What is WashU trying to accomplish by adding EA?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:EA will not fix WashUs decline in popularity. The yeild will just decrease.

Emory mom: it is spelled "yield."

Haha, good catch. Another tell tale sign is her not using apostrophe.

Of course, we likely won't see these mistakes from her going forward.

Emory mom, if WashU is losing popularity, how do you explain its decent yield rate? And why Emory's yield rates are so bad?

WashU 49%
Rice 43%
Vandy 63%
Emory 37% (Atlanta) 17% (Oxford)
Georgetown 44%
CMU 47%
Michigan 46%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The area around WashU is nice. We toured last summer and didn't see anything remotely sketch. Delmar Loop is okay, not as lively as UW-Madison's State Street. People who said WashU is unsafe either haven't stepped foot on campus, or have an inexplicable dislike of all things St. Louis.

Thanks. I’m thinking any sincere people posting like that got lost and ended up in areas that most WashU students and alumni never see.

We probably should see them more and think harder to help them, but they don’t have a lot to do with life at WashU.

I’ve lived in several major cities and visited umpteen more and all cities have terrible areas. What irked me about StL was that the terrible areas were weirdly intermixed with good areas.

You’re answering me here.

I think the horrible reason why St. Louis is so block-by-block is that, like Chicago and Detroit, it was hit terribly hard by segregation, the 1960s riots and misguided “urban renewal” and has never fully recovered.

WashU has one of the best social work schools in the country. I did participate in small volunteer program where I saw the “bad parts.” (I played with babies stuck in a group home.)

I don’t think that trashing Emory, Case Western, Rice, Rochester, Tufts or WashU over where they rank in their tier is very nice. They’re all lovely schools playing the hands they’ve been dealt as well as they can.

But I think it is reasonable to wonder why I could spend four years at WashU without ever visiting “the bad parts” for a class, or having a class that taught me why “the bad parts” had problems.

I wish we could get past this sad time when we talk a lot more about EA/ED strategies than about what universities are doing to make “the bad parts” of their communities less bad.

So, on the one hand, bashing WashU because of its location is bizarre, but, if we were talking about how well universities are serving their communities and what they could do better in that regard, that might be an interesting conversation.

Case, Rochester, and Tufts arent in that tier. They're 1.5- 2 tiers below.

This is silly and verifiably false. These schools are peer schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The area around WashU is nice. We toured last summer and didn't see anything remotely sketch. Delmar Loop is okay, not as lively as UW-Madison's State Street. People who said WashU is unsafe either haven't stepped foot on campus, or have an inexplicable dislike of all things St. Louis.

Thanks. I’m thinking any sincere people posting like that got lost and ended up in areas that most WashU students and alumni never see.

We probably should see them more and think harder to help them, but they don’t have a lot to do with life at WashU.

I’ve lived in several major cities and visited umpteen more and all cities have terrible areas. What irked me about StL was that the terrible areas were weirdly intermixed with good areas.

You’re answering me here.

I think the horrible reason why St. Louis is so block-by-block is that, like Chicago and Detroit, it was hit terribly hard by segregation, the 1960s riots and misguided “urban renewal” and has never fully recovered.

WashU has one of the best social work schools in the country. I did participate in small volunteer program where I saw the “bad parts.” (I played with babies stuck in a group home.)

I don’t think that trashing Emory, Case Western, Rice, Rochester, Tufts or WashU over where they rank in their tier is very nice. They’re all lovely schools playing the hands they’ve been dealt as well as they can.

But I think it is reasonable to wonder why I could spend four years at WashU without ever visiting “the bad parts” for a class, or having a class that taught me why “the bad parts” had problems.

I wish we could get past this sad time when we talk a lot more about EA/ED strategies than about what universities are doing to make “the bad parts” of their communities less bad.

So, on the one hand, bashing WashU because of its location is bizarre, but, if we were talking about how well universities are serving their communities and what they could do better in that regard, that might be an interesting conversation.

