Wash u Ed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is up with them taking 100% of applicants from certain schools? And we r not talking about all very strong students.

I’m a different alum.

What were the proposed majors of the kids who applied from the lucky schools?

My impression, from looking at the Niche scattergrams that see if you get a log-in, is that Wash. U., Case Western and probably a lot of other T10 through T40 schools have had much higher acceptance rates for humanities majors than for STEM and business majors.

What might have happened this year is that counselors at some schools noticed the same pattern, got smart and had the students with weaker stats apply as humanities or social sciences majors.

I think another factor is that Wash. U. has seemed like a school that cared more about SATs and ACTs than about grades. If that’s true, maybe some schools’ counselors noticed that and sent Wash. U. the students with high SATs, reasonably rigorous classes and mediocre GPAs.

Regardless, Wash. U. is a great, kind, serious school that’s trying to get by in a tough world, and I think the bashing it’s getting here is as silly as the bashing aimed at Columbia, UChicago and Oberlin.

No offense, but is asinine to think that someone with "mediocre" grades is getting into WashU. They have more applicants than seats. They don't need to accept a kid with mediocre grades.

But if it’s true that some high schools got applicants outside of the top quarter into Wash. U., that could be part of the explanation.

Maybe those students have, say, 3.7 GPAs and look fine in WUSTL’s admissions scattergrams but are in the second quarter in their school rankings.

Plenty of students in the second quarter at tough high schools are wonderful students. There’s no reason to shun them.

Def saw this at our high school

[Anonymous]

Don't bother with the anti-WashU troll. I suspect she is the same anti-UChicago and anti-NEU one. Just looking to stir things up in her crazy basement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't this a rich kids school?

All top schools are rich kids schools

It's increasingly clear this is the case. We are turning down a top 20 school for finances. We -could- manage to pay it via basically living like we did on college for our own loans. But it makes not a lot of sense to do so and, thankfully, my DC has come around to this view.
We'd love for DC to go. But, at >$80,000+ a year, only the wealthy (or the poor who will have their finances met) can afford it. The rest of us are forced to decide whether to choose between tuition and retirement, to say nothing of any non-essentials.

Someone on the thread mentioned "sour grapes" and you better believe that is the case for us. And so what if it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't this a rich kids school?

All top schools are rich kids schools

It's increasingly clear this is the case. We are turning down a top 20 school for finances. We -could- manage to pay it via basically living like we did on college for our own loans. But it makes not a lot of sense to do so and, thankfully, my DC has come around to this view.
We'd love for DC to go. But, at >$80,000+ a year, only the wealthy (or the poor who will have their finances met) can afford it. The rest of us are forced to decide whether to choose between tuition and retirement, to say nothing of any non-essentials.

Someone on the thread mentioned "sour grapes" and you better believe that is the case for us. And so what if it is.

You don't have to be "wealthy" to afford college. You just have to use the 18 plus years to financially plan for it. Many do and are able to send their child to their "dream" school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don't bother with the anti-WashU troll. I suspect she is the same anti-UChicago and anti-NEU one. Just looking to stir things up in her crazy basement.

I’m the 2:18 17:49 Wash. U. alum.

In a way, maybe the hating is good, because it chases away the students who are obsessed with prestige and ratings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't this a rich kids school?

All top schools are rich kids schools

It's increasingly clear this is the case. We are turning down a top 20 school for finances. We -could- manage to pay it via basically living like we did on college for our own loans. But it makes not a lot of sense to do so and, thankfully, my DC has come around to this view.
We'd love for DC to go. But, at >$80,000+ a year, only the wealthy (or the poor who will have their finances met) can afford it. The rest of us are forced to decide whether to choose between tuition and retirement, to say nothing of any non-essentials.

Someone on the thread mentioned "sour grapes" and you better believe that is the case for us. And so what if it is.

For my family, Wash. U. would have provided solid, Harvard-level aid. I think it’s a school that gives great value for the money spent. It’s just an awful lot of money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is up with them taking 100% of applicants from certain schools? And we r not talking about all very strong students.

