affluent high school where 100% of the students go on to college.

lockn

I definitely know people applying to ivies who hadn't heard of WASHU until they got a letter or saw the USNEWS ranking.

applicannot

Then those people are prestige hunters; they think only the Ivies are worth caring about. So they looked up all eight on Wikipedia, applied for all of them thinking "the more I apply to the better chance I have of getting into one", and hoped for the best. Frankly, I'm not torn up that those people hadn't heard of WashU.

lockn

That's completely false. These are people that have wanted to go to Columbia or Brown (or MIT or Georgetown) for years. Those schools could not spend a cent on marketing and they would still bring in 10,000+ applicants (not sure if this is the case for UPenn). I said Ivies because the previous poster brought them up. And this dispute has nothing to do with the original question: how does WUSTL get so many applications?

applicannot

WUSTL gets so many applications because it's an excellent school.

srunni

Exactly, it's a good thing. Unlike the Ivies, WashU isn't full of snobs.

rift

The reason that the admission rate is low is because the stats are somewhat manipulated.

Adcoms put some highly-qualified (read: more likely to go to another school) applicants on a waitlist, and when they do decide to go to a different school they are not included in the school's acceptance %.

DudeDiligence

As interested students consider this oft-repeated criticism of Wash U's admission practices, they might want to consider the other side of the same coin:

Wash U will indeed waitlist some statistically highly-qualified applicants. Often, this occurs when the combined experience of the Adcom suggests that certain applicants are less than serious about Wash U as a preferred landing spot, but are instead using Wash U as something of a "safety." Wash U has no obligation to function as a "safety school" for the so-called "highly-qualified" applicants of the world. It's no accident that for going on fifty years, Wash U has had a reputation for having a particularly happy, satisfied, and engaged student body. A very large percentage of Wash U alums simply gush about their time at Wash U. Are their admissions practices different than you'll find at many other top research universities and LACs? Absolutely. But then again, Wash U doesn't have the benefit of the "Ivy League" tag, or the East Coast cachet, but instead attempts to overcome geographical disadvantages (and an unfortunate and geographically ambiguous name) by developing marketing and admissions strategies which work for them.

Wash U absolutely waitlists some highly-qualified applicants. So what? Like other schools, they also deny many highly-qualified applicants too. And, they also accept many highly-qualified applicants.

Students interested in Wash U should consider the entire picture. Bottom-line is no school is for everyone.

heyalb

^^ That's the most cogent, thoughtful, and well-written answer to a question that has become irksome in its frequency. Either people just don't get it, or they enjoy being trolls. Stupidity, and/or having nothing better to do with your time, always makes a poster look pitiful.

DudeDiligence, I'm copying your answer, and the next forty times some variation of this same hyped-up nonsense emerges as a new thread, I'm going to lead them right back here.

Well done, Dude.

DudeDiligence

Thanks heyalb (post #24). I'm certain that this preoccupation with Wash U's admission practices must be one of the top-5 discussed issues in all of CC-land. Like planets orbiting the Sun, it resurfaces every college season, with all of the predictable give and take. From my perspective, it's one part trolling, one part those who are either inexperienced about the process generally or not looking at the process other than superficially.

I get it, I get it ... the high-achieving college applicants of the world desperately want an outstanding private school where their stats and incredible achievements alone guarantee them an invite. Of course they want this. Who wouldn't? Many flagship State unis essentially offer this to their in-state high-achievers, but this bunch wants a top private offering the same guarantee. Got it. But, you know what? Why would a self-respecting, forward-thinking, high-achieving school in its own right want to fill the niche of being some sort of safety school for the stars? Wash U has a proud and somewhat unique history. They don't want this role and their admission practices prove it.

I've got long enough experience with Wash U to know that they've been a simply outstanding school since the 1960's. High-achieving pre-meds (primarily) flocked there despite having no national profile. As the world began to "discover" Wash U (thanks in large part to their own marketing efforts), you see a sense of "entitlement" to a Wash U invite that you'd never see at an Ivy or at a top East Coast Uni or LAC. There's no crying in baseball -- there's no entitlement in top school admissions! Instead, any applicant that really wants to attend Wash U (ANY applicant, no matter the stats), must convince Admissions that their interest is real, genuine, and sincere. Are there exceptions to this? Do people fall through the cracks? Of course things don't work perfectly in numbers this large. But, in my opinion, to chalk up admissions practices as being a way to simply "game the USNWR rankings," rather than understanding the historical context of Wash U as a once "hidden gem" now gone national, is an incredible misreading of going on fifty years of Wash U history.