While I appreciate this sentiment, if Yale University, who has spent over a billion dollars trying to turn New Haven around, can't accomplish this then any other school is going to have a similarly hard time accomplishing your ideal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Competitive students get scooped up by EA schools, and schools that only have ED and RD lose out. I’ve never understood why schools still have RD.

You could argue that they should all have nothing but RD. Everything else just rushes often immature students to make decisions earlier and excludes real consideration of the bulk of their senior year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The area around WashU is nice. We toured last summer and didn't see anything remotely sketch. Delmar Loop is okay, not as lively as UW-Madison's State Street. People who said WashU is unsafe either haven't stepped foot on campus, or have an inexplicable dislike of all things St. Louis.

Thanks. I’m thinking any sincere people posting like that got lost and ended up in areas that most WashU students and alumni never see.

We probably should see them more and think harder to help them, but they don’t have a lot to do with life at WashU.

I’ve lived in several major cities and visited umpteen more and all cities have terrible areas. What irked me about StL was that the terrible areas were weirdly intermixed with good areas.

You’re answering me here.

I think the horrible reason why St. Louis is so block-by-block is that, like Chicago and Detroit, it was hit terribly hard by segregation, the 1960s riots and misguided “urban renewal” and has never fully recovered.

WashU has one of the best social work schools in the country. I did participate in small volunteer program where I saw the “bad parts.” (I played with babies stuck in a group home.)

I don’t think that trashing Emory, Case Western, Rice, Rochester, Tufts or WashU over where they rank in their tier is very nice. They’re all lovely schools playing the hands they’ve been dealt as well as they can.

But I think it is reasonable to wonder why I could spend four years at WashU without ever visiting “the bad parts” for a class, or having a class that taught me why “the bad parts” had problems.

I wish we could get past this sad time when we talk a lot more about EA/ED strategies than about what universities are doing to make “the bad parts” of their communities less bad.

So, on the one hand, bashing WashU because of its location is bizarre, but, if we were talking about how well universities are serving their communities and what they could do better in that regard, that might be an interesting conversation.

Case, Rochester, and Tufts arent in that tier. They're 1.5- 2 tiers below.

This is silly and verifiably false. These schools are peer schools

They're not

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:EA will not fix WashUs decline in popularity. The yeild will just decrease.

Emory mom: it is spelled "yield."

Haha, good catch. Another tell tale sign is her not using apostrophe.

Of course, we likely won't see these mistakes from her going forward.

Emory mom, if WashU is losing popularity, how do you explain its decent yield rate? And why Emory's yield rates are so bad?

WashU 49%
Rice 43%
Vandy 63%
Emory 37% (Atlanta) 17% (Oxford)
Georgetown 44%
CMU 47%
Michigan 46%

Less students submit test scores at WashU WashU admits more students from the midwest than Emory does from the south. Washu prefers wealthier students that like the environment they create.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:EA will not fix WashUs decline in popularity. The yeild will just decrease.

Emory mom: it is spelled "yield."

Haha, good catch. Another tell tale sign is her not using apostrophe.

Of course, we likely won't see these mistakes from her going forward.

Emory mom, if WashU is losing popularity, how do you explain its decent yield rate? And why Emory's yield rates are so bad?

WashU 49%
Rice 43%
Vandy 63%
Emory 37% (Atlanta) 17% (Oxford)
Georgetown 44%
CMU 47%
Michigan 46%

Less students submit test scores at WashU WashU admits more students from the midwest than Emory does from the south. Washu prefers wealthier students that like the environment they create.

Washu is whatever you make up in your mind, despite having no ties or personal knowledge about it. La la
Land.

🤪

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

While I appreciate this sentiment, if Yale University, who has spent over a billion dollars trying to turn New Haven around, can't accomplish this then any other school is going to have a similarly hard time accomplishing your ideal.