What does this even mean? Are you saying everyone who applied ED from a certain set of high schools was guaranteed admission? Or that, it just so happens that everyone from a certain HS that applied ED was accepted? How would you even know either of these to be true? And how do you know (or not) the quality of the students that applied ED from the HS you refer to wasn't already quite high?

[Anonymous]

I’ve got to believe the insane political situation in Missouri is leading to a drop in applications and/or yield. It’s a fantastic school - I’d be thrilled if my kid ended up going there because I do think cooler heads will eventually prevail politically.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't this a rich kids school?

All top schools are rich kids schools

It's increasingly clear this is the case. We are turning down a top 20 school for finances. We -could- manage to pay it via basically living like we did on college for our own loans. But it makes not a lot of sense to do so and, thankfully, my DC has come around to this view.
We'd love for DC to go. But, at >$80,000+ a year, only the wealthy (or the poor who will have their finances met) can afford it. The rest of us are forced to decide whether to choose between tuition and retirement, to say nothing of any non-essentials.

Someone on the thread mentioned "sour grapes" and you better believe that is the case for us. And so what if it is.

You don't have to be "wealthy" to afford college. You just have to use the 18 plus years to financially plan for it. Many do and are able to send their child to their "dream" school.

We saved and saved a LOT. That does not mean we make so much that se are able to put away $200-300K/kid. So don't lecture me on financial planning,

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't this a rich kids school?

All top schools are rich kids schools

It's increasingly clear this is the case. We are turning down a top 20 school for finances. We -could- manage to pay it via basically living like we did on college for our own loans. But it makes not a lot of sense to do so and, thankfully, my DC has come around to this view.
We'd love for DC to go. But, at >$80,000+ a year, only the wealthy (or the poor who will have their finances met) can afford it. The rest of us are forced to decide whether to choose between tuition and retirement, to say nothing of any non-essentials.

Someone on the thread mentioned "sour grapes" and you better believe that is the case for us. And so what if it is.

You don't have to be "wealthy" to afford college. You just have to use the 18 plus years to financially plan for it. Many do and are able to send their child to their "dream" school.

We saved and saved a LOT. That does not mean we make so much that se are able to put away $200-300K/kid. So don't lecture me on financial planning,

Ignore these people who have no clue what it is like for those of us that don’t make the salaries to save that much (and also not take crazy vacations, pay private school tuitions, etc). They have no clue and never will. And the fact that they have the gall to even post that is just shameful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't this a rich kids school?

All top schools are rich kids schools

It's increasingly clear this is the case. We are turning down a top 20 school for finances. We -could- manage to pay it via basically living like we did on college for our own loans. But it makes not a lot of sense to do so and, thankfully, my DC has come around to this view.
We'd love for DC to go. But, at >$80,000+ a year, only the wealthy (or the poor who will have their finances met) can afford it. The rest of us are forced to decide whether to choose between tuition and retirement, to say nothing of any non-essentials.

Someone on the thread mentioned "sour grapes" and you better believe that is the case for us. And so what if it is.

You don't have to be "wealthy" to afford college. You just have to use the 18 plus years to financially plan for it. Many do and are able to send their child to their "dream" school.

We saved and saved a LOT. That does not mean we make so much that se are able to put away $200-300K/kid. So don't lecture me on financial planning,

Ignore these people who have no clue what it is like for those of us that don’t make the salaries to save that much (and also not take crazy vacations, pay private school tuitions, etc). They have no clue and never will. And the fact that they have the gall to even post that is just shameful.

The “many do” poster is being a little annoying but is absolutely right about my situation. And, the truth is, Wash. U. would have given us enough aid that we could have stretched hard and sent our son there; the public alternative just seemed like a better fit for my son.

But the issue isn’t really whether we should have saved better; it’s that even the top 30 schools that aren’t HYPSM Cal Tech are going through rough seas. They aren’t the problem. The world is the problem.

[Anonymous]

Same rank as UVA. Twice the price for half the fun. No thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Same rank as UVA. Twice the price for half the fun. No thanks.

Hope it worked out for you. UVA being much easier to get into means you really were fortunate to have your child opt for UVA.

[Anonymous]

It’s way better than Northeastern. Discuss…