Everything about their admissions process reflects they want students who want them too. These are the kind of happy and energized students who make a given campus a great place to be. As I mentioned before, Wash U has long had a reputation for having this kind of campus. Talk to alums from the '60's, '70's, '80's and '90's. Watch as their eyes glaze over and they almost drool as they express their love for their alma mater. Not all of them do this, but a huge percentage do. And, today, admissions is very clearly and deliberately doing what they can to insure this same kind of feeling for the future (despite the rather selfish "Ivy-safety" role that some want them to take on). And if these admissions practices coincidentally work to their benefit vis a vis the "sacred" USNWR ranking system -- GREAT. Nice fringe benefit for them! And nice fringe benefit for all of us who believe that it's always good to help reduce this incredibly misplaced reliance on a magazine's "ranking system" that was originally conceived as a nice "add-on" to helping to evaluate the subjective college experience, but has somehow become perceived as a be-all, end-all objective scoreboard.

That's my opinion anyway. Reasonable minds may differ. My only interest here is cautioning people who are new to college admissions to read beyond "headlines" and determine what truly makes sense.

applejack

While all that may be true, you can't deny the results of WUSL's conscious effort to rise in the USNWR rankings. It may be noble, it may be justified, and it is certainly a great school, but it was a conscious effort to skyrocket up that ranking methodology that doesn't sit well with a lot of people. That's both a legitimate criticism from those who don't like to see schools game the system as well as a legitimate pursuit by WUSL seeking to be the best it can be and receive recognition for it.

Studies show that for each increase in ranking, there's a significant percentage increase in applications for any school.

DudeDiligence

Applejack ... I can't disagree with anything you're saying. I'm certain the folks at Wash U are conscious of how their marketing and application procedures benefit them -- both in quality and quantity of applicants -- and how all of this helps them achieve this dual result of bringing top kids to their school who want to be there while also achieving a high place in the USNWR rankings (thereby insuring quality and quantity applicants in the future).

Wash U admits and enrolls their share of top students. The school continues to have a reputation for having a significant percentage of happy and satisfied students. Their admissions practices seem deliberately designed to uncover the students with genuine interest by almost forcing students to take the extra steps to show that interest. Their practices clearly work for them -- getting their share of top students who truly want to be there. Personally, I find these practices to be within the bell-curve enough that it doesn't offend me and I'm content to let them do their business their way. Contrarian and cynic that I am, I don't find any USNWR gamesmanship to be offensive, I find it frankly humorous and necessary (in a sort of "helping to point out how silly this over-reliance on USNWR really is" kind of way). But that's me. If such practices don't "sit well" with some people, then these people are within their rights to avoid Wash U and cast their lot with other schools instead. We're fortunate that there are an incredible number of great schools in the U.S.

Anyway, these issues are debated each and every year and I don't believe I have any unique insights. I have my opinions and my intention was to simply present the other side of the "Wash U is bad because it games the system" (the USNWR system!!!) coin.

heyalb

^^^ This Dude knows whereof he speaks. All those considering WashU (as well as those intent on dissing WashU) should read, and re-read, DudeDiligence's posts.

interestingguy

At last, one of WashU's very own fully admits that their school has "Tufts Syndrome." Now if only other WashU apologists stop lying and denying the obvious...


But WashU does have an obligation to ensure a reasonably fair and transparent admissions process, which it sorely lacks.


Neither do schools such as the University of Chicago or Northwestern, but they do not engage in similar, questionable admissions practices.


So...you must be proud.

interestingguy

No applicant is asking for a guarantee of anything. But s/he should at least have a reasonable expectation that his or her "stats and incredible achievements" are not going to count against them in the admissions process to the extent that they'd be waitlisted for their over-qualifications. Given that WashU clearly uses a candidate's likelihood of enrollment as a criterion in admissions, then it behooves the school to state this openly. Otherwise, WashU's just cheating highly qualified applicants of their time and money, not to mention using them as pawns in its rankings game.


That's because the ivies and their peers have actually produced notable achievements and graduates. Who was the last WashU (undergrad) alumnus/a to have, say, become President, served on the US Supreme Court or won a Nobel Prize??? (Hint: this is a trick question.)


UGH?!?!


How exactly do WashU's admissions practices "help reduce this incredibly misplaced reliance" on the US News rankings??? Everything WashU does by gaming the rankings only further exacerbates it. No school relies on its US News rankings more dearly than WashU. Being #12 is its one shining moment.