But at least that’s a slightly more useful discussion than whether two schools are in the same tier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The area around WashU is nice. We toured last summer and didn't see anything remotely sketch. Delmar Loop is okay, not as lively as UW-Madison's State Street. People who said WashU is unsafe either haven't stepped foot on campus, or have an inexplicable dislike of all things St. Louis.

Thanks. I’m thinking any sincere people posting like that got lost and ended up in areas that most WashU students and alumni never see.

We probably should see them more and think harder to help them, but they don’t have a lot to do with life at WashU.

I’ve lived in several major cities and visited umpteen more and all cities have terrible areas. What irked me about StL was that the terrible areas were weirdly intermixed with good areas.

You’re answering me here.

I think the horrible reason why St. Louis is so block-by-block is that, like Chicago and Detroit, it was hit terribly hard by segregation, the 1960s riots and misguided “urban renewal” and has never fully recovered.

WashU has one of the best social work schools in the country. I did participate in small volunteer program where I saw the “bad parts.” (I played with babies stuck in a group home.)

I don’t think that trashing Emory, Case Western, Rice, Rochester, Tufts or WashU over where they rank in their tier is very nice. They’re all lovely schools playing the hands they’ve been dealt as well as they can.

But I think it is reasonable to wonder why I could spend four years at WashU without ever visiting “the bad parts” for a class, or having a class that taught me why “the bad parts” had problems.

I wish we could get past this sad time when we talk a lot more about EA/ED strategies than about what universities are doing to make “the bad parts” of their communities less bad.

So, on the one hand, bashing WashU because of its location is bizarre, but, if we were talking about how well universities are serving their communities and what they could do better in that regard, that might be an interesting conversation.

Case, Rochester, and Tufts arent in that tier. They're 1.5- 2 tiers below.

Based on what criteria? Popularity as defined by applications or yield? Research output? Med school success rates? Employment outcomes?

Prestige. Emory/Rice> USC/NYU> Tufts/BC> Case/Rochester

But how is 'prestige' defined? Tufts > Case seems like a stretch. I don't live it the NE, so that probably has something to do with it, but I had never heard of Tufts until DC was getting into the college search. I have never met anyone or heard of anyone (that I know of that went there). BC I mainly know because it's popular in Catholic circles and they have had some good sports teams. Again, wouldn't say they would be considered more prestigious. Didn't BC just start engineering or something. Case engineering is well established and recognized.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Case, Rochester, and Tufts arent in that tier. They're 1.5- 2 tiers below.

This is silly and verifiably false. These schools are peer schools

They might not be exactly the same, but anyone looking for a good, midsize research university in a city would consider them.

I wish people would talk more about any universities that are less selective but have a similar serious but mostly friendly approach.

The problem isn’t whether WashU is a little more or less selective than Emory.

The issue is that all great, high-stats students who want a WashU-like education in a pleasant setting should be able to get it.

It’s terrible to think that serious, motivated students with SATs over about 1400 and GPAs over about 3.8, adjusted for difficulty, have to jump through hoops just to get a solid education in a place with decent food and nice buildings.

[Anonymous]

Wash U is in MO if you send a kid there now you are an idiot

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wash U is in MO if you send a kid there now you are an idiot

St. Louis is a blue stronghold.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The area around WashU is nice. We toured last summer and didn't see anything remotely sketch. Delmar Loop is okay, not as lively as UW-Madison's State Street. People who said WashU is unsafe either haven't stepped foot on campus, or have an inexplicable dislike of all things St. Louis.

Thanks. I’m thinking any sincere people posting like that got lost and ended up in areas that most WashU students and alumni never see.

We probably should see them more and think harder to help them, but they don’t have a lot to do with life at WashU.

I’ve lived in several major cities and visited umpteen more and all cities have terrible areas. What irked me about StL was that the terrible areas were weirdly intermixed with good areas.

You’re answering me here.

I think the horrible reason why St. Louis is so block-by-block is that, like Chicago and Detroit, it was hit terribly hard by segregation, the 1960s riots and misguided “urban renewal” and has never fully recovered.

WashU has one of the best social work schools in the country. I did participate in small volunteer program where I saw the “bad parts.” (I played with babies stuck in a group home.)

I don’t think that trashing Emory, Case Western, Rice, Rochester, Tufts or WashU over where they rank in their tier is very nice. They’re all lovely schools playing the hands they’ve been dealt as well as they can.

But I think it is reasonable to wonder why I could spend four years at WashU without ever visiting “the bad parts” for a class, or having a class that taught me why “the bad parts” had problems.

I wish we could get past this sad time when we talk a lot more about EA/ED strategies than about what universities are doing to make “the bad parts” of their communities less bad.

So, on the one hand, bashing WashU because of its location is bizarre, but, if we were talking about how well universities are serving their communities and what they could do better in that regard, that might be an interesting conversation.

Case, Rochester, and Tufts arent in that tier. They're 1.5- 2 tiers below.

Based on what criteria? Popularity as defined by applications or yield? Research output? Med school success rates? Employment outcomes?

Prestige. Emory/Rice> USC/NYU> Tufts/BC> Case/Rochester

But how is 'prestige' defined? Tufts > Case seems like a stretch. I don't live it the NE, so that probably has something to do with it, but I had never heard of Tufts until DC was getting into the college search. I have never met anyone or heard of anyone (that I know of that went there). BC I mainly know because it's popular in Catholic circles and they have had some good sports teams. Again, wouldn't say they would be considered more prestigious. Didn't BC just start engineering or something. Case engineering is well established and recognized.

Definitely depends on where you live. I’ve lived in California, internationally, and now Northeast. Academic family and background. Had always known of Rice and Tufts as academically strong schools. Always knew of NYU and USC of course, and heard of Emory. Did not really become familiar with Case, Rochester, WashU until my kid started looking at colleges. Always knew of BC because of football but not familiar with its academics and fervent alumni base until I moved to northeast.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vandy, Emory, Rice, and now Notre Dame have passed WashU in app numbers.
Vandy- 48k
Emory- 43K
Rice- 39k
ND- 36k
WashU- 32k

The only peer school with less apps is Georgetown which will move to the common app and likely pass WashU at minimum.

Is Washu declining in relative popularity to peers? Its was neck and neck with Vandy at my private.

It's popular among Jewish families and premed kids. At our school, Vandy is more for hooked applicants, WashU is attainable for unhooked applicants.

Those that want Vandy are more the Wake Forest preppy, bro/bra than WashU, more nerdy, quirky, serious

This is for sure true at our private.
WashU (totally fine area imo) with a lovely campus and beautiful housing/food and HUGE endowment, doesn't get the love it should. Can't compare to ND or Vanderbilt because of Div 1 sports, which is a huge draw.
More like Rice, Emory, and CMU.
Maybe this is an attempt for WashU to try and climb out of that tier to compete against JHU?

JHU? It cant even compete with its current tier.

WashU is certainly competitive within its tier. For example, in terms of 2029 yield rates:

WashU 49%
Rice 43%
Vandy 63%
Emory 37% (Atlanta) 17% (Oxford)
Georgetown 44%
CMU 47%
Michigan 46%

Vanderbilt isn’t in this group, it’s in the one with Cal, Columbia, Rice and Dartmouth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Case, Rochester, and Tufts arent in that tier. They're 1.5- 2 tiers below.

This is silly and verifiably false. These schools are peer schools

They might not be exactly the same, but anyone looking for a good, midsize research university in a city would consider them.

I wish people would talk more about any universities that are less selective but have a similar serious but mostly friendly approach.

The problem isn’t whether WashU is a little more or less selective than Emory.

The issue is that all great, high-stats students who want a WashU-like education in a pleasant setting should be able to get it.

It’s terrible to think that serious, motivated students with SATs over about 1400 and GPAs over about 3.8, adjusted for difficulty, have to jump through hoops just to get a solid education in a place with decent food and nice buildings.

A 1400 is a low score even before test-optional.